Trump on the ropes

[TroglocratsRdumb]

oh we gottem now LMAO

 

[Polishprince]

"Let people see it": Trump says Robert Mueller’s final report should be made public

With obviously fear of being pounded by Joe Biden in 2020 and Mueller expected to appear before Congress, Trump is hanging on to the ropes, just waiting for a knockout blow.

No longer do we hear of "Pocahontas" as enemy #1. Trump considers her an easy win, being a woman. But now he realizes that he has an honest to good, real foe in Biden. In fact, the way he is acting, I think he seriously expects to get beaten badly in 2020.

But what is really telling, and not at all surprising, is his current opinion that Mueller should not appear before Congress. And why is that? Is it because the Repubs in Congress are not smart enough to defend him against Democrat questions? Is it because Mueller will expose the dirty laundry, that Trump did obstruct? Other than Hannity and Kellyann, anyone else with a brain has no doubt.

So, the clock is ticking. How much longer can Trump play out his losing game, or will we have to wait for his butt kicking in 2020???

"Let people see it": Trump says Robert Mueller’s final report should be made public

We've been hearing "trumps on the ropes" or the "walls are caving in on Trump" or "this is the beginning of the end" for 4 years since The Donald descended the golden escalator to enter history.

Its all bullshit. DJT continues on in his quest to drain the swamp and return America to greatness.

Consider this alternative. Maybe Mr. Trump is a lot smarter than you libs and is playing you in a well orchestrated plot to use your prejudices and greed against you?

 

[Maxdeath]

You really are stupid if you go into an emergancy room and have to wait for over 12 hours while paying for national healthcare. In the U.S. if you go into any emergency room and waited 12 hours even without insurance sthe hospital would be sued.

Do everyone a favor and make sure that you get mental help.

Republicans what ERs to be able to turn people away. Which is infinite wait time.

And still no democrat has ever come up with any idea how to afford it.it seems the democrats want to defend something that they have no plan on n how to afford. Seems that the Republicans are the only ones that understand that you have to be smart enough to afford something before you implement it.

It did save costs. $2.3 trillion.

??? Want to run that through google translate a few more times until it makes sense.

The article is written in plain english. It says cumulatively from 2010 to 2017 the ACA reduced health care spending a total of $2.3 trillion.

So if we take that piece at face value that comes out to about one quarter of a Trillion a year. So then we take the fact that it cost 110 Billion to pay the subsidies for 2016. Which if you notice was before the mandate of paying a fine for not buying insurance was canceled.

so explain again how this gets to the 3.2 Trillion needed each and every year for Medicare for all? Explain how we can keep paying out each year in a federal budget that is always over what we take in in taxes.

 

[dudmuck]

Republicans what ERs to be able to turn people away. Which is infinite wait time.

And still no democrat has ever come up with any idea how to afford it.it seems the democrats want to defend something that they have no plan on n how to afford. Seems that the Republicans are the only ones that understand that you have to be smart enough to afford something before you implement it.

It did save costs. $2.3 trillion.

??? Want to run that through google translate a few more times until it makes sense.

The article is written in plain english. It says cumulatively from 2010 to 2017 the ACA reduced health care spending a total of $2.3 trillion.

So if we take that piece at face value that comes out to about one quarter of a Trillion a year. So then we take the fact that it cost 110 Billion to pay the subsidies for 2016. Which if you notice was before the mandate of paying a fine for not buying insurance was canceled.

so explain again how this gets to the 3.2 Trillion needed each and every year for Medicare for all? Explain how we can keep paying out each year in a federal budget that is always over what we take in in taxes.

we already spend more than medicare for all would cost.

 

[Meister]

Thank God that even the democrats are starting to walk away from Medicare for all.
They realize that the cost IS ball busting.

 

[Maxdeath]

And still no democrat has ever come up with any idea how to afford it.it seems the democrats want to defend something that they have no plan on n how to afford. Seems that the Republicans are the only ones that understand that you have to be smart enough to afford something before you implement it.

It did save costs. $2.3 trillion.

??? Want to run that through google translate a few more times until it makes sense.

The article is written in plain english. It says cumulatively from 2010 to 2017 the ACA reduced health care spending a total of $2.3 trillion.

So if we take that piece at face value that comes out to about one quarter of a Trillion a year. So then we take the fact that it cost 110 Billion to pay the subsidies for 2016. Which if you notice was before the mandate of paying a fine for not buying insurance was canceled.

so explain again how this gets to the 3.2 Trillion needed each and every year for Medicare for all? Explain how we can keep paying out each year in a federal budget that is always over what we take in in taxes.

we already spend more than medicare for all would cost.

No the government does not. 3.2 Trillion per year for Medicare for all is the low estimate. All tax revenue for 2016 was 3.2 Trillion. How do you think the federal government is spending that?

 

[dudmuck]

It did save costs. $2.3 trillion.

??? Want to run that through google translate a few more times until it makes sense.

The article is written in plain english. It says cumulatively from 2010 to 2017 the ACA reduced health care spending a total of $2.3 trillion.

So if we take that piece at face value that comes out to about one quarter of a Trillion a year. So then we take the fact that it cost 110 Billion to pay the subsidies for 2016. Which if you notice was before the mandate of paying a fine for not buying insurance was canceled.

so explain again how this gets to the 3.2 Trillion needed each and every year for Medicare for all? Explain how we can keep paying out each year in a federal budget that is always over what we take in in taxes.

we already spend more than medicare for all would cost.

No the government does not. 3.2 Trillion per year for Medicare for all is the low estimate. All tax revenue for 2016 was 3.2 Trillion. How do you think the federal government is spending that?

When the say "we already spend more", they are talking about the costs that citizens pay, not what government pays. They are talking about the total cost of all healthcare.

 

[Aletheia4u]

"Let people see it": Trump says Robert Mueller’s final report should be made public

With obviously fear of being pounded by Joe Biden in 2020 and Mueller expected to appear before Congress, Trump is hanging on to the ropes, just waiting for a knockout blow.

No longer do we hear of "Pocahontas" as enemy #1. Trump considers her an easy win, being a woman. But now he realizes that he has an honest to good, real foe in Biden. In fact, the way he is acting, I think he seriously expects to get beaten badly in 2020.

But what is really telling, and not at all surprising, is his current opinion that Mueller should not appear before Congress. And why is that? Is it because the Repubs in Congress are not smart enough to defend him against Democrat questions? Is it because Mueller will expose the dirty laundry, that Trump did obstruct? Other than Hannity and Kellyann, anyone else with a brain has no doubt.

So, the clock is ticking. How much longer can Trump play out his losing game, or will we have to wait for his butt kicking in 2020???

"Let people see it": Trump says Robert Mueller’s final report should be made public

Yea, he’s “on the ropes”....with a higher approval rating than the Hussein had at the same time in.

It’s going to be hilarious when Mueller serves up another big nothing burger to Congress.

 

[Maxdeath]

??? Want to run that through google translate a few more times until it makes sense.

The article is written in plain english. It says cumulatively from 2010 to 2017 the ACA reduced health care spending a total of $2.3 trillion.

So if we take that piece at face value that comes out to about one quarter of a Trillion a year. So then we take the fact that it cost 110 Billion to pay the subsidies for 2016. Which if you notice was before the mandate of paying a fine for not buying insurance was canceled.

so explain again how this gets to the 3.2 Trillion needed each and every year for Medicare for all? Explain how we can keep paying out each year in a federal budget that is always over what we take in in taxes.

we already spend more than medicare for all would cost.

No the government does not. 3.2 Trillion per year for Medicare for all is the low estimate. All tax revenue for 2016 was 3.2 Trillion. How do you think the federal government is spending that?

When the say "we already spend more", they are talking about the costs that citizens pay, not what government pays. They are talking about the total cost of all healthcare.

And people wonder why I say the left never understands economics.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT FOR MEDICARE FOR ALL TO BE PAID FOR IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE GOVERNMENT PAYING 3.2 Trillion each year. How is the government going to pay for that?

I am not talking everyone paying separately. I am not talking insurance companies paying any of it.

 

[jasonnfree]

"Let people see it": Trump says Robert Mueller’s final report should be made public

With obviously fear of being pounded by Joe Biden in 2020 and Mueller expected to appear before Congress, Trump is hanging on to the ropes, just waiting for a knockout blow.

No longer do we hear of "Pocahontas" as enemy #1. Trump considers her an easy win, being a woman. But now he realizes that he has an honest to good, real foe in Biden. In fact, the way he is acting, I think he seriously expects to get beaten badly in 2020.

But what is really telling, and not at all surprising, is his current opinion that Mueller should not appear before Congress. And why is that? Is it because the Repubs in Congress are not smart enough to defend him against Democrat questions? Is it because Mueller will expose the dirty laundry, that Trump did obstruct? Other than Hannity and Kellyann, anyone else with a brain has no doubt.

So, the clock is ticking. How much longer can Trump play out his losing game, or will we have to wait for his butt kicking in 2020???

"Let people see it": Trump says Robert Mueller’s final report should be made public

2020 is looking like another one of those, "At least he's not....", another election that will be completely negative and most voters will likely be voting against a candidate rather for one. I'm concerned about Biden. He's hasn't shown that he's dirty another to get down in the mud with Trump. I was hoping that by now, America would be ready for some dignity, intelligence, statesmanship, and real leadership in the Oval Office.

We haven't had real leadership, intelligence, dignity, and statesmanship in the Oval Office since Reagan. I don't see anything changing for many years. Neither of the two major party's are going to put up real leader, they don't have to. I will vote for the best candidate, it probably won't be either a Democrat or a Republican.

Reagan and leadership, dignity etc. Too funny considering he had one of the most corrupt administrations of all time.

List of Reagan administration convictions.

 

[Papageorgio]

"Let people see it": Trump says Robert Mueller’s final report should be made public

With obviously fear of being pounded by Joe Biden in 2020 and Mueller expected to appear before Congress, Trump is hanging on to the ropes, just waiting for a knockout blow.

No longer do we hear of "Pocahontas" as enemy #1. Trump considers her an easy win, being a woman. But now he realizes that he has an honest to good, real foe in Biden. In fact, the way he is acting, I think he seriously expects to get beaten badly in 2020.

But what is really telling, and not at all surprising, is his current opinion that Mueller should not appear before Congress. And why is that? Is it because the Repubs in Congress are not smart enough to defend him against Democrat questions? Is it because Mueller will expose the dirty laundry, that Trump did obstruct? Other than Hannity and Kellyann, anyone else with a brain has no doubt.

So, the clock is ticking. How much longer can Trump play out his losing game, or will we have to wait for his butt kicking in 2020???

"Let people see it": Trump says Robert Mueller’s final report should be made public

2020 is looking like another one of those, "At least he's not....", another election that will be completely negative and most voters will likely be voting against a candidate rather for one. I'm concerned about Biden. He's hasn't shown that he's dirty another to get down in the mud with Trump. I was hoping that by now, America would be ready for some dignity, intelligence, statesmanship, and real leadership in the Oval Office.

We haven't had real leadership, intelligence, dignity, and statesmanship in the Oval Office since Reagan. I don't see anything changing for many years. Neither of the two major party's are going to put up real leader, they don't have to. I will vote for the best candidate, it probably won't be either a Democrat or a Republican.

Reagan and leadership, dignity etc. Too funny considering he had one of the most corrupt administrations of all time.

List of Reagan administration convictions.

So we can go further back, no leadership or dignity since Kennedy? Of course he had an opiate addiction and was banging MM.

 

[dudmuck]

The article is written in plain english. It says cumulatively from 2010 to 2017 the ACA reduced health care spending a total of $2.3 trillion.

So if we take that piece at face value that comes out to about one quarter of a Trillion a year. So then we take the fact that it cost 110 Billion to pay the subsidies for 2016. Which if you notice was before the mandate of paying a fine for not buying insurance was canceled.

so explain again how this gets to the 3.2 Trillion needed each and every year for Medicare for all? Explain how we can keep paying out each year in a federal budget that is always over what we take in in taxes.

we already spend more than medicare for all would cost.

No the government does not. 3.2 Trillion per year for Medicare for all is the low estimate. All tax revenue for 2016 was 3.2 Trillion. How do you think the federal government is spending that?

When the say "we already spend more", they are talking about the costs that citizens pay, not what government pays. They are talking about the total cost of all healthcare.

And people wonder why I say the left never understands economics.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT FOR MEDICARE FOR ALL TO BE PAID FOR IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE GOVERNMENT PAYING 3.2 Trillion each year. How is the government going to pay for that?

I am not talking everyone paying separately. I am not talking insurance companies paying any of it.

The problem with our current insurance is that the 25% overhead of private insurers has to be paid for by individuals, both premiums and deductibles. And/or they are denied coverage.

For single payer, instead of premium + deductible, a tax is paid which is lower than the premium + deductible.

 

[Maxdeath]

So if we take that piece at face value that comes out to about one quarter of a Trillion a year. So then we take the fact that it cost 110 Billion to pay the subsidies for 2016. Which if you notice was before the mandate of paying a fine for not buying insurance was canceled.

so explain again how this gets to the 3.2 Trillion needed each and every year for Medicare for all? Explain how we can keep paying out each year in a federal budget that is always over what we take in in taxes.

we already spend more than medicare for all would cost.

No the government does not. 3.2 Trillion per year for Medicare for all is the low estimate. All tax revenue for 2016 was 3.2 Trillion. How do you think the federal government is spending that?

When the say "we already spend more", they are talking about the costs that citizens pay, not what government pays. They are talking about the total cost of all healthcare.

And people wonder why I say the left never understands economics.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT FOR MEDICARE FOR ALL TO BE PAID FOR IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE GOVERNMENT PAYING 3.2 Trillion each year. How is the government going to pay for that?

I am not talking everyone paying separately. I am not talking insurance companies paying any of it.

The problem with our current insurance is that the 25% overhead of private insurers has to be paid for by individuals, both premiums and deductibles. And/or they are denied coverage.

For single payer, instead of premium + deductible, a tax is paid which is lower than the premium + deductible.

You do not seem to understand simple economics or the question that has been asked.

When people say that the U.S. pays more for healthcare they are including payments to insurance companies. The amount insurance companies are paying to doctors, hospitals etc. the amount government is paying in the form of Medicare, Medicaid etc.

When someone talks about Medicare for all or whatever someone wants to call it, they are suggesting that if a person goes to a doctor the doctor sends a bill for the visit to the government. The bill does not go to you, it does not go to an insurance company. If you go to a hospital or other healthcare the bill goes to the government.
The government pays the doctor, hospital or other healthcare bill.

Now I will ask one last time. Where do democrats think that the money to not only pay those medical bills but to pay the staff needed to handle all that will come from? The lowest projected cost for that is 3.2 Trillion dollars. There have been higher ones of 5.6 Trillion.

Until democrats can understand that Medicare for all or any of the other such proposals cost real money, money the government does not have they can not be taken seriously. Kind of like telling everyone you need a porche while driving an unlicensed Honda with no job. You can talk about it all you want but until you have a plan to pay for it it is just talk.

 

[dudmuck]

we already spend more than medicare for all would cost.

No the government does not. 3.2 Trillion per year for Medicare for all is the low estimate. All tax revenue for 2016 was 3.2 Trillion. How do you think the federal government is spending that?

When the say "we already spend more", they are talking about the costs that citizens pay, not what government pays. They are talking about the total cost of all healthcare.

And people wonder why I say the left never understands economics.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT FOR MEDICARE FOR ALL TO BE PAID FOR IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE GOVERNMENT PAYING 3.2 Trillion each year. How is the government going to pay for that?

I am not talking everyone paying separately. I am not talking insurance companies paying any of it.

The problem with our current insurance is that the 25% overhead of private insurers has to be paid for by individuals, both premiums and deductibles. And/or they are denied coverage.

For single payer, instead of premium + deductible, a tax is paid which is lower than the premium + deductible.

You do not seem to understand simple economics or the question that has been asked.

When people say that the U.S. pays more for healthcare they are including payments to insurance companies. The amount insurance companies are paying to doctors, hospitals etc. the amount government is paying in the form of Medicare, Medicaid etc.

When someone talks about Medicare for all or whatever someone wants to call it, they are suggesting that if a person goes to a doctor the doctor sends a bill for the visit to the government. The bill does not go to you, it does not go to an insurance company. If you go to a hospital or other healthcare the bill goes to the government.
The government pays the doctor, hospital or other healthcare bill.

Now I will ask one last time. Where do democrats think that the money to not only pay those medical bills but to pay the staff needed to handle all that will come from? The lowest projected cost for that is 3.2 Trillion dollars. There have been higher ones of 5.6 Trillion.

Until democrats can understand that Medicare for all or any of the other such proposals cost real money, money the government does not have they can not be taken seriously. Kind of like telling everyone you need a porche while driving an unlicensed Honda with no job. You can talk about it all you want but until you have a plan to pay for it it is just talk.

The money comes from the savings on administrative costs.
Because of the administrative complexities in our current system, over 25% of every health care dollar goes to marketing, billing, utilization review, and other forms of waste. A single-payer system could reduce administrative costs greatly.

By contrast, medicare overhead is 3 percent.

 

[Maxdeath]

No the government does not. 3.2 Trillion per year for Medicare for all is the low estimate. All tax revenue for 2016 was 3.2 Trillion. How do you think the federal government is spending that?

When the say "we already spend more", they are talking about the costs that citizens pay, not what government pays. They are talking about the total cost of all healthcare.

And people wonder why I say the left never understands economics.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT FOR MEDICARE FOR ALL TO BE PAID FOR IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE GOVERNMENT PAYING 3.2 Trillion each year. How is the government going to pay for that?

I am not talking everyone paying separately. I am not talking insurance companies paying any of it.

The problem with our current insurance is that the 25% overhead of private insurers has to be paid for by individuals, both premiums and deductibles. And/or they are denied coverage.

For single payer, instead of premium + deductible, a tax is paid which is lower than the premium + deductible.

You do not seem to understand simple economics or the question that has been asked.

When people say that the U.S. pays more for healthcare they are including payments to insurance companies. The amount insurance companies are paying to doctors, hospitals etc. the amount government is paying in the form of Medicare, Medicaid etc.

When someone talks about Medicare for all or whatever someone wants to call it, they are suggesting that if a person goes to a doctor the doctor sends a bill for the visit to the government. The bill does not go to you, it does not go to an insurance company. If you go to a hospital or other healthcare the bill goes to the government.
The government pays the doctor, hospital or other healthcare bill.

Now I will ask one last time. Where do democrats think that the money to not only pay those medical bills but to pay the staff needed to handle all that will come from? The lowest projected cost for that is 3.2 Trillion dollars. There have been higher ones of 5.6 Trillion.

Until democrats can understand that Medicare for all or any of the other such proposals cost real money, money the government does not have they can not be taken seriously. Kind of like telling everyone you need a porche while driving an unlicensed Honda with no job. You can talk about it all you want but until you have a plan to pay for it it is just talk.

The money comes from the savings on administrative costs.
Because of the administrative complexities in our current system, over 25% of every health care dollar goes to marketing, billing, utilization review, and other forms of waste. A single-payer system could reduce administrative costs greatly.

By contrast, medicare overhead is 3 percent.

I have tried to explain it to you as simply as I can, I have come to the conclusion that not even a coloring book and crayons could explain it to you. Democrats wonder why they can never get anything done properly. This is a classic example.

 

[BWK]

"Leaving patients to wait?" Dude, are you high? What's better boss, waiting, or not having any insurance at all? Take your time with your answer. We know you're challenged being a Trump stooge.

You really are stupid if you go into an emergancy room and have to wait for over 12 hours while paying for national healthcare. In the U.S. if you go into any emergency room and waited 12 hours even without insurance sthe hospital would be sued.

Do everyone a favor and make sure that you get mental help.

Republicans what ERs to be able to turn people away. Which is infinite wait time.

And still no democrat has ever come up with any idea how to afford it.it seems the democrats want to defend something that they have no plan on n how to afford. Seems that the Republicans are the only ones that understand that you have to be smart enough to afford something before you implement it.

It did save costs. $2.3 trillion.

??? Want to run that through google translate a few more times until it makes sense.

 

[dudmuck]

When the say "we already spend more", they are talking about the costs that citizens pay, not what government pays. They are talking about the total cost of all healthcare.

And people wonder why I say the left never understands economics.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT FOR MEDICARE FOR ALL TO BE PAID FOR IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE GOVERNMENT PAYING 3.2 Trillion each year. How is the government going to pay for that?

I am not talking everyone paying separately. I am not talking insurance companies paying any of it.

The problem with our current insurance is that the 25% overhead of private insurers has to be paid for by individuals, both premiums and deductibles. And/or they are denied coverage.

For single payer, instead of premium + deductible, a tax is paid which is lower than the premium + deductible.

You do not seem to understand simple economics or the question that has been asked.

When people say that the U.S. pays more for healthcare they are including payments to insurance companies. The amount insurance companies are paying to doctors, hospitals etc. the amount government is paying in the form of Medicare, Medicaid etc.

When someone talks about Medicare for all or whatever someone wants to call it, they are suggesting that if a person goes to a doctor the doctor sends a bill for the visit to the government. The bill does not go to you, it does not go to an insurance company. If you go to a hospital or other healthcare the bill goes to the government.
The government pays the doctor, hospital or other healthcare bill.

Now I will ask one last time. Where do democrats think that the money to not only pay those medical bills but to pay the staff needed to handle all that will come from? The lowest projected cost for that is 3.2 Trillion dollars. There have been higher ones of 5.6 Trillion.

Until democrats can understand that Medicare for all or any of the other such proposals cost real money, money the government does not have they can not be taken seriously. Kind of like telling everyone you need a porche while driving an unlicensed Honda with no job. You can talk about it all you want but until you have a plan to pay for it it is just talk.

The money comes from the savings on administrative costs.
Because of the administrative complexities in our current system, over 25% of every health care dollar goes to marketing, billing, utilization review, and other forms of waste. A single-payer system could reduce administrative costs greatly.

By contrast, medicare overhead is 3 percent.

I have tried to explain it to you as simply as I can, I have come to the conclusion that not even a coloring book and crayons could explain it to you. Democrats wonder why they can never get anything done properly. This is a classic example.

You asked where the money comes from. The money comes from reducing the administration overhead from 25 percent to 3 percent.

Its not that hard to do. Other countries with people just as unhealthy as USA have costs less than half ours.

 

[Maxdeath]

And people wonder why I say the left never understands economics.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT FOR MEDICARE FOR ALL TO BE PAID FOR IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE GOVERNMENT PAYING 3.2 Trillion each year. How is the government going to pay for that?

I am not talking everyone paying separately. I am not talking insurance companies paying any of it.

The problem with our current insurance is that the 25% overhead of private insurers has to be paid for by individuals, both premiums and deductibles. And/or they are denied coverage.

For single payer, instead of premium + deductible, a tax is paid which is lower than the premium + deductible.

You do not seem to understand simple economics or the question that has been asked.

When people say that the U.S. pays more for healthcare they are including payments to insurance companies. The amount insurance companies are paying to doctors, hospitals etc. the amount government is paying in the form of Medicare, Medicaid etc.

When someone talks about Medicare for all or whatever someone wants to call it, they are suggesting that if a person goes to a doctor the doctor sends a bill for the visit to the government. The bill does not go to you, it does not go to an insurance company. If you go to a hospital or other healthcare the bill goes to the government.
The government pays the doctor, hospital or other healthcare bill.

Now I will ask one last time. Where do democrats think that the money to not only pay those medical bills but to pay the staff needed to handle all that will come from? The lowest projected cost for that is 3.2 Trillion dollars. There have been higher ones of 5.6 Trillion.

Until democrats can understand that Medicare for all or any of the other such proposals cost real money, money the government does not have they can not be taken seriously. Kind of like telling everyone you need a porche while driving an unlicensed Honda with no job. You can talk about it all you want but until you have a plan to pay for it it is just talk.

The money comes from the savings on administrative costs.
Because of the administrative complexities in our current system, over 25% of every health care dollar goes to marketing, billing, utilization review, and other forms of waste. A single-payer system could reduce administrative costs greatly.

By contrast, medicare overhead is 3 percent.

I have tried to explain it to you as simply as I can, I have come to the conclusion that not even a coloring book and crayons could explain it to you. Democrats wonder why they can never get anything done properly. This is a classic example.

You asked where the money comes from. The money comes from reducing the administration overhead from 25 percent to 3 percent.

Its not that hard to do. Other countries with people just as unhealthy as USA have costs less than half ours.

God can you idiots even add two plus two? How in gos name do you get from the government paying out 3.2 Trillion to administration cost being reduced from 25 to 3 percent?

Kind of like saying my car is out of gas but l can fix it by buying a new house.

 

[dudmuck]

The problem with our current insurance is that the 25% overhead of private insurers has to be paid for by individuals, both premiums and deductibles. And/or they are denied coverage.

For single payer, instead of premium + deductible, a tax is paid which is lower than the premium + deductible.

You do not seem to understand simple economics or the question that has been asked.

When people say that the U.S. pays more for healthcare they are including payments to insurance companies. The amount insurance companies are paying to doctors, hospitals etc. the amount government is paying in the form of Medicare, Medicaid etc.

When someone talks about Medicare for all or whatever someone wants to call it, they are suggesting that if a person goes to a doctor the doctor sends a bill for the visit to the government. The bill does not go to you, it does not go to an insurance company. If you go to a hospital or other healthcare the bill goes to the government.
The government pays the doctor, hospital or other healthcare bill.

Now I will ask one last time. Where do democrats think that the money to not only pay those medical bills but to pay the staff needed to handle all that will come from? The lowest projected cost for that is 3.2 Trillion dollars. There have been higher ones of 5.6 Trillion.

Until democrats can understand that Medicare for all or any of the other such proposals cost real money, money the government does not have they can not be taken seriously. Kind of like telling everyone you need a porche while driving an unlicensed Honda with no job. You can talk about it all you want but until you have a plan to pay for it it is just talk.

The money comes from the savings on administrative costs.
Because of the administrative complexities in our current system, over 25% of every health care dollar goes to marketing, billing, utilization review, and other forms of waste. A single-payer system could reduce administrative costs greatly.

By contrast, medicare overhead is 3 percent.

I have tried to explain it to you as simply as I can, I have come to the conclusion that not even a coloring book and crayons could explain it to you. Democrats wonder why they can never get anything done properly. This is a classic example.

You asked where the money comes from. The money comes from reducing the administration overhead from 25 percent to 3 percent.

Its not that hard to do. Other countries with people just as unhealthy as USA have costs less than half ours.

God can you idiots even add two plus two? How in gos name do you get from the government paying out 3.2 Trillion to administration cost being reduced from 25 to 3 percent?

Kind of like saying my car is out of gas but l can fix it by buying a new house.

2107 healthcare spending was 3.5 trillion, which is 17.9 percent of GDP.
The administration overhead was 25 percent of that.
By comparison, Canada has a 12 percent admin overhead.
Australia ranks number one in that area.

 

[Maxdeath]

You do not seem to understand simple economics or the question that has been asked.

When people say that the U.S. pays more for healthcare they are including payments to insurance companies. The amount insurance companies are paying to doctors, hospitals etc. the amount government is paying in the form of Medicare, Medicaid etc.

When someone talks about Medicare for all or whatever someone wants to call it, they are suggesting that if a person goes to a doctor the doctor sends a bill for the visit to the government. The bill does not go to you, it does not go to an insurance company. If you go to a hospital or other healthcare the bill goes to the government.
The government pays the doctor, hospital or other healthcare bill.

Now I will ask one last time. Where do democrats think that the money to not only pay those medical bills but to pay the staff needed to handle all that will come from? The lowest projected cost for that is 3.2 Trillion dollars. There have been higher ones of 5.6 Trillion.

Until democrats can understand that Medicare for all or any of the other such proposals cost real money, money the government does not have they can not be taken seriously. Kind of like telling everyone you need a porche while driving an unlicensed Honda with no job. You can talk about it all you want but until you have a plan to pay for it it is just talk.

The money comes from the savings on administrative costs.
Because of the administrative complexities in our current system, over 25% of every health care dollar goes to marketing, billing, utilization review, and other forms of waste. A single-payer system could reduce administrative costs greatly.

By contrast, medicare overhead is 3 percent.

I have tried to explain it to you as simply as I can, I have come to the conclusion that not even a coloring book and crayons could explain it to you. Democrats wonder why they can never get anything done properly. This is a classic example.

You asked where the money comes from. The money comes from reducing the administration overhead from 25 percent to 3 percent.

Its not that hard to do. Other countries with people just as unhealthy as USA have costs less than half ours.

God can you idiots even add two plus two? How in gos name do you get from the government paying out 3.2 Trillion to administration cost being reduced from 25 to 3 percent?

Kind of like saying my car is out of gas but l can fix it by buying a new house.

2107 healthcare spending was 3.5 trillion, which is 17.9 percent of GDP.
The administration overhead was 25 percent of that.
By comparison, Canada has a 12 percent admin overhead.
Australia ranks number one in that area.

You do understand that there is a slight difference in the populations between the two countries? There is even a difference in the way the healthcare is handled. One relies on insurance one is single payer.

You still seem to not understand that healthcare costs money.