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
 

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)
54. It's going to take way longer than two years
Sat Sep 16, 2017, 01:56 PM
Sep 2017

and anyone telling you it can be done in under 20 years doesn't know what they are talking about, or doesn't want you to know that they don't.

Not other nation got to single payer by saying they can't.... this is health policy in the real world, not the Little Engine that Could.

Magical thinking doesn't make something possible. And the vast majority of other developed nations got UHC with multi-payer systems, so it's not really neccessary to implement single payer.

The Urban Institute is a creditable organization. They did much of the work establishing Medicare's Hoyt Sep 2017 #1
This is a topic I have some knowledge of. ehrnst Sep 2017 #2
why does it have to be cheap? Richest nation in he world. nt JCanete Sep 2017 #65
Not saying it does. Strawman. ehrnst Sep 2017 #66
what? fuck that. You say some shit as if ..."it can't be all these 3 things" and you say that for JCanete Sep 2017 #67
It can't. This is an axiom of project management. A big & complicated project cannot be all three. stevenleser Sep 2017 #76
I did not see where the poster indicated that the bill was going for fast and cheap, only that it JCanete Sep 2017 #78
Again...Sanders is implying that it is cheaper that experts say it is. ehrnst Sep 2017 #79
So insurance as it stands, which is gouging the fuck out of people, and granted, often has massive JCanete Sep 2017 #96
What does this have to do with the Sanders plan lowballing the costs? ehrnst Sep 2017 #99
I am not going to read the whole thing, does it relieve employers buying health insurance Eliot Rosewater Sep 2017 #4
There is a payroll tax on employers that would be limited to 6.2% ehrnst Sep 2017 #6
Taxes being much higher than anticipated were part of why VT single payer failed.(n) ehrnst Sep 2017 #8
That was the problem with the California proposal, and the Democratic Speaker.... George II Sep 2017 #22
I agree Gothmog Sep 2017 #102
We are facing a provider as well as a nursing shortage ismnotwasm Sep 2017 #3
This is why incremental change is neccesary - way longer than 9 years. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #7
Yes. ismnotwasm Sep 2017 #10
Sanders rejects any analysis of his plan that doesn't agree with his numbers. ehrnst Sep 2017 #13
This is a political exercise by Sanders. Weekend Warrior Sep 2017 #5
Yep. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #11
another "political exercise" heaven05 Sep 2017 #74
Interesting study Gothmog Sep 2017 #9
Only 1 Recce...Come Now Me. Sep 2017 #12
Then there's this: ehrnst Sep 2017 #14
Some INteresting Bits Replying To Sanders Team Critiicisms Me. Sep 2017 #16
$3.2 Trillion per year? That's less per year than we spend now. TCJ70 Sep 2017 #21
Wasn't The Amount Cited 32 trillion Not 3.2 Me. Sep 2017 #23
"The increases in federal spending that we estimated ($32 trillion between 2017 and 2026)" TCJ70 Sep 2017 #24
Yes, You Are Correct As To The 3.2 Trillion Me. Sep 2017 #27
From page 20 ismnotwasm Sep 2017 #28
Ah, Thank You So Much Me. Sep 2017 #29
I'm basing that on the fact that we currently spend around $3.8 Trillion annually... TCJ70 Sep 2017 #30
Well, universal healthcare is a goal we all share ismnotwasm Sep 2017 #43
It seems to me that the cart is before the horse. brer cat Sep 2017 #52
UHC doesn't have to be Single Payer, they're not the same. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #59
yep Go Vols Sep 2017 #118
the OP link states clu Sep 2017 #26
Sanders plan is a great start, but there is a need to flesh out the details. andym Sep 2017 #15
That would require having other people crunch the numbers... ehrnst Sep 2017 #38
Don't worry Sanders is only the sponsor/visionary-he did his part in moving the needle andym Sep 2017 #46
And it will take 20 years to implement without huge disruption to health care ehrnst Sep 2017 #55
MFA would radically change things, could happen quickly and would be disruptive in a good way andym Sep 2017 #62
Disruption means disruption of delivery of care ehrnst Sep 2017 #89
Delivery of care will not be disrupted if universal healthcare is engineered carefully andym Sep 2017 #94
Which as the UI analysis said, the Sanders plan would do far more than an ehrnst Sep 2017 #103
Sanders isn't good on details NastyRiffraff Sep 2017 #71
But everyone is supposed to jump on board without knowing them. ehrnst Sep 2017 #90
We are jumping on board based on the principle of achieving universal health care andym Sep 2017 #95
First off, Universal Health Care is not interchangeable with Single Payer ehrnst Sep 2017 #97
Agreed that Single payer is but one way to achieve Universal Health Care andym Sep 2017 #98
You wrote: ehrnst Sep 2017 #100
Post 94 is in this thread-- and makes my meaning clear andym Sep 2017 #117
There are other sponsors. Orsino Sep 2017 #87
Do you see any of them dissenting with him on his bill in any way? ehrnst Sep 2017 #104
What Sanders will "tolerate" is irrelevant. Orsino Sep 2017 #105
Sanders is the author of the bill, and what he "tolerates" in terms ehrnst Sep 2017 #108
Not clearer. Orsino Sep 2017 #110
It didn't claim to know any of that. I think you are the one who isn't clear. ehrnst Sep 2017 #111
I have failed to understand you. Orsino Sep 2017 #112
One can discuss the personality traits of a lifelong politician ehrnst Sep 2017 #113
Thank you for this information, ehrnst. sheshe2 Sep 2017 #17
Kicked and rec'd JHan Sep 2017 #18
michael moore stated as much in sicko clu Sep 2017 #19
Are you on the right thread? ehrnst Sep 2017 #58
Nope. MrsCoffee Sep 2017 #75
America is the only industrialized nation in the world incapable of implementing universal coverage. Orsino Sep 2017 #20
No other nation went to single payer from the system that we have now. ehrnst Sep 2017 #25
Thank you so much for this history. sheshe2 Sep 2017 #45
No other nation ever had what we have now. Orsino Sep 2017 #53
It's going to take way longer than two years ehrnst Sep 2017 #54
We already have single-payer. More than one such system. Orsino Sep 2017 #81
That's what HRC proposed - incrementalism. ehrnst Sep 2017 #82
The bill ain't done yet. Orsino Sep 2017 #83
Like I said ehrnst Sep 2017 #84
There's no need to fixate on Sanders... Orsino Sep 2017 #86
He is the one who introduced the bill, and is talking most about it. ehrnst Sep 2017 #91
That's not a good reason to oppose the bill. Orsino Sep 2017 #93
Strawman. I never said it was. ehrnst Sep 2017 #101
Then why is it we should care about how he takes criticism? Orsino Sep 2017 #106
That wasn't my point. Another strawman. ehrnst Sep 2017 #107
Sanders has a say in what goes into the bill, but no more than any other co-sponsor. Orsino Sep 2017 #109
I think you don't understand what co-sponsors do. ehrnst Sep 2017 #114
News stories calling it "his" bill... Orsino Sep 2017 #115
Your source for "it's being fiddled with in private?" ehrnst Sep 2017 #116
Getting hung up on a name bandied about in the news isn't analysis. Orsino Sep 2017 #119
So you have no source for "it's being fiddled with in private" at all. ehrnst Sep 2017 #120
We all know how laws are made. Orsino Sep 2017 #121
Bernie is not known for drumming up support among his colleagues to write a bill. ehrnst Sep 2017 #122
That's a strange assertion. Orsino Sep 2017 #123
Your statement that he is tweaking it with other Senators has the burden of proof ehrnst Sep 2017 #124
Every bill on this planet is getting tweaked. n/t Orsino Sep 2017 #125
Not having started as being co-written, like you are claiming. ehrnst Sep 2017 #127
Wait, what? Orsino Sep 2017 #131
"But anyone who believes that a bill in its early life ehrnst Sep 2017 #132
That's a truly weird postulate. Orsino Sep 2017 #134
So now you say who wrote and edits the bill isn't important but it DEFINITELY isn't just Bernie... ehrnst Sep 2017 #135
So this is your contention? Orsino Sep 2017 #136
Here's the Urban Institute's Sourcewatch page. QC Sep 2017 #31
a girlfriend's son clu Sep 2017 #32
The last VHS rental/tanning salon combo in my town just became a charter $chool. QC Sep 2017 #34
Well, that settles it then. Urban Institute can't be trusted!!!! ehrnst Sep 2017 #41
They would have been more trustworthy had they revealed their conflict of interest in the analysis Major Nikon Sep 2017 #48
So tell us - just how much of their budget is from those sources ehrnst Sep 2017 #60
I don't know what it is, nor do I really care Major Nikon Sep 2017 #68
Of course you "don't care." Facts will just burst your confirmation bias. ehrnst Sep 2017 #69
People have been saying that on DU over and over again - anyone know if they REALLY.... George II Sep 2017 #70
You think that Sourcewatch is trustworthy? ehrnst Sep 2017 #85
They are a very reputable source in health care policy, so ehrnst Sep 2017 #35
You're right. CIGNA and Pfizer just want what's good for America, QC Sep 2017 #39
Yeah, they dissed on Bernie's legislation - total corporate shills. ehrnst Sep 2017 #40
As shocking as this might seem, QC Sep 2017 #47
You are saying the report has bias because of source funding? ismnotwasm Sep 2017 #49
So why don't you tell us what the source funding of this report is? ehrnst Sep 2017 #57
Do you also tell your students that a source that presents a barely edited Wikipedia copy/paste ehrnst Sep 2017 #80
OMG you are totes right! Just look at this research that COMPLETELY ehrnst Sep 2017 #42
You keep bringing up Sourcewatch and their inaccurate comment about Cigna and Pfizer. Why? George II Sep 2017 #51
Because it means they don't have to read or learn something they don't wanna. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #56
Well, I guess that makes Al Franken a shill ehrnst Sep 2017 #37
According to the Urban League's annual report only 1.4% of their funding comes from.... George II Sep 2017 #50
But that's NO FAIR!!!! ehrnst Sep 2017 #61
They have four or five annual reports and also audited financial statements on their site.... George II Sep 2017 #63
Evident to those not suffering Dunning-Kruger Effect. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #64
This message was self-deleted by its author melman Sep 2017 #88
Sounds like it is something worth doing Not Ruth Sep 2017 #33
Even though there are options that are much less expensive and disruptive ehrnst Sep 2017 #36
K&R murielm99 Sep 2017 #44
Thanks for posting this NastyRiffraff Sep 2017 #72
puts EVERYTHING heaven05 Sep 2017 #73
More evidence why I think we should be working to architect a two-tier or dual-tier system from the stevenleser Sep 2017 #77
Because that's not 'hopeful' and it's not what Bernie has been ehrnst Sep 2017 #92
Racking my brain here GaryCnf Sep 2017 #126
This may help: ehrnst Sep 2017 #128
Here's something even clearer GaryCnf Sep 2017 #129
Check the date on the OP. ehrnst Sep 2017 #130
This is the closest I've seen to an anlysis comparable to the UI analysis of the 2016 bill ehrnst Sep 2017 #133
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Urban Institute analysis ...»Reply #54