Almost everyone is (because people have trouble with big-sounding big numbers and innumeracy is common). And Galvani isn't a politician.
The problem isn't just cost/budget. If you deem something enough of a benefit, you'll make it happen by adjusting. If you deem something detrimental, you'll prevent it from happening. The issue then is, who gets to decide?
All of these estimates — Galvani’s included — are built on various assumptions about how costs and payments and patient behaviors would work in the real world with a Medicare-for-all plan in place: How much would doctors and hospitals actually save on administrative overhead? How many people would increase their use of medical services once they’re paid for? Would a single-payer system make it easier to detect medical fraud?
Experts answer those questions differently, which is reflected in their final cost estimates. And though we can’t predict the future, we do have plenty of data on what’s happening in the American health-care system right now. Relative to people in other wealthy nations, Americans are less likely to be in good health and more likely to die of preventable causes. Our babies and mothers are more likely to die after child birth, and our lives are shorter overall.
By addressing these and other problems, Galvani and her colleagues estimate that regardless of cost, Medicare-for-all would save about 69,000 lives each year. They end their paper by calling on the medical community to answer “the moral imperative to provide health care as a human right, not dependent on employment or affluence.”
politicians are horrible at math/budgeting
original medicare estimates were way off
i did see/listen to steve teles and brink lindsey stuff on thier book "the captured economy"
i need to read it if i can ever find the time
i think brink in this interview touches on their research regarding healthcare (about five minutes or so)
p.s., so if you really want universal care...don't vote for bernie as he wont get it done.
in bernie's defense he is doing what the other politicians are doing: trying to tell a good story
we could give folks cards but that doesn't address the root issue of a shortage of service framework
health care is a product and if we want more of it we need to build out that framework (produce it)
like anything else produce more and quality improves and price drops
open that market up and don't allow politicians to shield the entrenched/connected
platitude: health care is ripe for disruption edit: reminds me of this bit i posted in the ew thread
The result is the confounding spectacle of candidates attempting to attract supporters with proposals they know they cannot implement. Reporters ask how candidates plan to pay for policies that will never be enacted. Pundits and wonks add up the “total cost” of agendas that would require unified partisan control of government to get even partially enacted. Voters are left systematically misled about what they can realistically expect and disappointed that they never get what they’re promised. When this happens again and again, bomb-throwing “outsider” candidates who promise to blow up the system and barrel through gridlock end up looking better and better.
In a rare moment of clarity that inadvertently seemed to sum up the whole afternoon, former George W. Bush communications hack Nicolle Wallace was finally forced to concede, âI have no idea what voters think about anything anymore.â The dayâs undisputed champion, however, was MSNBCâs carnival-barker-in-residence, Chris Matthews, who, fresh from imagining an alternate reality involving his own execution by Cuban communists in Central Park a few weeks ago, managed to outdo himself by equating Sandersâs victory in Nevada to the Nazi Blitzkrieg of France in 1940.
Justifiably under fire for the remarks, Matthews has since apologized. But the moment may nonetheless be symbolic of something larger than the deranged outburst of a septuagenarian TV host raised on a noxious diet of Cold War propaganda.
Matthews is, after all, a creature of cable news to his very bones â emblematic of a modern infotainment culture that has long prized deference to orthodoxy, empty provocation, and branded personality over any particular desire to enlighten or inform. A veteran of what is laughably called Americaâs ânational conversationâ (in practice, a hollow pantomime of political engagement in which overpaid people who are mostly neither very curious nor very bright theatrically spar for the cameras before meeting up at the bar a few hours later), heâs been a fixture of the Washington political scene since his days as a staffer for Jimmy Carter and Tip OâNeill. (...)
In an eerie parallel, Matthewsâs personal philosophy mirrors the acquisitive, market-centric amoralism of the modern Democratic Party with which heâs become so intimately aligned. Albeit in different ways, both are products of a hollow liberal culture that values individual success over collective solidarity, toasts the endless triangulation of its elites as a marker of enlightened realism, and allows the twin idols of wealth and celebrity to be its lodestars.
All of these estimates â Galvaniâs included â are built on various assumptions about how costs and payments and patient behaviors would work in the real world with a Medicare-for-all plan in place: How much would doctors and hospitals actually save on administrative overhead? How many people would increase their use of medical services once theyâre paid for? Would a single-payer system make it easier to detect medical fraud?
Experts answer those questions differently, which is reflected in their final cost estimates. And though we canât predict the future, we do have plenty of data on whatâs happening in the American health-care system right now. Relative to people in other wealthy nations, Americans are less likely to be in good health and more likely to die of preventable causes. Our babies and mothers are more likely to die after child birth, and our lives are shorter overall.
By addressing these and other problems, Galvani and her colleagues estimate that regardless of cost, Medicare-for-all would save about 69,000 lives each year. They end their paper by calling on the medical community to answer âthe moral imperative to provide health care as a human right, not dependent on employment or affluence.â
not sure he is intentionally misleading his faithful
i really think he (to some extent) believes in what he's saying
in other words he and his followers are convinced that this is their best solution
to the point where they would endorse and initiate violence in the form of a revolution (and this is the dangerous part)
there's obviously a lot of long term social conditioning too
again, he just doesn't know what he's doing
i think there's a difference in proposing a heavy welfare state and authoritarianism light
if we want a certain outcome we should be willing to use peaceful means to get it
otherwise it's strong-arming people into eventual statist control (which will attract more psychopaths or power hungry types)
I agree with your sentiment, but as it relates to healthcare, he's smart enough to know he's not being honest...picking the one flawed study that supports his position, ignoring the fact medicare pricing would have to rise, people would increase services/use...or even the fact that it would never get through congress, or at least be extremely difficult. Bottom line on Bernie, seems like a nice guy, probably has good intentions, but he doesnt know what he's doing and is the wrong man for the job.
p.s., so if you really want universal care...don't vote for bernie as he wont get it done.
As Bernie Sanders glided past the punches and counterpunches, Joe Biden stood center stage lamenting the state of the debate.
âI guess the only way you do this is jump in and speak twice as long as you should,â said the former vice-president, sounding like he was just about getting a hang of this debate thing on the teevee.
âWhy am I stopping?â he asked mid-sentence, a little later, as his time ran out. âNobody else stops.â
How true. Nobody in this race is stopping even though Sanders has already passed them by.
At least Bernie knows why heâs running. Most of the rest of them are like Joe Biden: they just think itâs their turn to talk.
As Bernie Sanders glided past the punches and counterpunches, Joe Biden stood center stage lamenting the state of the debate.
âI guess the only way you do this is jump in and speak twice as long as you should,â said the former vice-president, sounding like he was just about getting a hang of this debate thing on the teevee.
âWhy am I stopping?â he asked mid-sentence, a little later, as his time ran out. âNobody else stops.â
How true. Nobody in this race is stopping even though Sanders has already passed them by.
At least Bernie knows why heâs running. Most of the rest of them are like Joe Biden: they just think itâs their turn to talk.
No primary candidate is more closely associated with Medicare for All than the current front-runner and likely nominee Sen. Bernie Sanders (IâVt.). At last night's debate, Sanders was once again asked how he would pay for the plan. He responded by citing a study "that just came out of Yale University, published in Lancet magazine, one of the prestigious medical journals in the world." The study, co-written by a former unpaid Sanders adviser, purports to show that Sanders' Medicare for All plan would save $450 billion a year, and 68,000 lives.
And Sanders made the case last night that there's a large body of evidence to support his contention that his plan would save moneyâindeed, he claimed that there is no dispute whatsoever about this conclusion. "What every study out thereâconservative or progressiveâsays, Medicare for All will save money," he said.
In this case, Sanders' claim is not mostly false. It is flatly untrue.
Democratic megadonor Bernard Schwartz has started reaching out to party leaders, particularly House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, to encourage them to back a candidate for president in order to stop the surge of Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Schwartz, the CEO of BLS Investments, told CNBC that in recent days heâs been trying to speak with Pelosi and Schumer about making a pick, in the hope that voters will follow their lead and end up denying Sanders the partyâs presidential nomination.
I'm just asking all of you, 1) is this truly what defines a good leader (even just decent); and 2) could one of you please name a politician perfectly fitting these criteria, religious included? Is this the critical job requirement list?
That’s not the point at all, and just a distracter. The point is, of the people that have put themselves up to possibly become President, who is our best choice?
We start by eliminating people who have been impeached.
Um, the person in question was acquitted. He is eligible to run for re election.
To be fair with that litmus test not many Presidents in our history would pass. Carter is about the only one I can think of, but I would not want him managing my money either. In our present system, I do not think it is possible for a good person to become President and quite frankly is not necessary and even in some context contraindicated to being a good President. JFK, Clinton, Nixon and Johnson (all debateable whether they were good Presidents, but not debeatable on their dubious private lives) come to mind as recent examples of this.
Fair point...but everyone gets caught speeding in their lives, some get speeding tickets, while others have drugs, weapons and body parts in the car.
Maybe the difference between everyone you listed and Trump is timing, but his ability to completely disregard history, facts, and consequences to make whatever point about his personal greatness he wants at that moment is striking.
All of that said, your response is exactly the type I referenced. Instead of answering the question (on Kurt's behalf), you explain why he's like everyone else. He may very well be...but I want to know Kurt'sfeelings about the President. Three guys from the 1960's and one from the 1990's aren't a concern of mine for this election.
I can give you mine, I think he is a shit head much like most of the others. However he is an authentic shit head and does not try or is probably not even capable of hiding it in the slightest which is something new. Now there is an important distinction to be made here between truth and authenticity, Trump is a liar like all the rest, but he is authentic which other than Sanders, I do not think this is a trait that any of the candidates share. Maybe that is why these 2 are the only politicians that garner true excitement and mass appeal in the electorate. What you see is what you get which is not a usual trait of politicians and some are blinded by their craving for authenticity that they fully accept his shortcomings which are shared by most of our politicians. This is why you get the same ol same ol response in most cases. I cannot speak for Kurtster, will let him do that, but this is probably how most of his supporters feel just to give you some insight.
You did a pretty good job. Yeah, he is a shithead, never said he wasn't. It is the authenticity part that matters most. He is not faking it.
That and no one else was addressing the things that I consider important.
I did not vote for a Sunday school teacher. I voted for a street fighter. And I got what I voted for. My vote for Trump was not a vote against someone else, it was a vote for Trump. Sweet talkers are the one's who have got us in the messes we are in today.
NBC reporter: âIt seemed like you were almost arguing & debating with the crowd.â
Sanders: âAhh, interesting question! You know how much a ticket to the debate cost? $1,750. Most working people I know donât spend $1750 on a debate.â
: Report: Michelle Obama petitioned to run as vice president to stop Bernie Sanders
