www.theglobeandmail.com
Which one?
Usually when someone first enters the race, polling is high. I highly doubt an establishment candidate will win the nomination, just look what happened in 2016
Single payer is a good thing. I'd rather seen more money spent on our own citizens. Honestly love them or hate them, The Young Turks on Youtube make a good case for it.
If it did happen, say hello to a 170k salary with higher taxes on top of that. You can be like European doctors who get ripped off but much worse since you paid like 300k to become a doctor and they paid 0$. 170k sounds fine? Say that when your boss the administrator also makes 170k for working 32 hours (while you work 60) and the NP/PA make 130k. BTW, every public healthcare model in USA and those suggested involve EVEN MORE use of midlevels. You'll be supervising midlevels for life while making a tiny bit more and absorbing 100% of the liability + doing quadruple the paperwork you do now.
www.theglobeandmail.com
The National Post has a conservative spin. Doesn't mean it's bad BUT those reading keep that in mind
Lol single payer in USA would be entirely midlevel run with doctors running around supervising. Check out the VA, NPs do colonoscopies for god sakes. Now put that concept on steroids, and apply it nationwide. And doctors would take around 20-30% paycuts on top of that, at least if you believe Bernie's spokesperson who was trying to minimize those numbers obviously.
Yup. Salaries will drop. I’m still 100% in favor of it.
Go ahead and eye roll, power doesn’t want to loose to a popular system like Medicare for All. It would be an enormous win for the underclass that they know they can afford but desperately don’t want to.
Physician salaries will go down but I couldn’t sleep at night if I thought the income of professionals making up less than a percent of the US population should be prioritized over millions of people getting access to care.
How very noble of you. So will our tuition hikes be fixed also or are you good with essentially indentured servitude because you'll never be able to pay back student loans on 170k (before insane taxes that will need to be put in place to fund this massive system)? So realistically like 100k if that.
How did you come to that $170k figure?
Somebody threw that number out and you answered saying you'd be fine with giving up salary. Oh chill out we all want to fix the system and provide better care, that just isn't the way to do it. Get off your high horse with the specific wording I chose
Wanting universal healthcare in the last western country without it = being on a high horse. Got it, makes sense.
No, the "millions around the world are already in indentured servitude why would you dare compare them to doctors" = high horse.
www.praktischarzt.de
www.nbcnews.com
Why? The government= the most beurocracy anywhere. If anything there would be more bloat
Go staff a free clinic (I would personally) and donate to charity. Don't try to take down everyone with you. And no, salaries are going UP... not down. There was crying about salaries going down 10 years ago, and 5, and 3. And every year it keeps climbing.
How about you drive down the actual costs of care first? And change all the excessive testing done? We have astronomical costs that can be saved and instead used to fund care for more better.
You are wrong, salary will be LESS than 170k. It’s going to suck for doctors even MORE than you think.
Here is a real life example of what happens under a welfare state and it’s not even single payer system:
Germany. Multipayer system with compulsory insurance and private insurance. 74% of healthcare spending is government funded, 26% private.
Now look at how their hospitals will pay you:
TV Ärzte – alle Arzt Tarifverträge 2024 auf einen Blick
Welche TV Ärzte gibt es? Gehälter aller Arzt Tarifverträge im Überblick. TV-Ärzte VKA, TV-Ärzte TdL und Tarife der privaten Klinkverbände.
You can be an attending for THIRTEEN years out and your pay only gets to 120K USD. Their overall taxes will remove over 40% of that too. Your take home pay becomes 70k!! Absolutely horrendous direction to head towards.
Did you know they’re on strike right now for 5% pay increase? Lol
And they work insane hours for the low pay:
“According to a recent survey by the doctors’ union, 40 percent of doctors in German municipal clinics work 49 to 59 hours a week. One in five doctors had even higher weekly averages of 60 to 80 working hours, including all services and overtime.”
If you did some research, that poll you're looking at excluded the responses of voters under 30 for whatever reason. That's is no where near an accurate representation of reality. I will say Biden is climbing, but to say that's it is nonsense. Tell me what happened in 2016 againGo staff a free clinic (I would personally) and donate to charity. Don't try to take down everyone with you. And no, salaries are going UP... not down. There was crying about salaries going down 10 years ago, and 5, and 3. And every year it keeps climbing.
This isn't a country where the talented get held down by society.
How about you drive down the actual costs of care first? And change all the excessive testing done? We have astronomical costs that can be saved and instead used to fund care for more better.
And I'm assuming you haven't ever had a chat with those behind the scenes on this stuff. Their dream is to have 1 doctor supervising like 8 NPs and paying you like 20k more than them. That is your single payer
Single payer will not happen any time soon. Joe Biden is your next nominee and next president. Bernie's down at 11% in all the polls, Biden is almost at 40% in several polls, including one with 15,000 participants. And almost all of congress is still on the sanity boat. Jokes like AOC are 1 of "there like's 3 of them" (quoting Nancy Pelosi) who can yell all they want but it won't change a thing.
Well if we look at the polls conducted 1 year before the primaries (which is where we are now), they actually match up astoundingly close to what the results ended up being:
| Ipsos/Reuters[132] | 825 | 2.5% | December 26–30, 2015 | 57% | 3% | 32% | Wouldn't Vote 8% |
| Ipsos/Reuters[133] | 603 | 4.6% | December 19–23, 2015 | 58% | 4% | 31% | Wouldn't Vote 7% |
| Rasmussen Reports[134] | 546 | 4.5% | December 20–21, 2015 | 46% | 9% | 30% | Other 9% Undecided 7% |
| YouGov/Economist[135] | 565 | 3.1% | December 18–21, 2015 | 53% | 2% | 39% | Other 1% Undecided 4% |
| CNN/ORC[136] | 414 | 5% | December 17–21, 2015 | 50% | 3% | 34% | Someone else 7% None 4% No opinion 1% |
| Emerson College Polling Society[137] | 332 | 5.3% | December 17–20, 2015 | 65% | 2% | 26% | Other 3% Undecided 4% |
| Qunnipiac University[138] | 462 | 2.6% | December 16–20, 2015 | 61% | 2% | 30% | Wouldn't Vote 1% Undecided 6% |
| Fox News[139] | 390 | 3.0% | December 16–17, 2015 | 56% | 2% | 34% | None of the Above 2% Other 1% Undecided 4% |
| Public Policy Polling[140] | 525 | 4.3% | December 16–17, 2015 | 56% | 9% | 28% | Undecided 7% |
| Ipos/Reuters[141] | 760 | 4.0% | December 12–16, 2015 | 58% | 3% | 29% | Wouldn't Vote 10% |
| Morning Consult[142] | 1790 | 2.0% | December 11–15, 2015 | 52% | 2% | 27% | Other 6% Undecided 12% |
| Monmouth University[143] | 374 | 5.1% | December 10–13, 2015 | 59% | 4% | 26% | Other 1% Undecided 8% No One 3% |
| ABC/Washington Post[144] | 377 | 3.5% | December 1–13, 2015 | 59% | 5% | 28% | None 2% Not Voting 2% Other 1% Undecided 4% |
| NBC News/Wall Street Journal[145] | 849 | 3.36% | December 6–9, 2015 | 56% | 4% | 37% | None 2% |
| Hillary Clinton | Bernie Sanders | |
| Home state | New York | Vermont |
|---|---|---|
| Delegate count | 2,842 | 1,865 |
| Contests won | 34 | 23 |
| Popular vote | 16,914,722[a][1] | 13,206,428[a][1] |
| Percentage | 55.2%[a] | 43.1%[a] |
Bernie came from nowhere back then and had NO name recognition. Hillary had the largest name recognition of any population. Not really comparable. I was referring to nominating an establishment candidate when I said that. Let's wait and see I guess
If by nowhere you mean 33% by this equivalent time back then....
You're twisting things. When he announced his run, almost no one knew who he was. He managed to almost close the deficit on her. Different starting points.
No I'm quoting data
Quoting data from wrong points in time. Tell me, what about Bernie Sanders gets under your skin?
If by "wrong points in time" you actually mean "the same amount of time between those polls and the 2016 election as now and the 2020 election"
Try again.
And he has tons of name recognition this time and is sinking. The format of the primaries also hurts him more this time too.
I think an old soviet lover telling doctors he will take away a third of their salaries will do just that, get under their skin.
Fine, we'll wait and see who's rightTry again.
https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/HHP_April2019_RV_topline.pdf
https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Political-Intelligence-4.29.19.pdf
https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us04302019_upaf67.pdf/
I didn't even look at the CNN poll. There's a mountain of data to show that Bernie is sinking and Biden will crush him. I think you need to go ahead and do some real research than wait for media to tell you the polls
And he has tons of name recognition this time and is sinking. The format of the primaries also hurts him more this time too.
I think an old soviet lover telling doctors he will take away a third of their salaries will do just that, get under their skin.
Sigh. All I can say is just you wait. It's gonna be sanders or warren. Biden always starts out stronf in polling and desipates, like he did in 2008
Bernie dropped like 15 points dude. Black people don't like him, simple as that. They like Biden. And young people won't show up, his most reliable demographic.
