07-31-2018, 02:38 PM
(07-31-2018, 01:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: $2 trillion of $32 trillion doesn’t exactly sound like a backfire.
I guess you're reading that wrong. It's not that additional costs would be 30 instead of 32 trillions, it's rather that 2 trillions are saved compared to going on with how health care is handled now. So it's rather claiming 32 trillion dollar "additional" costs (like I had to read it too) is wrong by 34 trillions. Is how I read it, but I'm not too good wth those things.
I don't want to look like a Bernie guy, but when he says that every other western country manages to do universal health care at arguably lower costs overall compared to the US, I think that's a fair point. One could give the idea a little more credit than claiming it's completely out of the question and totally unfundable.