Mooninites wrote:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511
for reference to all EU peoples, that would double our national debt total in the next 10 years.
Can't read source as it's behind a pay/login-wall, care to give a transcript?
EDIT: I'm going to bed now but I'd like to make this clear: I did some research in further numbers and there seems to be dispute over the actual use of this data. One of the economists whose work was cited in the article said the following:
"It is said of economists that they know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. In the case of the article "Price Tag of Bernie Sanders's Proposals: $18 Trillion," this accusation is a better fit for the Wall Street Journal that published it.
The Journal correctly puts the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.
These financial savings would be felt by businesses and by state and local governments who would no longer be paying for health insurance for their employees; and by retirees and working Americans who would no longer have to pay for their health insurance or for co-payments and deductibles. Beyond these financial savings, HR 676 would also save thousands of lives a year by expanding access to health care for the uninsured and the underinsured.
The economic benefits from Senator Sander's proposal would be even greater than these static estimates suggest because a single-payer plan would create dynamic gains by freeing American businesses to compete without the burden of an inefficient and wasteful health insurance system. As with Senator Sanders' other proposals, the economic boom created by HR 676, including the productivity boost coming from a more efficient health care system and a healthier population, would raise economic output and provide billions of dollars in additional tax revenues to over-set some of the additional federal spending."
(full source)
So whether you agree or disagree, that 18 trillion figure certainly isn't set in stone and should not be your main motivator for anything.
Mooninites wrote:
hmm.... do I trust some random blog on a clearly biased news source or do I listen to the most trusted, credible, and circulated financial news paper in the world read by millions
Going off topic a bit here but stating something that will never happen but should. A big thing in the U.S. legislature is that they can vote to give an increase in pay to the opposite house (House of Rep.s and Senate). If this wasn't a thing and their salaries got dropped, There is probably a ****ton of money to be put toward our 18 trillion dollar deficit. No candidate will ever say this nor will they be allowed to do it through like an Obama "I'm doing this and you ain't gonna stop me" executive order, but it is a point to throw around for people of both sides of the aisle. Also, I'm sorry I disappointed you Moon :( and kinda freaked out on you. Your second post was quite amusing.
"Fighting against top lane Nunu & Willump, or Nunu & Willump in general, is like having a catheter. It's not fun and you're going to have a miserable time."
-stonewall008
Nunu & Willump, or Nunu & Willump in general, is like having a catheter. It's not fun and you're going to have a miserable time."-stonewall008
Lugignaf wrote:
Not sleeping. It's being civil enough, so I'm letting it happen. :P
Won't disagree with this though.
Lugia is posting in his sleep again. somone revoke his right to mod.
Mooninites wrote:
hmm.... do I trust some random blog on a clearly biased news source or do I listen to the most trusted, credible, and circulated financial news paper in the world read by millions
The author is a professor in economics. His work was used in the making of that article in that "most trusted [...] financial news paper in the world". Therefore your claims with regards to reliability are completely ********.
It makes me wonder if you even bothered to read what I said or just tried to look for ways to discredit my points.
You need to log in before commenting.
It sounds like you could replace Trump with Sanders in your previous post and have valid criticisms.
How would you describe the linked plan as a band-aid? Do you or your preferred candidate have a better solution?