I agreed but @awgaffney changed my mind https://www.facebook.com/adam.gaffney.16/posts/1191638650961822?match=YWRhbSBnYWZmbmV5LGdhZmZuZXksYWRhbSw%3D … We'll get hugely better service for same GDP price. So, MUCH CHEAPER! But.
-
-
-
Thanks, will check that out.
@AWgaffney always has my full attention. -
Plus he's got Woolhandler & Himmelstein on his side. There was nought to do but surrender. Summed up in first comment thread btw us.
-
Thanks guys! I do think the international comparisons provide important support for cost control, and that SP will prove cheaper over time.
-
But yes, but I'm on board with H&W in that in the short term, reasonable to assume spending as % GDP stays same, & benefits still enormous.
-
Merely the fact that
#MedicareForAll need not be MORE expensive, despite covering more people, is a powerful and necessary argument. -
Plus it covers the rest of us *much* better. Plus long-term future costs go down rather than up. All huge plusses.
-
And a huge issue: massive redistributive effects. Funding through taxes vs. premiums/copayments is far more progressive.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They have assiduously avoided putting
#MedicareForAll in a good light or ,frankly, given it any light at all.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Also, life expectancy in the U.K. is one year more than in the USA. So what does all that extra money from all those foreclosed homes buy?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Of course single payer is the best way, everything works better when the govt runs things, just like the post office, public education.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.