I repeat it because you have NOT explained it. You just think you have. In this post you explained that the expenditures for single-payer would be the same(which is absolute bullshit). But you didn’t explain why it is not better to cover everyone for the same cost.
While the overwhelming majority of studies say the opposite of what you say. Not surprising coming from a dude who is not afraid to absolutely embarrass himself by continually posting the opposite of the evidence.
It isn’t my fault you’re too stupid to understand the explanation.
No, they would be more…
Yes, we should all defer to your expertise…
Look, dude, I did a simple elementary school analysis. I took the current cost of Medicare/per person and applied it to the entire population. Ya know, like Medicare for all would do. Yes, as I’ve said repeatedly, the cost per user will be lower as the pool of users will increase. It ain’t gonna be $2T in total lower.
Sorry not sorry you can’t do math.
It isn’t the same fucking cost. Jesus H and I don’t have to explain shit to you. I don’t even know why I continue to explain things as it is.
You don’t have a fucking clue what this word means. You post fucking polls and survey’s. Not studies. Good grief.
Thumbs way high. Like I give a fuck what the results of a survey were on treehugger .net.
Quote for the hilarious irony Mr. Plain Corporation.
They spend less on defense/NATO because we protect them.
Is this our job? Thought Trump was going to end this? Is this a reason why we can’t join the rest of the industrialized world and go with a single-payer system?
1.They artificially control prices via government.
You mean they negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies so they don’t rip-off the public like they do in the states.
It won’t. I understand how math works. What happened to the right pocket, left pocket analogy?
Not a fan of Clinton but as I see it, it surplused during his term I know that must really upset you.
So because someone has a few letters behind his name they are not be criticized? And because they have PhD’s they are immune to their curriculum and it’s biased information related to synthetic chemical healthcare? Who sponsors their conferences and talks?
Thank you. These numbers are for bone marrow transplants and umbilical blood transplants–both of which are approved FDA treatments that have gone thru the clinical trial phases. These do not refer to the stem cell treatments you were trying to talk about earlier, which we’re NOT marrow or blood transplant related.
As usual, it’s not that simple and you’re quite wrong. Did you know that mastectomies for breast cancer are considered “elective”? I would wager fighting cancer has something to do with “fundamental qualities of life”.
The cost of private insurance outweighs the rise in Medicare.
1.They artificially control prices via government.
You mean they negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies so they don’t rip-off the public like they do in the states.
No, that’s not what I mean
It may not be what you mean but essentially is what it comes down to.
It won’t. I understand how math works. What happened to the right pocket, left pocket analogy?
Huh?
More contradictions.
Two decades ago… TWO FUCKING DECADES AGO.
Does that make it not true?
Who sponsors their conferences and talks?
I don’t give a fuck.
And therein lies your problem. You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of how money corrupts the system. It is part of the Kool-Aid package you drink from daily.
Governmental institutions jointly with big pharma were responsible for organisation of these conferences and attracting audience.
Here we go for the hard-on inducing clinical trials. Thank God the public rose up against the tyranny you subscribe to. If it was up to you cannabis would not be legalized for medicinal purposes and opioid deaths would not be coming down. Wow, gotta love your outlook.