You don't know why I am quickly able to debunk and point out errors in calculations that other organizations have done?
Since I showed my work and cited all sources and did not inject any bias at all, the numbers speak for themselves. I am not doing any magic or voodoo. It's very clear.
Their numbers are not even internally consistent, as I have shown.
Here is how actual projected costs play out, by year going back from 2031:
Look, I've shown my work. My numbers are directly based off of census data and per capita costs that came straight from the very website. There's no secret to what I've done. It's all right there.
And if we just take 2022-2031, that total is:
$57,335,025,272,765
How is there anything secret all about that? What do you not understand? there's nothing magical about how I got those numbers.
Here's a new flash for you: if another site calculated different numbers than mine and cites CDO, same time period, it's wrong! The math is that simple.
Here's what happened: you fell for bad numbers and bad arguments again because there's not an original thought in your body.
The problem with DDM's logic. He correctly assesses the NHE assuming no UHC. However, when determining the costs of Bernie's plan, he incorrectly reports the amount of Federal spending. This is due to the lack of variables included in that number. When I show him the CBO data, he calls it biased stats and continues to spew out the same bullshit. Why do economists reach DDM's numbers? Maybe, cause the guy is way over his head.
__________________ "I killed them, of course. Just as I killed the Guardian. Just as I now kill you."
You're wondering why I can make clear, unbiased arguments while showing my work? And have different numbers than people you think are brilliant economists?
Gosh, you must think I'm a super genius, then. One day you may plagiarize me. The highest compliment you give people.
Bernie's plan, as I have said innumerable times, would cost 54.7 trillion using the lowballed Mercatus numbers. Blahous says, that it is about 8 trillion more than that. That gets us, 62 trillion. I already cited my sources. But, I'll do it again.
Over a ten year period, Bernie's plan adds 32.6 trillion dollars to the budget. According to the CBO, we will spend about 22 trillion dollars on federal spending(no UHC). 32.6+22=54.6
__________________ "I killed them, of course. Just as I killed the Guardian. Just as I now kill you."
Since you're obsessed with the footnote e part of it:
Here is it adjusted:
2772
2598
2435
2282
2080
1952
1831
1677
1614
1548
20789
32.6+20.8=53.4
Is $57 trillion > than $53.4 trillion?
Yes. Still is.
I still have the high-ground, DS0.
I still have not included the best methods to estimate actual costs.
Look, I did your work for you. I understand that you are not capable of actually doing that math yourself (I know you have to copy and paste your arguments because you can't do that math but don't worry, I don't care so much about that). So I made your argument for you. Still wasn't anywhere close to enough.
No, the lowball is 13.8 trillion(2017-2026) from Friedman.
The high-ball estimate is 32.6 for 2022-2031.
If you compare best performance to worst performance range, Bernie's plan still, by far, shows it is better than the current system.
If you apply a PERT calculation to these estimates and give greater weight to the pessimistic value (making it not a PERT calculation, at all), still shows a much greater favor towards Bernie's plan.
Here's the weighting I gave:
Optimistic: 1
Likely: 3
Pessimistic: 2
Value comes to $32.13 trillion.
Look, I am even being generous with the PERT estimate by giving greater weight to the pessimistic value (includes the additional 8 trillion).
No matter how you cut it up, there's no justification to ignore Bernie's plan. From here, we just need to scale it back just a little bit and increase copays for the most common services. Then implement this M4A plan ASAP.
Again, they literally say within the study its a lowball. Explain why their costs are less the Urban Institute if its a highball. Friedman's BTW wasn't even a study it was an invoice.
__________________ "I killed them, of course. Just as I killed the Guardian. Just as I now kill you."
I readjusted the numbers even including DS0's argument.
The numbers will never work out in disfavor to Bernie's plan. Even pretending it is "lowball" is not honest.
It's just not possible.
None of the estimates are considering the fact that Medicare for All will not proportionally increase government costs because of the reasons I cited: people younger than 44 use exponentially less money on healthcare. They make up 65% of the population but use only 20% of the costs. And the fact that a significant portion of that 20% comes within the first 5 years of their life, and many of them are ALREADY covered under the Medicare.etc systems, the outcome is even better for Bernie's idea than is being let on.
Entertaining arguments like DS0's is only to demonstrate that even the shittiest of shit situations still results in a very terrible argument against Bernie's idea.
snowdragon brought up a good point (but it was not in his favor) about healthcare utilization by age brackets.
Where a study that controls for projected healthcare utilization by age that also controls for the young children who are already using the government funding?
Meaning, a direct proportion is not correct. Needs to be based on actual population age distributions with healthcare utilization.
And then controlled for the young that are already on those healthcare programs.
This is why that $13 trillion figure is probably closer to accurate than the $32.6 figure. But I am playing fairly: using the high-ball figure.
It's time for you to stop. I've destroyed everything you've presented from every angle. Now you're trying to backpeddle and use the "but but...they just might be low-balled figures!"
So? I used a PERT calculation with weight greater towards the highest of highball figures, gave a greater weight to Mercatus' figures, gave the lowest weight of all to the low-ball figures, and the outcome still shows that there's no way at all to justify opposing Bernie's plan. That's not an honest approach as it clearly shows a bias towards the highball figures. But, hey, I was being generous just to make a point that you have no recourse.
When will you acknowledge that there's not good argument to oppose Bernie's plan other than the fact that you want people to continue to unnecessarily die under the US' poor healthcare system?
Before I respond: DDM, question. Why does it matter if healthcare costs are skewed towards the elderly? How is that going to change the amount of money spent? As long as the output stays constant, it doesn't matter what proportion of the population uses the service.
__________________ "I killed them, of course. Just as I killed the Guardian. Just as I now kill you."
Last edited by DarthSkywalker0 on Sep 11th, 2018 at 06:35 PM
I would imagine rising cost with a growing aging population might be a factor somewhere?
eg if more people are entering retiring age over the next 10 years over the previous decade, that means in increase in medical spending as those senior phuckers typically have more health problems than younger people.
KMC Community Forums
The math is that simple.
Sep 11th, 2018 04:53 PM
