Top economist: Bernie Sander's healthcare plan would save 5 trillion over 10 years

[Billy000]

An Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal on Its Bernie Sanders Hit Piece

That's a far better improvement than the system now. Tell me, if you all think tnis is bullshit, why isnt Canada or other European countries being crushed under the weight of their healthcare systems?

It is said of economists that they know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. In the case of the article "Price Tag of Bernie Sanders's Proposals: $18 Trillion," this accusation is a better fit for the Wall Street Journal that published it.

The Journal correctly puts the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.

These financial savings would be felt by businesses and by state and local governments who would no longer be paying for health insurance for their employees; and by retirees and working Americans who would no longer have to pay for their health insurance or for co-payments and deductibles. Beyond these financial savings, HR 676 would also save thousands of lives a year by expanding access to health care for the uninsured and the underinsured.

 

[Wyatt earp]

An Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal on Its Bernie Sanders Hit Piece

That's a far better improvement than the system now. Tell me, if you all think tnis is bullshit, why isnt Canada or other European countries being crushed under the weight of their healthcare systems?

Post when they have 10 plus Aircraft carrier fleets.

 

[Programmer]

All other economists: Bernie Sanders will be a sad, Carter 2.0 disaster.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Another grand attempt at lie of the yr

 

[Staidhup]

And they cow will jump over the moon. To bad the CBO doesn't play his game or smoke his pipe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

An Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal on Its Bernie Sanders Hit Piece

That's a far better improvement than the system now. Tell me, if you all think tnis is bullshit, why isnt Canada or other European countries being crushed under the weight of their healthcare systems?

It is said of economists that they know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. In the case of the article "Price Tag of Bernie Sanders's Proposals: $18 Trillion," this accusation is a better fit for the Wall Street Journal that published it.

The Journal correctly puts the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.

These financial savings would be felt by businesses and by state and local governments who would no longer be paying for health insurance for their employees; and by retirees and working Americans who would no longer have to pay for their health insurance or for co-payments and deductibles. Beyond these financial savings, HR 676 would also save thousands of lives a year by expanding access to health care for the uninsured and the underinsured.

Yes, spending tens of trillions more is a sure way to save money.
Just ask all the students crushed by their student loans.
They were saved by big government.

Moron!

 

[P F Tinmore]

The WSJ implied that Bernie's plan would be on top of what we are paying now. It is not. It is instead of what we are paying now.

It would be less than we are paying now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The WSJ implied that Bernie's plan would be on top of what we are paying now. It is not. It is instead of what we are paying now.

It would be less than we are paying now.

Yes, massive socialist spending plans often result in lower total spending. LOL!

 

[dilloduck]

Wait-----we care about going into debt ? Since when ??

 

[P F Tinmore]

The WSJ implied that Bernie's plan would be on top of what we are paying now. It is not. It is instead of what we are paying now.

It would be less than we are paying now.

Yes, massive socialist spending plans often result in lower total spending. LOL!

I am right.

Look it up.

 

[whitehall]

Regardless of Huffington spin, Friedman admits that the Wall Street Journal's claim that Sanders plan would cost 15 Trillion is factual. Friedman is an economist. He has no experience that anyone knows in health care but he lamely claims that (only?) 5 Trillion would be "saved" by what he claims would be "reduced administrative waste". That claim alone is entirely subjective. Friedman also claims that the other savings would come as a result of lower prices for "pharma devices" and drugs. This is also a pie in the sky exaggeration based on wishful thinking. The headline should be "top economist admits that Sanders bill would cost 15 Trillion over 10 years".

 

[JakeStarkey]

The real fear comes from pharma and doctor and hospital industries.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The WSJ implied that Bernie's plan would be on top of what we are paying now. It is not. It is instead of what we are paying now.

It would be less than we are paying now.

Yes, massive socialist spending plans often result in lower total spending. LOL!

I am right.

Look it up.

Then you can show me how the increase in government spending on college has reduced total college spending.

I'll wait for your proof.

 

[dilloduck]

seriously-----since when does the cost of anything matter ? We just spend and spend.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The WSJ implied that Bernie's plan would be on top of what we are paying now. It is not. It is instead of what we are paying now.

It would be less than we are paying now.

Yes, massive socialist spending plans often result in lower total spending. LOL!

I am right.

Look it up.

hen you can show me how the increase in government spending on college has reduced total college spending. I'll wait for your proof.

You have to show, first, your equivalency has any merit before demanding a refutation of your false equivalency. Why? Because the colleges made tuition increases a major growth industry for themselves and the banks.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Universal Health Care Message to Americans From Canadian Doctors & Health Care Experts

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The WSJ implied that Bernie's plan would be on top of what we are paying now. It is not. It is instead of what we are paying now.

It would be less than we are paying now.

Yes, massive socialist spending plans often result in lower total spending. LOL!

I am right.

Look it up.

hen you can show me how the increase in government spending on college has reduced total college spending. I'll wait for your proof.

You have to show, first, your equivalency has any merit before demanding a refutation of your false equivalency. Why? Because the colleges made tuition increases a major growth industry for themselves and the banks.

You have to show, first, your equivalency has any merit

Look at previous examples where government starts writing checks.
I think about Medicare and government paid college tuition and college loans.
Has that led to more medical and tuition spending, or less.

Then I try to think of examples where increased government spending leads to lower total spending.

I can't come up with any examples. Can you?

Why?
Because the colleges made tuition increases a major growth industry for themselves and the banks.

Are you claiming that recipients of government dollars responded by raising their prices?

 

[Billy000]

An Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal on Its Bernie Sanders Hit Piece

That's a far better improvement than the system now. Tell me, if you all think tnis is bullshit, why isnt Canada or other European countries being crushed under the weight of their healthcare systems?

It is said of economists that they know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. In the case of the article "Price Tag of Bernie Sanders's Proposals: $18 Trillion," this accusation is a better fit for the Wall Street Journal that published it.

The Journal correctly puts the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.

These financial savings would be felt by businesses and by state and local governments who would no longer be paying for health insurance for their employees; and by retirees and working Americans who would no longer have to pay for their health insurance or for co-payments and deductibles. Beyond these financial savings, HR 676 would also save thousands of lives a year by expanding access to health care for the uninsured and the underinsured.

Yes, spending tens of trillions more is a sure way to save money.
Just ask all the students crushed by their student loans.
They were saved by big government.

Moron!

I don't get it. Are you not aware of the current healthcare costs over the course of 10 years?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

An Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal on Its Bernie Sanders Hit Piece

That's a far better improvement than the system now. Tell me, if you all think tnis is bullshit, why isnt Canada or other European countries being crushed under the weight of their healthcare systems?

It is said of economists that they know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. In the case of the article "Price Tag of Bernie Sanders's Proposals: $18 Trillion," this accusation is a better fit for the Wall Street Journal that published it.

The Journal correctly puts the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.

These financial savings would be felt by businesses and by state and local governments who would no longer be paying for health insurance for their employees; and by retirees and working Americans who would no longer have to pay for their health insurance or for co-payments and deductibles. Beyond these financial savings, HR 676 would also save thousands of lives a year by expanding access to health care for the uninsured and the underinsured.

Yes, spending tens of trillions more is a sure way to save money.
Just ask all the students crushed by their student loans.
They were saved by big government.

Moron!

I don't get it. Are you not aware of the current healthcare costs over the course of 10 years?

You should look at healthcare costs before Medicare and after.
You should look at predicted Medicare spending when it was created versus actual Medicare spending.

Anyone who thinks government takeover of healthcare will give better quality at a lower price is beyond stupid.

 

[Billy000]

An Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal on Its Bernie Sanders Hit Piece

That's a far better improvement than the system now. Tell me, if you all think tnis is bullshit, why isnt Canada or other European countries being crushed under the weight of their healthcare systems?

It is said of economists that they know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. In the case of the article "Price Tag of Bernie Sanders's Proposals: $18 Trillion," this accusation is a better fit for the Wall Street Journal that published it.

The Journal correctly puts the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.

These financial savings would be felt by businesses and by state and local governments who would no longer be paying for health insurance for their employees; and by retirees and working Americans who would no longer have to pay for their health insurance or for co-payments and deductibles. Beyond these financial savings, HR 676 would also save thousands of lives a year by expanding access to health care for the uninsured and the underinsured.

Yes, spending tens of trillions more is a sure way to save money.
Just ask all the students crushed by their student loans.
They were saved by big government.

Moron!

I don't get it. Are you not aware of the current healthcare costs over the course of 10 years?

You should look at healthcare costs before Medicare and after.
You should look at predicted Medicare spending when it was created versus actual Medicare spending.

Anyone who thinks government takeover of healthcare will give better quality at a lower price is beyond stupid.

Lol oh come on are you actually suggesting the huge drain to the private market from our current healthcare system does not matter?