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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: NBC News Poll Shows Hillary Weak... [View all]Human101948
(3,457 posts)8. You're figures are incorrect and you are mimicking a Republican meme...
Price Tag of Bernie Sanderss Proposals: $18 Trillion
From guess where...
The Wall Street Journal!
http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511
Then this faulty meme gained traction was people like you who embraced and repeated the Republican lies...
The Wall Street Journal gets whacked: How its Bernie Sanders hit piece completely backfired
...the program would involve spending $15 trillion over a decade. But they left out the key detail: it would actually save the country a total $5 trillion over those 10 years. Wed see those savings in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by decreasing the rate of medical inflation.
Because the simple fact is: We, as a people, are going to spend that $15 trillion on health care anyway. The difference is that under the current model, we pay that money to private insurance companies. And those private companies have much higher levels of administrative costs, fraud and general waste than Medicare does. Another difference is that the government would be negotiating drug prices, making drugs more affordable for everyone.
And who would see that $5 trillion in savings? Businesses for one. Along with state and local governments. Because they wouldnt have to pay for their employees insurance whod be covered by Medicare for All.
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/24/the_wall_street_journal_gets_whacked_how_its_bernie_sanders_hit_piece_completely_backfired_partner/
From guess where...
The Wall Street Journal!
http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511
Then this faulty meme gained traction was people like you who embraced and repeated the Republican lies...
The Wall Street Journal gets whacked: How its Bernie Sanders hit piece completely backfired
...the program would involve spending $15 trillion over a decade. But they left out the key detail: it would actually save the country a total $5 trillion over those 10 years. Wed see those savings in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by decreasing the rate of medical inflation.
Because the simple fact is: We, as a people, are going to spend that $15 trillion on health care anyway. The difference is that under the current model, we pay that money to private insurance companies. And those private companies have much higher levels of administrative costs, fraud and general waste than Medicare does. Another difference is that the government would be negotiating drug prices, making drugs more affordable for everyone.
And who would see that $5 trillion in savings? Businesses for one. Along with state and local governments. Because they wouldnt have to pay for their employees insurance whod be covered by Medicare for All.
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/24/the_wall_street_journal_gets_whacked_how_its_bernie_sanders_hit_piece_completely_backfired_partner/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
47 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Because Trump is not promising $18 trillion in new entitlement spending. Sanders popularity is not
Trust Buster
May 2016
#1
How naive. When someone tells you it's not about the money, rest assured it's about the money.
Trust Buster
May 2016
#4
"When someone tells you it's not about the money, rest assured it's about the money - unless it's
DebDoo
May 2016
#32
Go to the dictionary and read the definition of the term entitlement. I used it properly.
Trust Buster
May 2016
#41
Frank Luntz recommends the word entitlement because it has a negative connotation...
Human101948
May 2016
#43
It would be nice to nominate the person who could more likely win more states.
thesquanderer
May 2016
#42
He gets 100 percent of Independent voters!!!!!!! Yes, I've read that here.
grossproffit
May 2016
#19
Yet, he's still campaigning. They're going to need a hook to yank him off stage.
grossproffit
May 2016
#20
Unlike Hillary who changes her positions more often than someone speed reading the Kama Sutra...
Human101948
May 2016
#46
Well, 30 years of being in the limelight helped her eke out a meager margin of victory....
Human101948
May 2016
#47