That's the part that you find incredible? Once you get to $20 Trillion, I don't think it matters if we are talking $32, 35 or 100 Trillion. The average reader can't fathom the scale of any of it.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If you take seriously her commitment to employ global budgets, it might be plausible albeit extremely unappealing.
-
I'm extremely skeptical, but regardless, it's malpractice in a news story to not mention what independent analysts already considering admin savings & provider cuts have found.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Incredible. You just wrote a whole tweet about the projected cost for M4A without mentioning that projections for health care spending under the current system are even higher.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Who will hold trump to task for just saying we have a plan but never actually giving one.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What multiple independent analyses are you referring to exactly?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
h3LthCAre iS a ShaM...,....,
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Literally every conservative argument against M4A can be dismantled by pointing out it already exists and functions well in Canada. That’s the ballgame. You have no response to that, and you never will.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
$20.5 trillion is NEW revenue (mainly capturing employer insurance premiums redirected as government revenue >8Trillion). redirection of existing Medicaid and Chip spending from states >$6 trillion in revenue not counted in the 20.5 number.pic.twitter.com/neleLqfHr0
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.