I'm sure something in there can address what you've said here.

I'm logging off okp for today lol. See you next politics/healthcare post

>bernies claim that 32.6 trillion would be less than the
>"status quo" is correct, per the politifact link you sent.
>bernie isnt the one that chose that calculation, it was the
>media that ran with that figure saying it would be in addition
>to current spending. bernie was pointing out its 2 trillion
>less than if we keep the current system. if you use the other
>calculation that in 10 years medicare for all could cost 3.2
>trillion more over 10 years then you have to assume there are
>no savings or benefits to be found in medicare for all.
>
>while i would agree that you might not want to say m4a WOULD
>save 2 trillion it is possible that it might. if we use this
>study i guess we could go in the middle and say that it might
>cost 500 billion more over 10 years. considering all the
>benefits it doesnt seem like a bad investment.
>
>the other point, arent most of the savings/reductions in
>payments due to cutting overhead? i understand that some
>doctors/nurses MIGHT get reduced payments but that isnt going
>to be the rule. what medicare for all is doing is eliminating
>the "waste" so that more/most of the money goes to actually
>providing health care and not on managing
>payments/collections.
>
>