NY Times somehow forgets to mention that #MedicareForAll is everywhere A LOT CHEAPER than our corporate mess https://nyti.ms/2sBPnq0 pic.twitter.com/CD7M9FyJOc
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
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.
The essence of a publicly funded system is that it brings us much closer to "from each according to his/her needs" -- pay in what you can.
And what you receive in terms of healthcare is not linked to your economic status, but solely medical needs.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.