Medicare for all would save $450 billion and 68,000 lives every year.

[EvilCat Breath]

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

^^^^ Winner of the Stupidest Statement of the Month. .. .

They mean when all the insurance companies are out of business and the employees are out of work and on welfare.

 

[Oddball]

Oh poppycock and nonsense. Did these studies come from Mexico City? It sounds like it.

Prolly from the same jackasses who couldn't build a website for Obolshevikcare in two years.

 

[petro]

View attachment 308641

Too bad for the OP that putting it back in won't be covered by Medicare.

 

[bluzman61]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

???????????.....................??????????????

 

[petro]

Oh poppycock and nonsense. Did these studies come from Mexico City? It sounds like it.

Prolly from the same jackasses who couldn't build a website for Obolshevikcare in two years.

They should learn to code.

Or, hire coders from the porn sites.
Those never shut down.

 

[Indeependent]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

Let us know how your physicians feel about this study.
It’s gonna be cool when today’s high school dropouts become tomorrow’s physicians; not to mention engineers and chemists.

 

[Oddball]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

???????????.....................??????????????

You didn't get the memo that gubmint monopolies are totally cheap and deliver the bestest products and service evah?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

Let us know how your physicians feel about this study.
It’s gonna be cool when today’s high school dropouts become tomorrow’s physicians; not to mention engineers and chemists.

Well.... today's drop outs are today's abortionists. By tomorrow they can do spinal surgery.

 

[idb]

Lots of well-researched rebuttals to the OP posted here.

 

[Denizen]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

I call bullshit.


Name for us the last -no, the FIRST- time that costs for idiotic gubmint programs or projects came in under projections.

You would evidently benefit from psychiatric care.

I would be prepared to contribute to programs which would help you.

 

[Oddball]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

I call bullshit.


Name for us the last -no, the FIRST- time that costs for idiotic gubmint programs or projects came in under projections.

You would evidently benefit from psychiatric care.

I would be prepared to contribute to programs which would help you.

I'll score the answer to the question "never".

You lose, Buckwheat.

 

[beautress]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

Prayers up for the Democrats who believe everything home office spews.
Denizen, it's going to be okay. Don't worry about it. The nation saves money with private industry. Government intervention into the private sector makes everything expensive go through the roof. And I'm pretty sure the exaggerations you are imbibing in will make you worry. It's bad for you to worry.

​

 

[Oddball]

Lots of well-researched rebuttals to the OP posted here.

I don't need any research to recognize the Medicare costs more than 10X what all the pointy heads said it would back in '65.

 

[Brain357]

Given we have the most expensive healthcare in the world now, it's hard to believe the costs wouldn't be less.

 

[Denizen]

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

^^^^ Winner of the Stupidest Statement of the Month. .. .

Are you relinquishing your title?

 

[Denizen]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

???????????.....................??????????????

This is the most sensible post you have ever published.

 

[Denizen]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

Let us know how your physicians feel about this study.
It’s gonna be cool when today’s high school dropouts become tomorrow’s physicians; not to mention engineers and chemists.

Evidently you are not a physician, engineer, or chemist. You're an Mc Donald's University graduate?

 

[bluzman61]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

???????????.....................??????????????

This is the most sensible post you have ever published.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.................????????????????

 

[Indeependent]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

Let us know how your physicians feel about this study.
It’s gonna be cool when today’s high school dropouts become tomorrow’s physicians; not to mention engineers and chemists.

Evidently you are not a physician, engineer, or chemist. You're an Mc Donald's University graduate?

How many physicians do you know personally?
Or medical students?
I’m betting zero.

 

[Denizen]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

???????????.....................??????????????

You didn't get the memo that gubmint monopolies are totally cheap and deliver the bestest products and service evah?

As long as Donald Trump and his spawn are not shoveling taxpayer money into their pockets.