The flawed M4A debate
6/2/19 13:58![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fridi posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThe media is badly botching the Medicare For All debate, WaPo writes
We've just been through a week in which two Democratic billionaires declared that Medicare for All was unaffordible, it would bankrupt the US economy.
I would think billionaires can think more clearly than this, but obviously these two can't. The question is not how much M4A would cost, the question is how much it would cost compared to doing what is being done now.
Right now, the answer appears to be about 60% of the cost of what is being done now. Don't people get rich taking advantage of cost savings of that magnitude?
As a former Obama official explained it - it's not that it would cost more; it's that the money would come out of different pots than people are used to.
But yeah, after all, Medicare for all takes away shareholder profits.
We've just been through a week in which two Democratic billionaires declared that Medicare for All was unaffordible, it would bankrupt the US economy.
I would think billionaires can think more clearly than this, but obviously these two can't. The question is not how much M4A would cost, the question is how much it would cost compared to doing what is being done now.
Right now, the answer appears to be about 60% of the cost of what is being done now. Don't people get rich taking advantage of cost savings of that magnitude?
As a former Obama official explained it - it's not that it would cost more; it's that the money would come out of different pots than people are used to.
But yeah, after all, Medicare for all takes away shareholder profits.
(no subject)
Date: 7/2/19 19:59 (UTC)