Medicare For All Is Cheaper Because It Reduces Funeral Costs

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez: Medicare For All Is Cheaper Because It Reduces Funeral Costs;

lol, democrat politicians


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is fun. No, I mean that in all sincerity; she’s a fun candidate. She’s now one of the faces of the emerging left wing of the Democratic Party. Some have even called her the future of the Democratic Party. Maybe they should slow their roll on her, but hey—a Democratic implosion of rising talent is always a fun show to watch. She’s feisty. She has her moments, but when it comes to the policy discussion for her television hits, she veers into rocky shoals.


Ocasio-Cortez is clueless on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, playing whack-a-mole concerning whether there should be a two-state solution. Don’t expect anything rational from here on out. Three days after her interview on PBS’ Firing Line, in which she voiced her support for a two-state solution, she moved away from that position. She recently attended a conference with anti-Israel activist Linda Sarsour, so that’s all you need to know where she’ll probably land. The far left is viciously anti-Israel. You have to be in order to call yourself a proud left-winger.


CNN’s Chris Cuomo had her on his show, where she proved once again that she has no clue what she's talking about concerning economic policy. Ocasio-Corez thinks the military got a $700 billion increase, wrote a $2 trillion check for the Trump tax cuts, and the Medicare for All initiative isn’t bad because it would reduce the costs of funerals. Yeah, no one will die under a single payer system. Hey, not dying—sounds great on paper. Concerning application, you’d have to be on crack cocaine to think this would ever be cost-effective. It’s not. It has a $30+ trillion price tag. The three-decade price tag for the Left’s goodie bag—free college, Medicare for all, etc.—lands in the neighborhood of…$218 trillion. It’s a pipe dream. The Washington Free Beacon made the good point that even in Bernie Sanders' home state, Vermont, they ditched a single-payer system because it was too expensive. Even deep-blue California hasn't passed single-payer due to similar budgetary constraints.


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...neral-n2508254

She is an example of an educated person not being very bright.

Please it's democratic, that sounds so dumb especially given the republican swampland today. Adjective oh adjective wherefore art thou, tis but a name that is my enemy. Apologies to Shakespeare.


'Researchers have found that the way our brains are wired can affect how much empathy we feel toward others—a key measuring stick of good and evil.'
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/m...arlottesville/

Attachment 24105


Attachment 24107

How can anyone defend statements like that?

Sure, they'll vote for this in the bread basket of America:


Attachment 24108


The Democrat Socialists of America.

Biking with Bernie: The illusory savings of 'Medicare for All'.....


Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ "Medicare for all" bill imagine that my colleague Charles Blahous’ recent study “accidentally proved” that the Medicare for All Act would lower healthcare spending by $2 trillion over 10 years (2022-2031).


As the captain in "Cool Hand Luke” would say, “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.”


Specifically, Medicare for All supporters fail to comprehend English grammar’s subjunctive conditional. Economists exacerbate the misunderstanding by saying “assume” when we really mean “pretend.” Here’s a brief grammar lesson:


The subjunctive mood describes something doubtful or wished-for. The conditional tense expresses an “if … then” relationship. Together, they say: “If [X were true], then [Y would result].”


Blahous’ study, “ The Costs of a National Single-Payer Healthcare System,” is essentially a 24-page subjunctive conditional, saying: “If [Medicare for All were implemented and it performed exactly as Sanders claims], then [total healthcare spending would drop by $2 trillion and federal government spending would rise by $32.6 trillion].”


Economists deserve some blame for imprudently “assuming” things when we mean “pretending.” Microeconomists “assume” people are rational, prompting noneconomists to roll their eyes at the perceived naivete. But economists actually mean, “Let’s pretend people are rational and then analyze how such people would behave.” Despite the unrealism of this assumption/pretension, doing so helps us understand much (but not all) real-world behavior.



Even a $32.6 trillion increase would immediately, radically transform the relationship between Americans and their government. The federal government would have to double everyone’s income taxes and corporate taxes — and then find some extra money beyond that. Blahous notes private health insurance premiums would disappear, but that does nothing for, say, current Medicare retirees whose taxes on pensions, individual retirement account withdrawals, Social Security, investment income, and part-time jobs would likely double.
Consider other things Sanders’ kindred spirits assume (pretend?):

• Medicare for All would slash pay for doctors, nurses, hospitals, and others by around 40 percent. But even so, they’ll somehow work longer and harder than they do today, serving 30 million extra patients and providing the extra care Americans demand when deductibles and copays vanish and hearing, vision, and dental care become free.

• Drug and medical device manufacturers will take huge pay cuts, but they’ll still somehow produce the drugs and devices we expect.

• Hundreds of thousands of health insurance company employees, corporate healthcare specialists, and others will lose their jobs en masse, but they’ll somehow find employment — perhaps working for the greatly expanded government.

• Medicare’s administrators, currently processing claims for 60 million Americans, will have no trouble managing another quarter-billion beneficiaries.

The two big takeaways of this exercise are: First, don’t waste any time fantasizing about ways to spend that $2 trillion, and, second, if you need to travel from Boston to San Francisco, buy a plane ticket. …..snip~


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...dicare-for-all


Bernie and that kook, wont be able to sell it to the American People.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midcan5

Please it's democratic, that sounds so dumb especially given the republican swampland today. Adjective oh adjective wherefore art thou, tis but a name that is my enemy. Apologies to Shakespeare.


'Researchers have found that the way our brains are wired can affect how much empathy we feel toward others—a key measuring stick of good and evil.'
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/m...arlottesville/

---

Gibberish again.

She is a boob. Light humorous entertainment that should NEVER be in public office.