https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-7bVZYy_ds

So then why would you respond to my post about Hillary supporters about what you would do, and then acknowledge you're not a Hillary supporter?

That nickname has been around long before Donald Trump came along.

LOL @ Trump thinking his dumb nicknames are some kind of superweapon.

56% of all would be most of those not covered by Medicare/Medicaid.


Good luck with this. 1. most employer plans are pretty good and most are better than Medicare (the base version at least). 2. people by and large like the employer plans. Even if you tell them a new plan is better, they will stick with old one in most cases.

I didn't know what level of supporter you were referring to.

Kind of torn of the whole employer healthcare issue. When I started my job we had a decent HMO option for like $20 a month. Now we have no HMO option and a straight garbage HDCP for $30 a month.

That straight garbage high deductible plan costs your employer easily more than 10 times what they charge you, so count your blessings there.

You may want to reevaluate your thought processes when you reach the point you're posting hot takes like this

You know it doesn't have to, right?

You think Universal Healthcare can be done for under $300 per person per month? I'm highly skeptical.

Maybe we'll see. I feel like you don't have any data backing you up here and you're just extrapolating from people you know and what you read on the internets. As another way of looking at it, Bernie had 240,000 donors in 2016 and people were waxing lyrical about how grassroots his campaign was, but 240,000 people who mostly live in coastal Democratic strongholds are a total irrelevancy electorally. There are more Bernie diehards than that of course but many of them would vote Dem anyway. I agree Bernie running would be a huge problem for the Dems but I don't think he'll do that.

The argument in the 40/30/30 case would simply be that 1) in the election of Bernie vs Establishment, most people voted establishment and 2) Harris is the compromise candidate in an election where nobody won a majority. I don't even think that is an argument without merit. Possibly I'm colored here by the fact that I live in a country with what you guys call instant runoff voting. That someone can get a plurality of the first-preference votes and not win is completely normal. FPTP elections are idiotic imo, but I'm aware that Americans are used to them.

If only there was another country or thirty that spend less money to cover everyone with better outcomes on many metrics.

$300 per person per month is roughly the OECD average of total healthcare expenditure. Australia and Canada spend $400 per month and that includes not merely universal healthcare but a thriving private sector.

Being tagged "low energy" by a guy too lazy walk to his own campaign announcement had a big hand in derailing Jeb!, even with $100 million behind him. "Lyin" Ted" and "Crooked Hillary" also stuck pretty well as the field narrowed.

That being said, "Crazy Bernie" seems pretty lame and unimaginative. You don't think "Pocohontas" would be used to brutalize Elizabeth Warren in a general election campaign?

I not completely au fait will the whole setup in the US but in the UK the NHS (free at the point of delivery) spends about £2300 per person and total health spending is about £2900 - if I'm reading the numbers right although they vary a bit. I believe those numbers are roughly in line with most of Europe.

In respnse to this tweet



BBC did a "reality check" article

Reality Check: Does UK spend half as much on health as US? - part of which reads

with other facts/figures/graphs etc. Our system has issues that need fixing but it does work.

There's also an page on wiki that lists a lot more countries and their spend per capita in various ways
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ure_per_capita

The US certainly seems to spend a lot more than many and doesn't have better outcomes - whether that's the influence/power of big pharma or insurance companies I'll leave to those with more knowledge of how the US system works.

US GDP/capita is also ~33% higher than Canada's and 10% higher than Australia's. Adjusting for that and you're at $440 a month. Getting really far away from $300.

OECD Europe spends ~10% GDP/capita on healthcare. Even using that we're looking at about 6k per capita in the US, which to be fair, is much less than what we're spending now.

Still, $300 a month and maintaining the current level of healthcare doesn't seem achievable given the numbers we see elsewhere.

US GDP/capita is almost 50% higher than UKs.

If this data were accurate and translatable to the USA, it would be shouted from every rooftop during UHC debates. The only people paying under $300/month for healthcare are the people already getting it for free via subsidy.

Every large employer in the USA would be pushing for it, particularly because they know it would become a payroll deduction.

So if true, you've got your talking point on how to convince people like me to jump into supporting UHC with both feet.

That's also why I think your claim comes with a very large asterisk.

It's a damn good question - and one that the rest of the developed world puzzles about.

Do you think the data is inaccurate and translatableto the US?


A history of why the US is the only rich country without universal health care

That article is a really good read imo and pretty sums up the reasons as corporate greed/corruption and anti-socialism sentiment.

No, I understand the "anti-socialism" attitude plays a role, but you're asking people to believe that that you'll be able to provide universal healthcare for less than the cost of an uninsured visit to a specialist each month.

If you can show that to be true, a LOT of people will suddenly rethink just how much they want to stand against a perceived socialist idea.

Or maybe $300/month is more than your average citizen pays for their healthcare right now and my family is an outlier. I'm the one that manages the employee health plan at our office and see what it actually costs though, so I doubt it.

Anyway, there's probably a 10,000 post thread on UHC elsewhere. My primary point was that if costs were actually going to be that low, I feel like I'd have heard that claim more often during the debates over it.

What? We just had a study about how universal health care would cost $30T over 10 years, which is trillions less than what the status quo would cost over the same time, and right wingers were furious at the top line number and not the savings. You don't know what it would cost because you don't listen to liberals, bro. It's not because no one is saying it.

Someone tell Ins0 that literally every other Western democracy has figured out how to make this work.

Well the costs elsewhere in the developed world are what they are - and are lower than the US by quite a margin.

The claim has been well made in the discussions/debate I've seen on the subject, and in print like the article above and the comprehensive study Wookie mentioned, but it's really down to you to decide whether you beleive them or not.

I totally understand the 40/30/30 argument and agree that it has merit, especially if we actually had some form of ranked choice (we do in SF, which came excruciatingly close to defeating the corporate Dem mayor last year). You would have to then argue that > 65% of Biden's votes "would have" gone to Harris (or the other way around) which doesn't ring correct to me, but it's a moot point for now.

The point is how it would be perceived and that most people would not understand or care about the logical argument. You could see it in SF when the mayor was close to losing, morons raging on Twitter that the person with most 1st place votes might not win (yes, that's an "internets" thing).

Bottom line though is:

1) A Green or like candidate is probably going to run (especially if a centrist is nominated).

2) Given tight margins in swing states, Democrats are highly vulnerable to third party left candidates in general elections, and indisputably lost 2000 by many times less votes than the Green took. (They actually won in 2000 according to most FL recounts, but oh well!)

3) SOME reasonably significant percentage of people would feel disenfranchised and be furious, irrationally or not.

4) This would be enough people to be of very, very serious concern for Democrats.

If you tell me right now that it'll be 40/30/30 and the DNC hands it to Harris/Biden, I think I'd bet on Trump.