Jump to content
Carolina Huddle
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

g5jamz

4 trillion dollars a year for Medicare for All

Recommended Posts



the left seems to think that the government can provide everything for everyone and that no one has any responsibility at all for their own well being... 

Edited by retired
  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, g5jamz said:

40 trillion over 10 years = 4 trillion/year.  The ENTIRE US federal budget was for 2018?  Here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_budget   

Maybe this is his way of bowing out of the race gracefully and/or testing the true stupidity of US citizens.

 

 

 

Great - how much are we currently spending a year?

 

Here let me provide the info for you.

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/ForecastSummary.pdf

Edited by Fryfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fryfan said:

Great - how much are we currently spending a year?

 

Here let me provide the info for you.

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/ForecastSummary.pdf

In 2008, Medicare accounted for 13% ($386 billion) of the federal budget. In 2016 it is projected to account for close to 15% ($683 billion) of the total expenditures. For the decade 2010–2019 Medicare is projected to cost 6.4 trillion dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

In 2008, Medicare accounted for 13% ($386 billion) of the federal budget. In 2016 it is projected to account for close to 15% ($683 billion) of the total expenditures. For the decade 2010–2019 Medicare is projected to cost 6.4 trillion dollars.

Okay?  Im not in dispute at all that healthcare for all will double the current federal budget.  My point is entirely that the price tag overall will be cheaper then what the US spends currently in healthcare (including medicare)

 

  • Pie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of 4 trillion, that's roughly the number of times it's been explained that the idea is to replace health insurance premiums with a tax.  The Heritage Foundation or some other conservative thinktank did a study on that and arrived at the conclusion that it would be roughly budget neutral.

But that doesn't matter, the idea is that you just bludgeon people with a giant number over and over again.  Maybe you could even have a political party built on the notion of cutting spending that does nothing but run record deficits for 40 years.

Edited by The NFL Shield At Midfield
  • Pie 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rodeo said:

that's less than we pay for healthcare now. nice, we'll save money. fiscally conservative.

BUT BUT BUT 40 TRILLION...did you hear me TRILLION.  Big number = you scared.

 

 

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fryfan said:

Okay?  Im not in dispute at all that healthcare for all will double the current federal budget.  My point is entirely that the price tag overall will be cheaper then what the US spends currently in healthcare (including medicare)

 

Well he was talking about Medicare. ;)

Currently, it’s about 3.5T. On face value with such a drastic change I’m not sure how anyone can claim it would be cheaper or more expensive. There are so many factors that would go into a change like that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sanders people at least have ideas for paying for it:

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

That's a non-exhaustive list.  As a reminder and to contrast, the Republican plan is to kick tens of millions of people off their health insurance and cut taxes for the wealthiest 1% of American society without offsetting revenues.

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The NFL Shield At Midfield said:

The Sanders people at least have ideas for paying for it:

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

That's a non-exhaustive list.  As a reminder and to contrast, the Republican plan is to kick tens of millions of people off their health insurance and cut taxes for the wealthiest 1% of American society without offsetting revenues.

Even if every single option was used that doesn’t come close to offsetting 40 Trillion over 10 years. 

16~/40 Trillon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

Well he was talking about Medicare. ;)

Currently, it’s about 3.5T. On face value with such a drastic change I’m not sure how anyone can claim it would be cheaper or more expensive. There are so many factors that would go into a change like that.

 

Okay republican antitrumper he was talking about medicare FOR ALL.  Which is a replacement of employer and individual insurance and would absorb current medicare. 

Not sure what your exact issue is - Medicare for all is obviously going to cost a great deal more then current medicare spending and be a huge part of federal spending. That is a given.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

Even if every single option was used that doesn’t come close to offsetting 40 Trillion over 10 years. 

16~/40 Trillon.

Yeah I know, hence why I said "non-exhaustive"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

Even if every single option was used that doesn’t come close to offsetting 40 Trillion over 10 years. 

16~/40 Trillon.

Now add in current medicare (part A and B) spending over the next decade.

 

Edit - Add also in Medicaid.

 

 

Edited by Fryfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The NFL Shield At Midfield said:

Yeah I know, hence why I said "non-exhaustive"

Depending on savings everything he laid out brings it to cost neutral when adding in all medicare and medicaid.  Savings projected if correct add up to a savings.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      19,908
    • Most Online
      2,867

    Newest Member
    DrWu
    Joined
  • Topics

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      145,389
    • Total Posts
      4,753,654
  • Posts

    • I want the old Luke back he looked bad last year and last game he couldn’t get off any blocks and over running the plays again 
    • It is on Manhertz, it's also on Cam. Cam couldn't handle the jailbreak blitzes they were throwing at the team. They simply sent more rushers than there were blockers. When that happens there is always one or more uncovered receivers, the QB has to find them, fast, and fire. If you win it, you probably score big. If you lose, it's a sack. Most QBs coming  off of  their break aren't up to game speed yet and Cam didn't pass the test. The point is, those kind of  blitzes are rarely done in the preseason, kind of a gentleman's agreement between coaches to keep from getting  QBs injured. Guess what Belichick does? He goes after your weaknesses no matter when it is. He doesn't play by unwritten rules (or written ones when it suits him). And now we have an injured QB. If you really look at the original play in question, the jailbreak blitz is obvious with seven men rushing the line and an eighth joining in quickly after the snap. Before the snap, Cam sees the situation, calls an audible and begins to drop back. His drop back is deep and he realizes the pressure has broken with Manhertz getting beat to the outside. Others were getting  beat and gaps were being shot. He starts to scan but doesn't get enough time to find his hot read. Sack. I'm chalking it up partially to Manhertz who I don't think is really that great of a blocking TE, and to Cam who in later season form would have dropped back two steps and shot the tight gap to Manhertz's left and made a few yards. He may have also been able to catch his hot read with a fast pass.  It's preseason, though, and the team isn't playing up to game speed yet. The Patsies came in gunning for him. They sacked him there and eventually hurt Cam in the preseason yet again. I'm sure Belichick puts that as a positive in his ledger for how the season plays out.
×
×
  • Create New...