The most important thing in the world is for very rich people to get more pennies.

the health insurance companies who will vanish, and should.

Because they SHOULD be run out of existence and they realize that most Americans know it, and agree.

but not ALL Americans

Wars, military industrial complex, Wall Street bailouts, tax breaks for the rich. No one asks any questions.

But any thing that benefits the general population is brutally examined.

Doesn't anyone run on science anymore? Just "Find these sexy numbers for me!"?

... never seem to have a problem finding money to go to war bombing brown people or bailing out their cronies on Wall Street when they run their multi-billion $$$$$ casinos (and our economy with them) into the ditch?

or Doesn't' matter?

She I go to an accountant next time I get sick?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511032322


170 Top Economists endorse the Sanders Wall Street Reform Plan

They have great track records.

what people are saying is Bernie has said not one word about how he would cut costs. His plan had said we would save over 100% of drug costs until that was pointed out and he just altered the numbers. The only way his numbers would add up is if doctors and hospitals take massive cuts in payments. He has said not one word about how this would come about.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html

Gerald Friedman's research was cited in a Wall Street Journal story about Bernie Sanders's proposals for government spending. Friedman responds to that story below.

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.

and also doesn't address the big money. Administration just isn't that big a cost, no where near 5 trillion. Pharmaceuticals cost about 300 billion in total, devices cost about 100 billion. That leaves lowering the rate of inflation, and in point of fact he would have to do way more than that, to save anything like saving 5 trillion. We spend 3.0 trilion per year on health care, 978.1 billion on hospitals and 603.7 billion on physicians and clinics. That is where the money is and that is where the money would have to come from and Bernie hasn't said a word about how that would come about. That is what doesn't add up.

how these savings would be realized. We spend 3 trillion on health care per year. A savings of 5 trillion over 10 years is 500 billion per year. That is 1/6 of the money spent, in total, on health care. But according to Bernie's own plan we would have to save more like 40 percent. Doctors and hospitals take well over 50 percent all by themselves.

https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/downloads/highlights.pdf

No I am not an economist but I do teach math for a living. I know numbers and these numbers don't add up. He is being the equivalent of the person who tells you that you can eat whatever you want, do no exercise, and still lose weight if you just take this magic pill. Our doctors make considerably more than those in other countries. Here is the figures for general practisioners.



Here is one for doctors as a whole



Only the Netherlands has higher paid doctors than the US. No other country is even in the ballpark in those terms.

You are making a claim about what physicians want. Please present data elicited from at least 5000 GPs and we can start a conversation.

A normal randomized sample for polling would only need about 1000 interviews, but since we want to be sure that we've really covered our bases and minimized the chance of bias, I'm of the opinion that a 5000 subject survey which can yield high numbers for each potential demographic (age, income etc) would be worth the effort.

Stop trotting out that meaningless garbage if you want to be taken seriously.