Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Progressive dog

(6,861 posts)
95. You are missing the point, not me
Sun Sep 17, 2017, 08:58 PM
Sep 2017

Aparently you do not understand than 23.8 trillion is more than 18 trillion. You seem to be arguing that it is.
Guess what, we are already paying for it a pretty ignorant statement. The we that is paying for it now will be different than the we that will be paying for it under medicare for all. People who negotiated health care as part of their compensation will lose that part of their compensation.
The 8.4% regressive tax on payrolls to pay for a small part of this will not help families or anyone else. Note that Bernie already claims to be eliminating over $6 triilion dollars from the US economy over 10 years. I wonder how many jobs that pays for.

Are these alternative facts? BigmanPigman Sep 2017 #1
The Urban Institute is a liberal think tank... yallerdawg Sep 2017 #2
The Urban Institute is funded by health insurance and pharma interests. QC Sep 2017 #4
Still shooting? yallerdawg Sep 2017 #6
The president is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution? beam me up scottie Sep 2017 #8
Show me the "liberal" analysis... yallerdawg Sep 2017 #9
It's in the article, didn't you read it? beam me up scottie Sep 2017 #11
The opinion of some HuffPo bloggers? yallerdawg Sep 2017 #12
Urban Inst. funded by Cigna & Pfizer CherokeeFiddle Sep 2017 #15
Cigna and Pfizer? yallerdawg Sep 2017 #20
+++ sheshe2 Sep 2017 #25
Sourcewatch CherokeeFiddle Sep 2017 #43
That's a barely edited copy of the UI wikipedia page. ehrnst Sep 2017 #103
No they're not. They get less than 2% of their revenue from corporations. George II Sep 2017 #40
Sourcewatch CherokeeFiddle Sep 2017 #42
That says "industry funders are Cigna and Pfizer", it doesn't say how much. Plus... George II Sep 2017 #46
A copy and paste of the Urban Institute WIKIPEDIA page? ehrnst Sep 2017 #76
At least yours is reasonably current, not six years old, and has no mention of Cigna or Pfizer... George II Sep 2017 #87
Because Sourcewatch, which calls copy/paste from Wikipedia "research" says so? ehrnst Sep 2017 #101
Well done. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #27
Amazing Lordquinton Sep 2017 #60
Wait so SourceWatch thinks Keynesian economics is conservative? mythology Sep 2017 #21
Thank you! yallerdawg Sep 2017 #23
+++ sheshe2 Sep 2017 #31
Sarah Rosen Wartell is the President of the Urban Institute. George II Sep 2017 #35
Wait...Keynsian ecomomics is now a hall-mark of "the conservative wing of the Democratic party?" Expecting Rain Sep 2017 #61
Sounds hardright conservative to me. ananda Sep 2017 #14
Most recent revenue report (2015) yallerdawg Sep 2017 #18
How did you do that? I typed out the breakdown of their funding below (sans last two, got tired!!!) George II Sep 2017 #36
I tell you what. ananda Sep 2017 #117
If the information being provided is inaccurate, it would sound that way. But... George II Sep 2017 #59
With 1.4% of funding from corporate sources? Hardly. n/t pnwmom Sep 2017 #69
Actually it's a left leaning research org, as indicated by their partnerships ehrnst Sep 2017 #109
Here's a breakdown of their revenue: George II Sep 2017 #34
Much more recent, but I guess that 1.4% is enough to make it impure. Ninsianna Sep 2017 #57
Not really. It completely depends on the project. Look at NPR. ehrnst Sep 2017 #111
But if a corporation touches anything, it becomes impure! Unless it has been blessed of course Ninsianna Sep 2017 #113
Of course. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #114
Well, not really. Ninsianna Sep 2017 #56
Your link provides no evidence of significant funding. No dollar amounts, and no corporate donors pnwmom Sep 2017 #68
Again with the misrepresentation of the numbers to kill the messenger.... ehrnst Sep 2017 #75
A copy and paste of the Urban Institute WIKIPEDIA page? ehrnst Sep 2017 #77
Damn, that's liberal??? workinclasszero Sep 2017 #110
No, that's misinformation ehrnst Sep 2017 #115
DURec leftstreet Sep 2017 #3
18 trillion is probably low Progressive dog Sep 2017 #5
+++++++++++++ JHan Sep 2017 #10
It doesn't sound like Himmelstein is just picking numbers to fit his preference. dgauss Sep 2017 #13
Sure they would and the people put out Progressive dog Sep 2017 #17
People are freaking out about our national debt... yallerdawg Sep 2017 #22
So the ACA caused Reagan and Bush to win? guillaumeb Sep 2017 #29
Where do you get "Reagan and Bush" from this? yallerdawg Sep 2017 #33
You said: What flipped the US to Republican? The Affordable Care Act!!! guillaumeb Sep 2017 #38
Trying very hard to make a faulty strawman into a brilliant reposte... ehrnst Sep 2017 #80
Too many democrats vote only in Presidential elections. n/t whathehell Sep 2017 #54
I don't see any mention of Reagan or Bush there, do you? George II Sep 2017 #37
Please see reply #38. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #39
But that's a post from you. And... George II Sep 2017 #44
The ACA is a renamed "Romney care" that the GOP called Obamacare to play to the racism guillaumeb Sep 2017 #45
No, the ACA is the ACA, nicknamed "Obamacare". Has nothing to do with Romneycare except... George II Sep 2017 #47
The differences are that the ACA is Federal, the other is state. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #48
Most countries do it with multi-payer system, some of which use private insurance companies to ehrnst Sep 2017 #97
...to be fair, Romney got it from the Heritage Foundation. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #50
In other countries Lordquinton Sep 2017 #64
Obama also said that it would not be wise to go directly to Single Payer from our current system ehrnst Sep 2017 #98
He did. He also pushed for a public option, which a couple Senators killed. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #102
I guess that he didn't actually think it was the "only moral, fiscal" solution. ehrnst Sep 2017 #104
you didn't answer. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #105
This is what happened. ehrnst Sep 2017 #106
Like going down a rabbit hole, isn't it? ehrnst Sep 2017 #81
it's a "rabbit hole" to point out that the ACA has its origins in a Heritage Foundation proposal? Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #89
My bad ehrnst Sep 2017 #99
So, the claim was that the ACA flipped us to republican Lordquinton Sep 2017 #63
Do you folks forget that between Reagan and Bush (not sure which, probably the first) were... George II Sep 2017 #65
What two democratic presidents were those? Lordquinton Sep 2017 #66
Between Reagan and Bush and today. I'm sure you knew that is what was meant. George II Sep 2017 #67
This whole subthread is based on semantic nitpicking Lordquinton Sep 2017 #71
I really don't. It connected the ACA with Presidents Reagan and Bush, which occurred almost.... George II Sep 2017 #72
No it didn't Lordquinton Sep 2017 #73
Logic isn't going to work here. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #82
I realized that yesterday and just gave up. It was like.... George II Sep 2017 #84
It's a way that people who feel a need to Mansplain ehrnst Sep 2017 #86
Those would be Republican people.. whathehell Sep 2017 #53
"entitlement programs we are already running in the red!" Lordquinton Sep 2017 #62
Sure, and it could be fiftytwenty majilliozillion! Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #41
A welcome dose of reality in an overheated debate. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #49
You don't think demand would go up? MichMan Sep 2017 #51
When people go see the doctor for checkups and get regular dental care Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #52
Someone who can't multiply 10 Progressive dog Sep 2017 #85
And someone who doesn't understand that when you pay for something with cash Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #88
I don't even get what you are talking about Progressive dog Sep 2017 #90
And a Single Payer System isn't going to magically create more health care spending. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #91
The math is easy, no one other than the proponents Progressive dog Sep 2017 #92
You're deliberately ignoring the point. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #93
You are missing the point, not me Progressive dog Sep 2017 #95
"People do worry about their health and they will use more care if it is free" Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #96
An easy truth Progressive dog Sep 2017 #112
Actually, the increase in the number of people using health care is a cost issue in implementation ehrnst Sep 2017 #108
I guess any dissent from that bill is "making up numbers." ehrnst Sep 2017 #107
K & R! beam me up scottie Sep 2017 #7
You mean I read a 5 author 30 page analysis ismnotwasm Sep 2017 #16
You should have just read a blog where people say stuff they don't back up. Ninsianna Sep 2017 #55
K&R nt Rob H. Sep 2017 #19
K&R nt LostOne4Ever Sep 2017 #24
They HATE unions! juxtaposed Sep 2017 #26
Post removed Post removed Sep 2017 #30
Who? (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #79
Recommended. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #28
That was written over a year ago. Hoyt Sep 2017 #32
Yes, for the plan that Sanders submitted last year ehrnst Sep 2017 #78
Poorly written legislation forces speculation. Weekend Warrior Sep 2017 #58
I want to know why Sanders chose to announce his single payer on the same day everyone knew pnwmom Sep 2017 #70
That's a strategy that Sanders has used before to draw focus. ehrnst Sep 2017 #83
OMG, a liberal think tank decided to take a closer look at the actual numbers. ehrnst Sep 2017 #74
The text of the actual bill that was introduced lapucelle Sep 2017 #94
Yes, this is the analysis of the 2016 plan. ehrnst Sep 2017 #100
Yes, money from Cigna talks. alarimer Sep 2017 #116
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Urban Institute's Att...»Reply #95