So where will the extra $16 trillion come from to pay for Sanders' plan?

[dansolo]

I've read through all of Bernie's tax proposals, and he only accounts for about half of the increased cost for his plan.

For the additional costs, I am using the Blahous paper, since Bernie himself has endorsed their findings.

"The leading current bill to establish single-payer health insurance, the Medicare for All Act
(M4A), would, under conservative estimates, increase federal budget commitments by
approximately $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation (2022–2031),
assuming enactment in 2018"

Here is Bernie's proposals for increasing tax revenue.

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

So where will the rest of the money come from?

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

1. Exactly my thinking. berines day has come and gone. Now w this tax cut, the gop

have a lot of money to spend on messaging, and a built in defense to the bedrock conservative Americans who the party left behind. THIS is exactly what they are going to say to bernies plan...just like they did before....only now the economy is worse than 2016 and they broke the bank. I can hear the floor speeches now...groan.
Theres only one place to get that money. The military budget. The holiest of holies. Good luck w that bc everyone and their mother is too pants shitting afraid to tell the military no. Why? bc somehow you arent a patriot, or you hate your country....but theres a pink elephant in the room...the russian in the oval office. Not too many things less patriotic than that. Go figure i guess. Only cool to be a treasonous bastard if you are the gop. mind numbing.

[Eyeball_Kid]

176. Increase the taxes on the wealthy. That's always been the answer.

Set the marginal tax rate at 70% over a few million bucks. Right now, that money goes to foreign accounts and buy-backs anyway.

[PaulX2]

2. Tax Sugar Grease And Processed Food Like We Should

And subsidize veggies. Make veggies free. You Have To Pay $$$$$$$ If You Want To Be 400 lbs.

Our healthcare costs will drop like lead balloons.

No system can support the 50% of Americans who are fat like me.

Makes sense.

Pretty pay for healthcare when you buy the garbage that makes you sick.

[ehrnst]

91. You do know that the soda tax failed, right?

What majik do you propose for getting those taxes enacted?

And would you eliminate mosqitoes while you're at it?

[Adrahil]

133. Yeah! We should just let them DIIIEEE!! Horrible fatties!!!!!

For fuck's sake....

That's some right-wing rhetoric right there.

Is it fair for economically secure people to pay for poor people when they sometimes waste their money on bullshit?

People are not perfect. They STILL deserve the basic necessities of life.

I mean, you think someone who lives like that doesn't have some medical or psychological issues? You just cut them loose?

[PaulX2]

135. Absolutely Not - I Am Obese And Trying To Diet Every Day - Provide Them / Us With Care

But tax the garbage they eat so they pre pay for their health problems.

Sugar, meat, and grease/oil processed food should be taxed highly to pay for the health problems they cause.

Veggies should be practically free.

If you want to eat garbage you pay for your health care when you buy the garbage that makes you sick.

My solution.

[Adrahil]

136. That's not what I took from your reply there....

I'm a great big fatty too, and I do not object to taxing certain foods that are known to contribute to health problems. I just didn't like the implication that this is a some kind of moral failing on the part of people.

I ABSOLUTELY support the idea of subsidizing cheap veggies and fruits.

[stopbush]

3. It's disappointing that Sanders can't seem to level with people on the costs.

This really bugged me in 2016.

If he had any guts, he would put the real costs out there and force the issue. Let’s talk about what it really costs to provide universal healthcare a la the European model. Let’s see if we can be honest with ourselves. Who knows? We may well decide “yes! That’s the cost, and we accept and support those costs because it’s the right thing to do, even if that means that I personally will take a hit in my disposable income.”

Sanders is doing the worst thing he could do: low-balling the cost, just like a typical politician. What happens when such a program is implemented and the costs suddenly double? Looks like you lied to people, because you did.

[Doodley]

8. US healthcare is the most expensive in the world. Implement a European model and

trillions will be saved. We pay as much as many nations with better healthcare just in our taxes that go toward healthcare, but unlike European nations. we then have to have insurance as well and out of pocket costs. This is a scam. He is not "low-balling the cost." We could have universal healthcare without increasing tax by a single cent.

[stopbush]

14. Not true.

Let’s talk about Medicare for all.

Currently, 100% of workers pay into Medicare. Who uses Medicare? 19% of the population, mostly people over 65. So, if you want to fund Medicare for all through the current payroll deduction system, you would need to increase the tax four-fold to cover 100% of the population, because right now, the money paid in by 100% of workers is only enough to cover 19% of the population.

You currently pay 1.45% on 100% of your earnings to pay Medicare. To cover 100% of people, you would need to pay 7.25% in Medicare tax on 100% of earnings. Couple that with the 6.25% tax you pay for SS and you’re now up to 14% tax on 100% of your earnings, ie: basically double what you now pay for Medicare and SS together.

And, your employer would also have to pay that increase from 1.45% to 7.25% for every employee.

Many Americans would balk at that.

[Doodley]

39. Scrap the overcharging. Scrap the excessive profits. Scrap the insurance scam. Scrap all the

over-medication and pointless treatments that are about making money and the costs will come down, If we are going to keep spending nearly one fifth of GDP on healthcare, then forget it. That is not the plan. Your figures assume nothing will change apart from how it is funded. We need to take back control of costs. The cost of healthcare should be cut in half. It is a scam system with outcomes that are not as good as other developed nations. That needs to change.

[stopbush]

48. Even if one stipulates to your points, none of that will happen at once or overnight.

It will happen incrementally. Costs to switch over will by necessity be front loaded, with savings coming in the out years as technologies and economic situations evolve.

The “everything at once” position will never get out of the starting blocks.

[Doodley]

60. I don't get your resistance to having a more efficient system that means healthcare is

available for all, costs are lower and outcomes are better. Of course it will take time.

[stopbush]

62. Who is being resistent? I am for universal care, but we need to have an HONEST

discussion of the costs and where revenues will come from.

Let’s have the discussion. Let’s discuss the pluses and minuses. But let’s not imagine that universal care is cost-free.

Do not confuse accountability with resistance.

[ehrnst]

140. It took Europe and Canada 70 years to get where it is, and they were starting on a clean slate.

You think it's going to happen in eight years here?

Not likely.

[ehrnst]

141. Indeed. But anger gets more voters, always has.

Any politician that can get people mad at the system - and convince them that he has the magic bullet, if only all these "other" factors didn't thwart him, will get the kind of crowds that rock stars get.

The GOP has understood that for a long time. Now we have our own "green tea party" that feeds off anger and gives nothing realistic in return.

Only promises and excuses.

[ehrnst]

139. The health care delivery system and it's funding are in an economic ecosystem.

You can't "scrap" a huge part of something this large and complicated without ramifications.

We need to take back control of costs.

That's not going to happen at the federal level. Costs are calculated state to state. Maryland - a rather liberal state - has implemented fixed prices on all medical procedures - same for insured, uninsured, Medicare, etc. That step allowed for the absorption of jobs that were lost in the negotiating portion of pricing. Allowing that to unfold over a few years mitigated the damage to the economy.

The cost of healthcare should be cut in half.

Well, that's the thing. Where do you cut? Who do you lay off? You can tell someone who has no job that they'll have cheaper healthcare, but that won't keep them from being very angry.

It is a scam system with outcomes that are not as good as other developed nations.

So you think that cutting costs in half will do that? How?

That needs to change.

Agreed. But how?


My point is that none of this is as simple as some orgs and politicians say it is. I want health care reform, but thrashing around yelling about how it all "needs to change or I'll vote you out" at politicians gets us nowhere without a plan - and the ACA was as close as we've come. We need to support restoring what was cut, and try to make up time that was lost by legislation that kneecapped it.

[rgbecker]

49. But of course, nobody is paying anything for healthcare now?

Employers don't pay insurance premiums for each and every employee? Individuals aren't paying insurance premiums?


-
based premium paid by employers
Revenue raised: $3.9 trillion over ten ye
ars.
Businesses would save over $9,000 in health care costs for the average employee under this
option
In 2016, employers paid an average of
$12,865
in
private health insurance premiums for a
worker with a family of four who makes $50,000 a year.
Under this option, employers would
pay a 7.5 percent payroll tax to help finance Medicare for All
–
just $3,750
–
a savings of more
than $9,000 a year for that
employee.

[stopbush]

57. Thank you for making my point for me when it cones to the 7.5% payroll tax.

But let’s take you example of a “family of four.”

Your example shows an employee with three dependents - spouse and two kids - paying a payroll tax of only 7.5%. Where is the money being put into the system to pay for their three dependents? How is it “fair” for an employee with a family of four to pay the same payroll tax as an individual, but to get four times the coverage as the individual?

You also fail to account for the fact that current Medicare patients pay a monthly premium that averages about $117 a month. If that family of four were put on Medicare for All, wouldn’t all four of those family members have to pay that monthly Medicare premium? That would be a premium of $468 a MONTH for that family of four, and that equates to over $5000 a year in Medicare premiums for that family of four. And, as the employer is no longer involved in providing insurance, there is no incentive for the employer to pick up that $5000 cost, especially when their payroll tax PER EMPLOYEE just went from 1.45% to 7.5%.

[TheFarseer]

53. I don't know if you can just multiply by 4

The folks on Medicare are older people and disabled that require more health care than the average person. Not saying you’re wrong overall. I’d like to see a real study on this. Unfortunately everything has to be politicized to the point where you can’t believe anything.

[stopbush]

61. Older people don't have babies. Do you know what the costs are for having a baby?

Plus, you are talking about insuring people for life, not for the ten to twenty years the average person spends on Medicare. Sure, costs might be higher on a per-year basis for older people, but that needs to be compared to the costs that would be incurred over the length of a person’s life - 70 to 80 years.

And, some costs would initially skyrocket as people who currently avoid doctors because they can’t afford it would now be incentivized to seek medical care for “free.” Of course, that spike in costs would eventually come way down as patients did get care they need and moved to a plan based on preventive care, but we need to acknowledge costs that will occur, not hide our heads in the sand.

[Mariana]

118. And younger people rarely have heart attacks.

Having a baby costs a lot less than having a heart attack, or a stroke, or cancer, or type 2 diabetes, or any number of very serious and expensive health problems that are much more likely to strike older people.

[stopbush]

121. I have borderline type 2 diabetes. My medication costs me around $10 for a 3-month supply.

Not expensive at all.

You know what’s more expensive? Pediatric care.

[VMA131Marine]

56. You would not need to increase Medicare spending, and thus the Medicare tax four-fold

That assumes everyone consumes the same amount of healthcare every year. In reality, the current Medicare population is retirees 65 and above, who have the highest per capita healthcare spending by a wide margin because of all the illnesses associated with old age. Typically, the last few years of life are by far the most expensive.

But, even if your assumption were true, most people would be paying far less in new Medicare taxes than they currently do for inadequate insurance with horrendous deductibles. My company health plan has a $7500 annual deductible. The total cost of my health plan with what I pay and my company's contribution is around $18,000 for a family of three. So that's $25,000 spent before I get any benefit from my health plan other than negotiated rates and free annual check-ups. I would gladly pay 4 times more in Medicare tax if that all went away.

[brush]

66. And don't forget Medicare only pays 80%. What about the other 20%?

You are right. We have to be honest about the figures or it goes nowhere.

Research has to be done. I remember reading a few years back that American autos cost $1500 more because of the cost of healthcare that the car manufacturers pay for workers. And that's just the auto industry.

Thorough research can find all those figures, outline them clearly and this actual info can be presented to the people and make single payer palatable to the people and the corporations who will save big dollars.

And of course the 20% Medicare doesn't pay has to be accounted for.

[Humanist_Activist]

67. Hold on, let me see, so that would increase my FICA tax by about 40 bucks a month...

versus paying 180 dollars a month right now for private health insurance, I'll take it.

ON EDIT: This is a rough estimate, I'm going to look at a paycheck and see the true costs, hold on.

ON EDIT2: Actually it would save me on average about 40 bucks a month, not increase the costs by that much.

[stopbush]

75. Did you calculate in the $134 a month you'd be paying in Medicare premiums?

Doubt it.

[Humanist_Activist]

78. Actually, I would be paying into Medicare about 150 dollars a month, versus...

the 167 I pay now for my insurance premium now. The initial post was off the top of my head, I posted figures from my most recent check here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211039244'

ON EDIT: You are welcome to try to refute my figures, its based on calculations from your post.

[stopbush]

81. The average monthly Medicare premium is $134 for 2018.

BTW - are you single? Because if you have a spouse and/or kids, you would need to pay $134 a month for each of those patients in addition to yourself were they on Medicare.

[Humanist_Activist]

86. I would be paying well over double my premium if my fiancee were on my insurance...

and it would pay out less and cost more than the Medicare she's currently on, and yes she pays that premium, it comes straight out of her SS check.

[ehrnst]

154. And Medicare for All promises WAY more than Medicare does, & will as such, cost more than Medicare.

Most countries use a combination of payers, and private entities to deliver care, because sometimes you contract out things that the federal government isn't set up to do.

[stopbush]

161. Another variable will be the mandate that all workers at every age level

will be asked to pay a monthly MfA premium. It might be on a sliding scale based on income, but it will still mean that young workers will no longer have to option to forego insurance the way they could with employer-provided health insurance. That might be a good thing in some respects, but not so good in others.

BTW - you’ll never see any of this discussed by Sanders or those who are under the delusion that Medicare for All will be a super-cheap way to provide Cadillac insurance to all.

[ehrnst]

162. I know. I think it's a combination of being overly confident of one's skills in economics

and not really ever expecting to have to actually make good on it, because one will be thwarted by "corrupt corporatists" and "establishment Democrats" who "hate the very idea" of universal health care...

[melman]

163. Cafe Hayek?

image url for that cartoon:

http://cafehayek.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/miracle_cartoon dot jpg

Interesting. Not surprising mind you. But still interesting.

[ehrnst]

189. It was the clearest image I found in a quick google search of images.

Not familiar with Cafe Hayek, but if the URL of the image makes you unhappy, then here are a few alternates:




https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdhuOvn18J1yYz_Wy0t0ecyp0Jd5JFdnZw2hZRAQy_Vv3lALOgzw


?w=1176



Righwingers on FB get pissy whenever there is a 'pbs' in the url of an image that they don't like, trying to make the url of the image the issue, no matter how irrelevant

[melman]

193. Wow

The clearest image just happened to come from Donald J. Boudreaux's Cafe Hayek..

the same Donald J. Boudreaux who is co-director of the Program on the American Economy and Globalization at the Mercatus Center.


That is a hell of a coincidence!

[ehrnst]

194. I guess if you need to see something nefarious, you will.

Even in a URL for an image.

Conspiracy theories really grab hold of some people, I guess.

[melman]

195. As I said

The Libertarian blog is certainly not a surprise, nor do I think it would be to anyone reading these threads.


Just interesting is all.

[Cary]

204. Oh good, a guilt by association!

It's so nice of you to mix up classical logical fallacies every now and then.

[Eliot Rosewater]

203. AT a time when the ONLY conversation should be ELECT Democrats NO MATTER WHAT

we have some trotting out issues to muddy the waters for the election.

Weird that.

[Cary]

111. The group covered by Medicare has the highest medical expense

[stopbush]

114. So? That's only one factor in the larger picture.

[Cary]

117. So I question your extrapolation

[TheRealNorth]

155. You're math is oversimplified

I don't think multiplying the costs of older adults by the ratio of people under 65 to those over is an accurate way to come up with the Medicare costs for all. End of life costs (which the majority of adults reach after 65) account for a lot of the expenses in our medical system.

[scarytomcat]

164. but you and your employer would not be paying insurance premiums

which is more. Insurance rates are going up. You probably will save money.

[stopbush]

165. Not accurate. Employer and employee will both pay higher FICA taxes

and employees will pay a monthly Medicare premium.

There will be winners and losers: those who currently have a matching premium copay of over $300 a month will be winners. Those employees who have a $0 premium (it is paid by their employer) will be losers.

[scarytomcat]

175. we don't know yet how it would be paid for

legislation has not been passed
corporations may have to pay for most of it
If you don't have insurance now it could cost you something but it would save us for paying for them.

[stopbush]

178. That's my point about the plan Sanders has put forward.

He doesn’t say how it will be paid for. He tells us only how he would get 50% of the way there.

Unfortunately - and as exhibited by many of the posts in this thread - people take that 50% as being 100%. It isn’t.

[stopbush]

52. When you say we pay as much as nations with better healthcare

you are talking about the money we spend out of pocket in premiums and costs for services. Those costs are covered by taxes in countries that have a universal care system.

The point is that costs still exist. If you eliminate the premiums and copays, you eliminate a revenue stream that currently helps pay the costs. Where will that money come from? Why, from increased taxes, just like it does in countries that have a more-socialized system than the USA.

You will never find a way to offset the loss of revenue through “savings,” unless you expect doctors to work for minimum wage and for drug companies to become non-profit charities.

[Doodley]

58. We pay more in taxes alone than the UK pays in TOTAL for healthvare. Doctors in the UK are

not on minimum wage, What is unique about America that means we pay double in TOTAL (taxes and insurance/out of pocket) compared to other nations with better outcomes? The only difference is a corrupt political system and mainstream propaganda that is incapable of reporting basic facts.

[stopbush]

63. Do you have a source for those claims?

I’m interested in reading about your claims.

[ehrnst]

94. You know how long it took for any "European model" - whichever of the of the several

to get where they are now?

And what things were like when they started out 60-70 years ago? You know, Social Security didn't start out covering what it does now when it got started over 70. It gradually expanded as life expectancies and the economy expanded. It didn't start out paying out to kids when a parent dies, and the health care systems that got started back then didn't cover what they do now.

And that if they started today, with the system that we have, which has baked into the economy for 70 years, you really think that they could establish that in eight years? With no disruption to the health care delivery system, withoutscores of rural hospitals shutting down?

And with a rural population in this country that is larger than the whole population of many countries in Europe - along with Australia, whose population is not only less but 80% urban (making health care delivery much easier for the cities - but if you are out in the wilds, well, you're out of luck.) The US is 65% urban, making the higher cost of rural health care delivery neccessary for more people...

Can you also specify what "the" "European model" is?

https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2011/may/11/european-healthcare-services-belgium-france-germany-sweden

We could have universal healthcare without increasing tax by a single cent.

What kind of Universal Health Care would not "increase tax by a single cent" - and I assume you are talking about all of the following - payroll tax, business tax, sales tax, state income tax, property tax, state and federal income tax?

Where is this plan, and can it also abolish mosquitoes?

[George II]

160. Which European model should be used?

Any European countries with 320 millon people and 3000 miles coast to coast?

[DFW]

12. "European style health insurance" is a myth anyway

Each country does it differently. In Germany we have several hundred thousand that fall through the cracks and have no health insurance at all (among the poorest, of course--my wife is a German social worker, had to deal with these people every day). This is tiny compared to the USA, of course, but it's a bureaucratic swamp, with a rigid class system of health care. About 10-15% maybe have first class and the rest have second class. First class ("privat" ) means you get taken right away, single rooms at hospitals if available, and you pay up front and submit the bill to your insurance carrier later. Second class ("Kassenpatienten" )means they take you when it suits their schedule. If I had been that, I would have died years ago. I asked for a quote, since my employer is in the USA. I was quoted €2500 a month, or about $35,000 a year.

[stopbush]

13. I know that. I used a shorthand. So sue me.

[DFW]

15. That's not a problem

The problem is that many people take you literally. Some actually believe that in Europe, we all live in some kind of paradise where everything is free (Europe being the Valley of the Shmoon and all) and successful people are punished for their wealth to the point that they pay 185% of their income in taxes (or at least half that), and justice is therefore done.

[LanternWaste]

51. Is that simply a concern born of guesswork?

"The problem is that many people take you literally"

Is that simply a concern born of guesswork?
Or is there a measurable, tested problem in this regards stalling the national discussion, and if so, what evidence supports it as such?

[ehrnst]

97. Remember "You can keep your health care policy?"

Also, the "Medicare for All" slapped on single payer, is good marketing, but what's in the bill is different that what Americans think it is...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/voters-who-like-medicare-for-all-may-not-like-single-payer.html


That can and will come back to bite whoever is promoting it.

[DFW]

115. Not my concern. Yours, apparently.

From Sen. Sanders' Facebook page: "If Germany can provide a free college education for everyone, why can't the US?"

Not everyone is allowed to go to college in Germany--obviously, you know of their "numerus clausus," so we do NOT provide a college education for everyone, period. It is a brutally Darwinian system that might have excluded one of my daughters from a college level education at all. Instead, I was able to provide for her to go to college in the USA (and no, it wasn't free, but at last she got to study, and after 4 years, she called me asking about a strange English word she didn't recognize, namely "valedictorian&quot . And it is not "free" in Germany, even for those who do get to go. I defy you to find one German professor who teaches or lectures without remuneration, one custodian who works for no salary, one utility that provides water and electricity to any Universität in Germany without compensation. The costs are more equitably spread, that's all. As with the USA, there are plenty of university graduates driving taxis an waiting on tables.

Man, we have some REALLY angry people on here. Are you sure you have the right board? Talk about streitsüchtig........

As it appears only to be an obsession of a small group more interested in making noise than joining a search for a realistic solution to the dilemma of costs of certain services in the USA, I'd say that the only stalling of the national discussion back stateside seems to be the staunch inflexible positions on either extreme of the political spectrum. "Nobody's right if everyboy's wrong" hasn't lost any validity in 50+ years.

[ehrnst]

150. I'm expecting to here Lugenpresse! any minute now. (nt)

[ehrnst]

96. Yep. Words matter. Remember "You can keep your health care policy?"

It was comforting and a simple reply when he said it, but Obama had to apologize for it after it was used by the GOP to bludgeon his credibility on health care reform.

I still hear right wingers throw it up when someone points out a Trump lie - "But you can keep your health care policy...."

[DFW]

116. Oh, yes. The extremist right adores whataboutism.

They love compensating for their own empty, baseless talking points with pointing to years-old phrases that refer not only aspirations of Obama or Clinton, but aspirations that could have been realized had they not insisted on making sure the goals were unfulfilled, and then whining about how their proposals were failures.

[SkyDancer]

17. And

you pay no co-pays, have doctors show up to the scenes of accidents (Notarzt), aren't having to file bankruptcy over medical bills, have no co-pays and emergency rooms like we have in America don't exist!

The German system runs absolute circles around the system in the United States. I'd say it laps it.

[DFW]

33. There is no such thing as a "German system"

"Systems" would be more accurate. "Notärtzte" are available in large cities and transport hubs, just like paramedics, and co-pays do exist for some (not all) treatments. Their first class-second class system dooms many to an early death due to the waiting time-often months for second class-to see a doctor. Emergency rooms absolutely do exist as in the States. I have taken family members to them on various occasions. "Notaufnahme," as long as we are using local terms. I don't know what part of Germany you live in, but in NRW, where I live, that's the reality.

If you have a catastrophic disease, like my wife did, AND are a German citizen with insurance, then Germany is absolutely the better place to be if you are not wealthy. If you have the money, there is no difference in care quality, though most treatments are cheaper in Germany. In the five years between the time my wife was mobbed out of her job and the time she turned 65, I had to jump in for her to the tune of around €500.00 a month for her health insurance or she would have had none. Since what we have there is an elaborate patchwork quilt of various systems, to say that we have "a" system is misleading, egal wie gut du die Sprache beherrschst.

[Doodley]

40. And my wife's parents were bankrupted by the American heathcare system. My wife would be

dead if I didn't have money to pay for her surgery. People die everyday in the American system because they have poor healthcare access.

I am originally from the UK. I had private insurance, similar to what you talk about. I stayed in a hospital that was like a hotel and had a short waiting time.

What is striking is the health of the people, the longevity, the infant mortality, the health outcomes - better in Europe than in USA, but Americans are paying far more. It is a scam.

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. It's not 16 trillion extra, it's 2 trillion less over 10 years

The 16 trillion extra is on govt. expenses, and doesn't include savings to citizens and employers from not having to pay premiums, copays and deductibles, resulting in an overall net reduction of $2 trillion in overall healthcare spending nationwide, and EVERYONE IS COVERED, EQUALLY. No "Cadillac" plans, vs. gold, silver, bronze or tin plans.

So, yes, taxes may go up ( should go way up on the 1%), but total out of pocket costs will go way down, as no third party insurance company profits, shareholder dividends/profits, CEO multimillion bonuses or excessive administrative costs will be involved .

And, they could always cut the defense budget in half (except for SPACE FORCE!, which should launch anyone named Trump into permanent Earth orbit on the new SPACE FORCE! Space base)

[groundloop]

45. B-I-N-G-O --------- WE HAVE A WINNER !!!!!!!!!!!!

When talking about healthcare costs we must look at the overall picture. The fact is that we have a much more expensive (and less effective) system than countries with 'universal' healthcare, as a percentage of GDP our system is about 50% more costly. Yes, taxes will go up but that will be more than offset by reductions in employer contributions, out of pocket expenses, and reduced cost. Our current health insurance system requires making a profit to satisfy shareholders and to pay huge executive salaries and bonuses, health insurance provided by the government won't have to make a profit to stay afloat.

About fifteen years ago someone I knew was involved in contract negotiations between the UAW and General Motors. One of the sticking points was the cost of health insurance, General Motors claimed that they couldn't compete with automotive companies from countries which had government funded healthcare. Given this you'd think that corporations would be leading the charge for a government based health insurance system.

[TexasBushwhacker]

64. Not to mention, with EVERYONE covered and getting proper medical care

People will get healthier and costs will go down. Chronic diseases like diabetes and high blood pressure will be discovered earlier and managed properly. Cancer screenings will catch cancers earlier, when they are more likely to be curable at a lower cost. Pregnant women will get proper prenatal care meaning fewer premature and low birth weight babies. Any addict who wants to go to rehab will be able to. Women who don't want to get pregnant will be able to get highly effective birth control like IUDs and birth control implants. That means fewer unplanned pregnancies and babies, who carry their own healthcare costs. Better healthcare will mean fewer people becoming disabled or dying prematurely because of their health issues. That means more people staying in the workforce and PAYING TAXES instead of receiving SSDI and SSI, or their survivors receiving benefits.

Costs may be higher up front, but I predict that they will go down, per capita, over time. Then there's the improvement in quality of life overall. That is priceless.

[forthemiddle]

102. How does M4A pay for OB/Prenatal and Pediatric Care?

Does the bill being proposed address that?
Because at this time neither of those extremely expensive items are covered.
Also at this point in time, the Medicare people buy into (Part B), is outpatient only, so how does the inpatient hospitalization get covered?
No prescriptions, no vision, no dental. So I have to imagine that there will be extra add on products for everything else?

[ehrnst]

142. That is what the mandate was supposed to accomplish. Laying the groundwork.

And the GOP was able to kneecap Medicaid expansion. And because some of the up front costs were higher, the GOP was able to convince people that the ACA failed. Do you have any contingencies for that?

Women who don't want to get pregnant will be able to get highly effective birth control like IUDs and birth control implants.

Not if the Hyde Amendment isn't overturned - IUDs are considered by many to be abortifacients, and no federal funds can go to elective abortion.

Incremental expansion of the ACA is what Hillary was planning. And she was right to do so. She was honest and right when she said "Single payer isn't going to happen." Not in our lifetimes.

[ehrnst]

100. "And, they could always cut the defense budget in half "

And "they" could also abolish gas stations and put hydrogen cells on every car, house and business, and "they could" also put high speed trains all over the country, just as easily. For now that's just talk, and not very realistic talk - but hey - as long as its just on paper, which is where M4A is, anything is possible, right?

So, yes, taxes may go up

Green Mountain Care estimated taxes would increase by 11%. And Sanders refuses to discuss what could have been done differently or what lessons were learned - which doesn't increase one's confidence that he either knows about the mechanisms that failed, or is willing to learn from failure. This is a state that elected Bernie - if there was ever a political will to implement Berniecare, it's in Vermont.

but total out of pocket costs will go way down,

How quickly? Quickly enough to reopen the rural hospitals that will shut down?

No "Cadillac" plans, vs. gold, silver, bronze or tin plans.

Actually, the plan that M4All proposes looks far more like a Gold plan than it does Medicare. So that's gonna have to be changed. It's lovely to promise the moon when you know that realistically, you'll never have to deliver. Great sales tactic.

Medicare is a very stripped down plan, compared to the plans that Americans on private insurance are used to.

[ehrnst]

151. "Cutting the defense budget in half"

What magic wand will do that?

And economics is not a puzzle where you pull out one piece, and none of the others is affected.

It's an ecosystem. If you cut the defense budget in half, thousands of jobs vanish. Just like taking out a wolf population - you might be saving your livestock, but the ripple effects on the rest of the ecosystem can be devastating.

I'm not just talking about the evil Halliburton jobs, or weapons manufacturers - I'm talking about the lunch places, the small businesses that depend on the military - the ones around the base: printers, couriers, coffee supply delivery, and the contractors - the technical writers, the janitorial staff, the administrative people, the teachers in the base schools.

You can't just shut that off all at once. You have to phase things out, over a period of years in order to mitigate the damage to the local economies surrounding the military. You might say that they were wrong to make money off the war machine, but these people built livelihoods and businesses that don't involve killing anyone.

That loss of local jobs has to be included in the costs of implementation if you cut the military budget that steeply. And no one has talked about how that would work.

[Fiendish Thingy]

166. Of course it would have to be phased in

But the money's there- I would would advocate for a "swords into plough shares" project, transitioning defense dollars into infrastructure and healthcare dollars.

[NoSmoke]

5. What's the big deal?

If all the other G7 countries can afford it why not the US?? As pointed out already, one's taxes may increase but that would be offset by not having to pay for health insurance premiums, deductibles etc. Overall a more efficient system with coverage for all.

[GulfCoast66]

9. The big deal?

The tax increase would be on those who have good health insurance. Like me. And my family.

I am happy to pey more for universal care. But most Americans who feel they have good health care?

The first thing we have to be is honest. For a good portion of America, especially those who reliably vote, taxes would go up. Dramatically. And not many people would trade a bird in hand for 2 in the bush.

Which is why I favor using the ACA as a tool to work for a plan like France has. Which is not Medicare for all. But still one of the top 5 plans in the world. Read about it. Much more likely to win approval of the American people than one single huge plan.

As we know, health care is complicated. Beware those offering a simple fix to a complicated problem.

[Doodley]

11. You are wrong. Taxes would not increase dramatically. The UK spends about HALF per person

on healthcare in total compared to USA (taxes and private). It has universal healthcare. Life expectancy is two years more in UK, infant mortality and many measures are much better.

[Lee-Lee]

24. I don't think the U.K. model is a good one to use

It’s essentially broke and a lot of people are waiting a long time for basic services there.

[Doodley]

36. I agree, but it isn't "broke" and health outcomes are better than in America.

And millions of people are not without healthcare. The NHS is far from perfect, but it is better than a system where millions don't even have healthcare, people die two years younger, mothers die giving birth and infant mortality is relatively high.

I lived most my life in the UK. What I see now I am in America is a scam system that manipulates the people, that is focused on making money, that overcharges, over-medicates and provides too much pointless treatment to ensure repeat business. Drugs are not a consumer product to be sold on TV. They are there to save or improve lives. I am disgusted by the US healthcare system that costs so much that many have no healthcare and many have to chose between going to the doctor or feeding their children.

My wife just got a CT scan. It was going to cost $4000. We decided to shop around and got it for $395. It would cost us more that the $395 we paid, even if we had insurance. A friend had surgery and on the itemized bill was charged $54 for a pencil. I am sick of being scammed. Give me a system that is about care, rather than about making money. In other words, a system that is about the basic values that people in other nations take for granted.

[Lee-Lee]

37. Things like infant mortality rates are not good benchmarks

Because the USA uses a much broader definition of live birth than most European nation, and therefore records more infant deaths. Many circumstances in the USA that count as an infant death, such as a child born with bad birth defects not expected to live, count as a live birth if the child has a heartbeat and takes one breath. In the U.K. and most other European countries they use a different standard that doesn’t record that as a live birth.

As a result not only are infant mortality rates skewed and you can’t reliably compare them but it also impacts statistics for life expectancies because those deaths count to shorted stats in the US while they don’t impact other countries.

Is hard to find stats that compare countries actually using the same criteria to form the numbers.

[Doodley]

42. Are you trying to argue that America is getting value for money out of its healthcare

system and we can ignore all the statistics that show otherwise?

[Lee-Lee]

47. No

What I’m arguing is that when you can find studies that actually compare nations using an equal set of metrics our outcomes are typically comperable. Better in some areas, worse in others.

What is vastly different is that we achieve a mostly equal set of outcomes but in a very disparate way. Some people in the USA have very poor outcomes because they have really poor access to care. Some people have much better outcomes becuse they have much better acces to care.

But what something like going to the NHS won’t do is raise all Americans to the level of care like those with the best access get. Rather it will make everyone meet somewhere in the middle. Those with poor access will see what they have improved. Those with great access will see the standard of care they enjoy lowered. But everyone will be about equal.

So similar overall outcomes for society as a whole in terms of health care outcomes. But with the folks on the edges of getting the worst care and outcomes and on the upper edge of the best will be pushed to the middle.

And that’s the hard sell- taking the country to an equal outcome and access system means that 50% or so of people will likely see a reduction in quality and acccess to care in order to make sure the lower 50% sees an increase to that middle. Now while the people close to that middle ground won’t notice a huge impact, the people with the top 30-35% of access will see what they have access to reduced.

And that’s going to be a hard sell, to them.

But I would agree it’s worth that cost to them to increase access and care for the bottom 30-35% and bring everyone to an equal playing field and eliminate disparities.

But don’t try and sell it as something that’s going to make everyone’s care better or cause any significant changes in overall outcomes, because it’s not likely to. It will just bring us all into a roughly even playing field.

[CanSocDem]

44. Well said.

"...America is a scam system that manipulates the people, that is focused on making money, that overcharges, over-medicates and provides too much pointless treatment to ensure repeat business. Drugs are not a consumer product to be sold on TV."

That is it in a nutshell. It never ceases to amaze me that there are still Americans 'seemingly committed' to the notion of Public Health, that defend vociferously every free-market scam that comes via TV and slams well designed public health systems usually because they have "the INSURANCE".

[NoSmoke]

65. May be but keep in mind

that a lot of Americans don't "wait a long time" for health services, they wait for-ever because they can't afford it.

Certainly there can be long wait times in Canada for elective medical procedures (urgent cases are attended to very quickly; I should know as I've had one and know what happens to others). An example would be hip replacement surgery - have an arthritic hip condition which is painful and causes moderate loss in mobility and you will probably wait longer than you would like but break a hip and you are attended to v quickly especially if elderly (my mother had that happen twice).

My point is, in a single payer system, the overall level of service generally relates fairly closely to the amount of funding government (i.e. the single payer) is willing to put into it. In Canada that decision is based generally on need vs tax levels. If the US or state governments spent the total amount now spent by government plus individual and employer payments on a single payer system, the US would likely have the best medical care available in the world for all its citizens.

Actually I'm a bit surprised that US employers aren't more supportive of single payer because it would reduce or maybe eliminate their health care insurance payments.

[Lee-Lee]

69. Much of that is what I posted above

There are people now in the US with great access, and people with poor to no access.

A Medicare for all plan would move everyone to around the same level. There will be people who gain better access and care. And there will be people who see reduced access and worse costs as well.

The hard part is selling to those above the average the nation that they need to accept a leveling of the playing field to make it more just for everyone.

That’s a hard sell. And many people act like it won’t be that way when trying to sell any of the universal plans, but instead try and pitch it like everyone is going to get the equivalent to what the best access is now. But that is a dangerous path, because when those promises don’t come true what do you do then?

[GulfCoast66]

35. So taxes are less in the UK?

And I get your point. But you make it wrong. Total financial outlays would decrease but taxes would indeed have to increase. Dramatically. And there is the rub. So many Americans get their care from their employer. They do not pay out of pocket for most of their care. If we go to a government run plan, there will have to be a way to tax the employer rather than the citizen. Otherwise it will be a huge boon to employers and requires a huge tax hike on the average person.

[Doodley]

38. Taxes that go toward healthcare in the UK are less than taxes that go toward healthcare

in USA. What more do you need to know? Scrap the insurance scam. Scrap the rip-off overcharging, excessive profits and pointless over-treatment and over-medication and you could still lower taxes.

[GulfCoast66]

122. The only taxes I pay for health care is what I pay for Medicare

What taxes are you speaking of?

I agree about removing profit from health care. But expanding Medicare is the worse way to do so.

The French and German systems, while very different are miles ahead of the England system. Of course they are all better than ours.

Since the French system keeps some aspects of an employer based system I think it will be a much easier sell. Which is why the French did it.

Please do not mistake a difference in favored method with a difference in goals. Universal Health Care is a necessity.

We can use the ACA to get us where we kneed to be. Combined with insisting that insurance be non profit. Which is can be.

[Doodley]

206. Are you saying your taxes don't help to pay for Medicare AND Medicaid? Your taxes go towards

governmental spending on healthcare. Including local and state government, American taxes fund well over a trillion dollars in total healthcare spending, including Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and Veteran healthcare.

Then you have another couple of hundred billion in different tax subsidies that the government must fund.

You are paying for all of this through your taxes.

Then you have all the unpaid healthcare bills, in which those paying out-of-pocket, or those paying deductibles or the uninsured portion do not pay. Who do you think picks up the tab? We all do, because the hospitals have to make up the shortfall by raising prices across the board.

[Autumn]

207. We all pay taxes for the subsidies that are paid to private companies

who provide coverage for people under the ACA. That's quite a chunk these private companies get. I'm of the opinion that government can do it better.

[ehrnst]

191. The UK has a much smaller population, and have been tweaking and adjusting

the system for 70 years.

Not so much here in the U.S.

[Doodley]

205. Ever heard of economy of scale? Are you arguing against a system

that costs less, cuts out insurance company profits, has better outcomes, and ensures nobody ever has to pay out of pocket?

[ehrnst]

138. We are not the UK.

First, it's easier to keep costs down than it is to slash them.

Second - they've been developing this for 70 years. They didn't start out with what they have now - much like our own Social Security.

Third - It's one thing to build a system from scratch than it is to upend a system that is 60 years old - no matter how bad that system may be. One way of looking at it: Towns in the Midwest (that were laid out after the Louisiana Purchase) were planned and laid out in grids. It's much easier to navigate, and to get first responders where they need to be. Road maintenance is easier and less expensive, due to fewer curvy roads, easier to plow, etc. If someone said, "Let's do this in Boston! Chicago has it! Why can't we have that here?" You would understand know the obstacles to "having what Chicago has."

There will be an enormous cost to demolish and rebuild the health care funding system, especially in just 8 years like Sanders claims. If you think that slashing physicians' pay, nurses' pay and other medical professionals pay will not be met with huge resistance, you are sadly mistaken - it's easier to hold costs down than to slash them.

The most politically realistic way forward is to incrementally expand the ACA - let people buy into Medicare at 55 for more than they would at 65, but less than a private plan. Let that settle out for a few years to become popular and work out the kinks in the expansion. Then you expand coverage to all children up to 18. Let that settle out for a few years to become popular and work out the kinks in the expansion.

Fourth - We are a much larger country than the UK, with a much more diverse population. They also have gotten used to the health care there. I lived in the UK, and I was grateful to have health care, as an uninsured student. The little clinic in the neighborhood where I want was a bit shabby - more like a DMV than a private doctor's office in the U.S. People in the U.S. have very different expectations, and that has to be dealt with. If people who have private insurance now (which is the majority of citizens) think that going to the doctor will be anything like going to the DMV, and you know that the GOP will tell them that, "Government run health care" will go no further.

That is what Hillary was proposing. And she was right - single payer isn't going to happen. Not in our lifetime. Canada didn't go federally single payer until all the provinces had their own universal health care systems in place, then a liberal adminstration was elected and they added a federal layer to them. It took nearly 20 years for that to happen, and Green Mountain Care, Coloradocare and California single payer have all failed to get off the ground, so we haven't even started down the road Canada took to get to where it is.

We had a chance to start back in '72. Ted Kennedy took a single payer plan to Nixon. Nixon wanted a compromise. Ted was encouraged by his colleagues to turn down any compromise. Kennedy said it was one of the great regrets of his career. He thought that if he had reached a compromise, we might be way closer to what Canada has by now.

I loved my health care in the UK. And I think that people just don't understand the enormous differences between countries that started 70 years ago from scratch, and the US, with it's system of tangled roads. I wish it was different, but we don't have time to waste on this. We need to get the ACA - which is the furthest down the road we have ever been to UHC -back on track.

[SkyDancer]

20. So you're basically saying

"I got mine, fuck you!" Where have we heard that before?

Taxes would go up however the savings would be dramatic. People would be paying less under single payer than they would in out of pocket costs. Adios deductibles and monthly premiums!

Until the for-profit system is completely abolished in this country, our system will continue to suck and people will continue to die.

Beware those trying to reinvent the wheel when fixes already exist and proof is provided by what other countries can do. Follow the money. It often times leads back to the health care lobby & big pharma lobby.

[GulfCoast66]

34. You obviously did not read my reply carefully

I would gladly pay more taxes for universal care if for no other reason than I may not be as fortunate as I am today. I made the point that a large portion of voting Americans will not. And certainly if you tell them you have a great NEW government program for them and all they have to do is give up their current plan. They will give you a ‘fuck no’.

Medicare for all is about the worse way we could do it because it will never win support and there are better systems. Especially when there nations that do it well with various different systems. They all have the government guaranteeing care but many of them do not exclude the employer role and most importantly the working of the program is not run by federal employees.

I think all democrats should support universal care. But too many on DU are trying to make support for mediocre for all a litmus test. That is self defeating.

[ehrnst]

70. "It often times leads back to the health care lobby & big pharma lobby."

So you're basically saying that anyone who disagrees in any way on any point that Senator Sanders makes concerning anything to do with health care is most likely a "shill for big pharma and/or big health care."

Because apparently Senator Sanders is one with and the same as M4A so one can't comment on one without making it a comment on the other, and when one is the only "moral and honest" politician that ever graced capitol hill, any dissent with said politician whatsoever could be understood as an "attack" on "morality, people without healthcare, and could only come from nefarious sources."

Even pointing out that other countries took 60-70 years to get to where they are now, started in a different era and followed and adjusted along side the expansion of medical science and costs, and did not start out as a retrofit of an existing system that was 70 years old makes what they have different than anything that we could do in 8 years is definitely nefarious, and only indicates a resentment against poor people, and a hatred of universal health care.

Did I miss anything?

[SkyDancer]

73. It does

Take a look at the politicians who oppose single payer, now take a good look at where the money comes from. Yup yup, fun stuff!

I'll keep supporting the guy who is out there working his ass off for poor and sick people and anyone else who does so as well.

Hopefully you will as well

[ehrnst]

76. I'm supporting evidence based policies, thanks!

I support Democratic politicians who are working their asses off - effectively - for poor and sick people, and those whose obstacles to the American dream are dismissed as "identity politics" by others.

I support results over promises, and Democrats like Hillary Clinton were among the best at doing that. Humble, honest, and not afraid to be "overprepared," or to consult experts, and change her mind when she got new data. A genuine, smart public servant.

I am proud to be a Democrat. I just wish that others weren't threatened by the party that truly is fighting for the common man and woman. I won't latch onto dogma, or a cult of personality because that gets in the way of learning, and coming up with multiple strategies for progress. I guess I've always been an independent thinker, and approach things too rationally to get caught up in political fundamentalism, which is holding on to something no matter what new data comes along - however comforting that might be

Politicians are human, after all, no matter how infallible they might believe they are. Old school authority figures that demand fealty and forbid dissent never did sit well with me, no matter how 'charismatic' they might be in front of crowds of people who never see what the old school domineering types are like in a room full of other people trying to do good.

[SkyDancer]

82. Hey that's great! I do too!

[ehrnst]

89. Then you should share that side of you more often!

Don't be shy!

[SkyDancer]

92. I share it a lot

You should perhaps too! Fighting for the poor, sick, elderly and unfortunate is important stuff.

Bernie isn't the enemy.

[ehrnst]

103. I didn't say he was.

And what leads you to say that I don't currently "Fight for the poor, sick, elderly and unfortunate?"

That's rude. And just as pointless as portraying any dissent from Sanders's utterances as "treating him like an enemy."

But that's the side that we've seen for a long, long time. Sad.

You know where that gets you, time and time again, right? You can't keep that boxed up very long, apparently.

[Cha]

169. LOL!@ehrnst!

[George II]

71. Speaking of reinventing.

[ehrnst]

80. ......

[Hortensis]

185. IT IS NOT TIME. It is so bad a time to argue

this issue that I seriously wonder how many enemy agents come here to push it. Not IF, but how many.

Everyone should wonder how it is that when we all want universal healthcare, with NO "fuck yous I've got mines" here, became such a divisive wedge that hostile accusations like that are common?

Intelligent, good minded people committed to expanding healthcare to all didn't create this.

COUNTDOWN TO TAKING CONGRESS OR LOSING ALL GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE: 72 days!

[SkyDancer]

187. IT IS THE TIME

More now than ever! It's damn well enough with people dying in this country because "OMG shiny object is more important!"

That has enabled the deaths of 100s of 1000s through the years. ENOUGH.

[ehrnst]

188. I think you are naming the wrong thing the "shiny object" here.

Last edited Mon Aug 27, 2018, 04:23 PM - Edit history (1)

That has enabled the deaths of 100s of 1000s through the years.

The purists that insisted on the shiny object of "Single Payer or bust" may be the thing that caused those deaths from people being uninsured. I can't understand why you would want that repeated.

Asked about his greatest regret as a legislator, Ted Kennedy would usually cite his refusal to cut a deal with Richard Nixon on health care.

It was back in 1971 and President Nixon was concerned that he would once again have to face a Kennedy in the next year's election -- in this case a Kennedy with a proposal to extend health care to all Americans. Feeling the need to offer an alternative, Nixon asked Congress to require for the first time that all companies provide a health plan for their employees, with federal subsidies for low-income workers. Nixon was particularly intrigued by a new idea called health maintenance organizations, which held the promise of providing high-quality care at lower prices by relying on salaried physicians to manage and coordinate patient care.

At first, Kennedy rejected Nixon's proposal as nothing more than a bonanza for the insurance industry that would create a two-class system of health care in America. But after Nixon won reelection, Kennedy began a series of secret negotiations with the White House that almost led to a public agreement. In the end, Nixon backed out after receiving pressure from small-business owners and the American Medical Association. And Kennedy himself decided to back off after receiving heavy pressure from labor leaders, who urged him to hold out for a single-payer system once Democrats recaptured the White House in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
.................................................................................................

The simple lesson from this story -- and certainly the one Kennedy himself drew -- is that when it comes to historic breakthroughs in social policy, make the best deal you can get, leaving it to subsequent generations to perfect. That's what happened with Medicare and Medicaid, and there is no reason to think it wouldn't happen again with universal coverage and reform of the health insurance market.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/27/AR2009082703919.html


I'm with the part of the Democratic party that wants universal healthcare for all sooner than later. I wish you were.

[ehrnst]

101. Because they started 70 years ago, and expanded gradually as medicine did

and they didn't get to where they are in eight years, and they have much smaller, more urban concentrated populations - which make health care delivery easier and cheaper.

In the midwest, cities are laid out in grids. It's much easier to navigate, easier for fire and police to get to where they are going... but if you say, "We should do this in Boston! They could afford to do it in the midwest, why not here?"

Retrofitting an existing 70 year old system - inefficient as it may be - is far, far more expensive and complicated that building where there were few or no streets to begin with....

And the disruption during the changeover has to be addressed, and 8 years is not enough time to do that.

Gradual expansion of the ACA is much more like what Europe has been doing for nearly a century. That's what Hillary was proposing.

[JI7]

6. i don't think he has a plan yet

[Doodley]

7. That $32.8 trillion is obviously wrong. Deduct two trillion per year, the government already pays,

then deduct the sum of the massive cost efficiencies by following the best models used in other nations.

[Lee-Lee]

25. So you expect perfect implementation

of all the “best models used in other nations”?

That’s a very vague, non-specific answer that on top of not being specific assumes first that we can even agree on what those practices are, second that that can all work together, and third that they can all actually be implemented effectively.

Our government historically isn’t exactly good at implementation of such things.

And part of the problem is that answers like this, that don’t give specifics but presume that the best possible outcome is what will happen, are how we end up with promises of one thing but a reality that ends up very, very diffrrentz

[George II]

74. Are there any other nations of 320+ million people who do this?

[ucrdem]

10. If you add the savings from medical marijuana to the revenue from taxing the Clinton foundation

and then ask all the children to clap it pencils out.





p.s.

[SkyDancer]

16. How do we pay for it

is a conservative talking point when we can spend trillions on the damn MIC but fuck people having health care in this hell hole of a country, we need to keep bombing people and killing them!

Priorities!


Nice Paul Ryan talking point.

[Duppers]

18. A.fucking.men!

Thank you!!

Sick of Bernie trolls.

[SkyDancer]

19. It is rather odd

I can't figure out why some are so against him when all he is trying to do is improve the lives of people like the poor, sick & needy. What's even stranger is the use of conservative talking points. Odd thing that.

[CentralMass]

27. +1

[MrsCoffee]

30. So many reasons.

You realize another politician’s supporters talk the same way and can’t understand why the rest of the country can’t stand him?

So many people don’t trust or like Bernie. He lacks transparency. He lacks the decency not to bite the hand that feeds him. His attacks on Democrats are horribly timed, wildly over exaggerated, insanely hypocritical or flat out bullshit. He has a huge Russian cloud over his head after they tried to help him win. The Devine/Manafort connection looks super sketchy given the no votes on Russian sanctions. He spent over a year telling people not to pay any attention to Russia’s interference in our election, it was all just distraction. There is a history of sketchy payments to family members from the campaign and his foundation and he refuses to show his tax returns. (That refusal alone would keep him off the ballot in some states in 2020 since party rules have changed.)

His vague pie in the sky sound bytes are the only thing he has to offer and he isn’t very convincing he knows what he is talking about.

I just thought I would help you out a little since you seem to be having a hard time understanding how anyone could have a negative thought about Bernie.

[Hekate]

54. This

Thank you MrsCoffee

[SkyDancer]

79. So many reasons?

Nah. And sorry there is absolutely nothing similar to Trumpers & Berners. One side would fight like hell to make sure you have health insurance and another side would tell you "shove it up your pooper! I got mine!" To say they are similar is pretty scary that someone actually thinks that but it's par for the course.

So many people trust Bernie. How do you get to be so popular without trust? Weird. Bernie doesn't lack transparency, sorry and as far as "he attacks Democrats", speaking the truth and saying what has to change isn't an attack and if you think it is, then perhaps some need to find a bit of a back bone and ask why membership in our party is now less than 29% from a high of 45% of the total electorate during Obama. Having a discussion on how to fix things like that isn't an attack, it's finding a damn solution to fix a problem which needs a solution. Trying to equate Bernie with Russia is an utter reach. It's up there with conspiracy level stuff. Ask yourself, if that's the case, why is Davine not in trouble and instead being used as a WITNESS? Uhhhh....ya.... Bernie showed his taxes, but hey, people trying to make rent care about that stuff because that sort of thing puts food on their table, right? And BTW, your assertion that it would keep Bernie off ballots in states in 2020 would be tossed out in court as unconstitutional. I'm sure should he run in 2020, he'll show them. You sound pretty scared by Bernie running.

Bernie's vague? Everything is on his website. You should check that out. It goes into depth too!

It's obvious why some have a hard time understanding and liking Bernie. We know. Do we ever.

[ehrnst]

106. The reaction by many to any factchecking or dissent from their leader's statments

is very similar on the far left, and far right.

It's obvious from the rage from many supporters of either that meets fact checking that doesn't flatter their leader.

Armies of strawmen being attacked, the accusations of "hater!" and "You just don't want people to have healthcare/America to be great!" appear on cue. It's up there with conspiracy level stuff.

You sound pretty scared by Bernie being fact checked, almost as if M4A and/or Bernie wouldn't be able to survive it, and need to be protected from any hint of questioning.

Really sounds like the far right.

See, I've worked on Capitol Hill in progressive orgs- and I can tell you that there are people fighting the good fight who are totally unlikeable in person. It's a sad fact that many progressive movement leaders and politicians are rude, abusive to their staff, and real pains in the ass.

That taught me to separate the person from the job they were doing. I don't need to "fall in love" with an org leader or pol to support the work they are doing, and acknowledge that they get the job done. I don't want to work in an office with them, but I'll give them their due. I also don't feel a need to decide between 'hating" and "loving" a public figure. Not in my nature - especially knowing a few famous people.

The job of POTUS is not a job that many people are really capable of doing well - it's stressful, requires the stamina for long hours, needs a temprament that is very even, a graduate degree, experience with government buearacracy, an experienced and broad world view, an ability to take counsel and know where to find it, the ability to sit at the table with the most powerful people in the world and in the US without resorting to pouting and name-calling, the ability to CHANGE ONE"S MIND, the ability to know one's own shortcomings, transparent with one's personal finances and not pissy at being vetted or asked questions about their past, the support and respect of one's peers in federal government and party leaderships, and to be humble

Ideally, they are charismatic, but that's hasn't been a requirement in the past, for men at least...

But no, I don't "hate" people who are not up to the task, but if they put their own self-validation and resentment ahead of the good of the country, yeah, they lose my respect.

[MrsCoffee]

108. They are terrified he will be vetted.

He can't stand up to the sunshine and they know it.

[ehrnst]

110. The lack of transparency on finances is especially troubling.

There is no ethical reason to withold one's finances. I'm sure Jane's continued financial benefit from Sierra Blanca (as of 2014) was considered by them to be compromising, especially in light of his marketing of himself as being the MOST environmentally and racially sensitive politician in the pack. I am guessing that he will release tax returns after such time as Jane was able to divest of various financial involvements. From 2016 on. There certainly must have been a reason that Jane told him that she didn't want him to run for POTUS.

Clearly, we know what priority her opinion held for him on that. She's been married to him long enough that she knows you "support Bernie 100%" in everything. Bernie calls all the shots, and you just stand back and acknowledge that he's the smartest person in the room.

He's also known for being very defensive at being asked about his past, such as Levy's mother, or pressed for details on his M4A plan, or ideas on how Green Mountain Care might have succeeded..

He was and is Russia and the GOP's choice for Democratic candidate as Mueller's investigation and events in 2016 clearly showed. That is also troubling.

[SkyDancer]

119. You sound scared that Bernie may run in 2020

Why? And why are you trying to tear down single payer health care which is something 70% support?

You can fact check all you want but in reality, when Jake Tapper and the Koch funded study are having to walk back their words, that says something. Truth is, there's isn't much dirt on Bernie and I am thinking you simply can't stand him because of something that happened in 2016 or whatever who knows what.

It's pretty sad that people like you feel the need to tear down someone who is clearly on our side and not the enemy, taking a crap on the heads of ally's only hurts us.

I'm not even sure what you're babbling on about with "falling in love" and what not. Weird statement and why do you keep posting a photo of a silly wooded trunk to me?

I think it's time you & I end this conversation because at this point it's getting rather silly and just strange.

[ehrnst]

126. Of course Sanders will run in 2020.

Last edited Fri Aug 24, 2018, 07:50 AM - Edit history (2)

Short of being on a gurney, he will not give up the crowds. I imagine that the validation they give to one's ego after years of problems connecting and working with his progressive peers on the Hill is very appealing to a career politician who is reaching the end of his time in politics.

I'm pointing out that his bill won't become reality because of the political climate, and the cost of it - and he is aware of it. The bill itself is symbolic. It's his branding. Trump being elected and the kneecapping of the ACA gave a spotlight to something he has tried in vain to convince people is viable has prolonged his career.

I'm not 'tearing down' single payer - I loved my single payer in the UK. I have more of a background in health policy than most people, and I understand the obstacles to it in present day U.S. Your continued accusations of my "tearing down single payer" are pointless and unfounded. Learn from that mistake.

The problem is that Sanders has made "single payer" his brand, and if you dare to question or analyze either, he equates it with "attacking both." Which is, as you put it "silly and strange." But as I said - I don't need to LOVE a politician to support a politician. You seem to have missed that point in what you refered to as "babble." It appears that you are lovestruck, and unfortunately, that is something that makes people reject any evidence that might diminish the sheen of what they ador. Seeing them as human with human foibles - despite their claims to the contrary - really prevents the sort of lashing out that is so frequent here, and saves one's faith in the system that one's idol took part in, when the inevitable feet of clay are revealed.

It's pretty sad that you need to adhere to a dogma that has no basis in reality, and is a promise made by someone who will never be called on to deliver. One can always blame "haters" or "big pharma" or "establishment Democrats" when one can't follow through. We can see that happening already.

It's like "repeal and replace" votes for the GOP during the Obama administration. They could tell their constituents that they tried - even though there was no way it would pass, and any GOP rep knew that, but they knew that if they didn't, if they didn't follow the dogma, they would be primaried.

Or like "defund Planned Parenthood" is held up as the way to "end abortion." Health policy analysts and the medical community say that doing that will increase abortion, and there are GOP politicans who know that, but they will rail against Planned Parenthood, because it's dogma. Their base will say that the "experts" and the politicians who won't go along as "hating babies," and wanting young girls to have sex.

Just like the accusations of "you don't want people to have health insurance - you have yours so fuck the rest of us. You just hate Bernie."

You can fact check all you want but in reality, when Jake Tapper and the Koch funded study are having to walk back their words, that says something.

They changed one aspect -the wording "government," and did not walk back the conclusion. Pretty sad that confirmation bias blinds you to any hint that Sanders might be wrong, and leads you to believe any critique is an "attack."

It's pretty sad that people like you feel the need to tear down someone who is clearly on our side and not the enemy, taking a crap on the heads of ally's only hurts us.

Again... you equate any dissent as "taking a crap" on Sanders. What is sad is that you have been convinced that someone who many have pointed out has "taken a crap" as you put it, on other progressives and the Democratic Party is somehow an ally.

Babbling about "fact check all you want, but in reality..." says everything about your view of "reality," doesn't it?

You take any analysis of M4A very personally, and any critique of your favorite Senator personally as well. Your defensive attacks are getting more extreme. I suggest that you employ the "ignore" feature, and preserve your bubble, while you're here.

[JHan]

167. Where did Ehrnst ever say she wanted to tear down Single Payer..

Your post proves her point so well.

Your post is basically "Anyone who disagrees with anything Sanders does is the enemy. Anyone who dares to critique his plan is the enemy"

Sanders didn't invent Single Payer. Supporting Single Payer or UHC doesn't require one be in lockstep with Bernie Sanders when he messes up.

This cult of personality nonsense is a mirror image of the thinking so prevalent among trumpkins.

[ehrnst]

200. Yet another silly, pointless false dillema from Skydancer.

Personally, I think all people should have access to healthcare sooner than later.

But that would mean caring about people more than a politicians' agenda in a re-election year.

[MrsCoffee]

107. The only scary thing about Bernie is his ability to fuck shit up for Democrats.

[SkyDancer]

120. Yes like bringing in more young voters

than Hillary or Trump combined. Quite the fuck up, huh?

If that's fucking up, pass the damn condoms.

Are you complaining when Bernie votes with Democrats more so than most? Maybe you should write him a letter and tell him you don't want him voting for our party. /eyeroll

[ehrnst]

128. "More than most" who... Republicans?

Yes, he voted with Hillary 98% of the time, but she was "corrupt" according to so many of his fans here.

Sad.

But while you're on the topic of him voting "with Democrats," I also find it interesting that he pushed through a bill that Paul Wellstone referred to as "environmental racism." He, of course, has never expressed any regret for it. Likely because he, as of his 2014 tax returns was benefiting financially from it. Jane was listed as being on the board.

He excoriates Hillary for her votes, votes she has said "were a mistake" but he refuses to discuss or indicate that he has learned from any mistakes. His aides dodge questions about Sierra Blanca, because there is no defending it.

Google Sierra Blanca for more information.

[JHan]

168. +++the hyprocisy stinks.

It's also a dick move to run as a Dem during primaries and then un-enroll and refuse to accept the nomination.

The fucking entitlement of it all.

I could go on.

[Cha]

171. Exactly!

[George II]

109. "Everything is on his website. You should check that out. It goes into depth too!"

Not really.

"Read the full plan" :

https://live-berniesanders-com.pantheonsite.io/issues/medicare-for-all/

It's 1,719 words. No "depth" about how to implement it or pay for it.

[ehrnst]

112. No link to the actual bill.

Why am I not surprised?

[JI7]

124. is there an actual bill ?

[ehrnst]

125. Yes.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804

[ehrnst]

104. +1000. (nt)

[Cha]

170. Thank You, MrsCoffee.. and

there's a whole Boat Load More.

[ehrnst]

137. You mean like accusing reputable fact check orgs of being "fake news"

when they dare to point out the misstatements of their leader?

Those conservative talking points?

[uponit7771]

21. +1

[NCTraveler]

23. It's going to have to be worked out by legislators.

Sanders has ideas but never a plan. That’s how one becomes popular. Ideas without being willing to do the dirty work of figuring out how to do it. Never actually making the sausage is a clear trend. Others will have to get it done. Then again, Sanders own ideas don’t provide healthcare for everyone. Just limited insurance.

[ehrnst]

105. Indeed. (nt)

[Shemp Howard]

32. One new aircraft carrier costs 14 billion dollars.

And that doesn't include daily maintenance costs and the costs of the air wing. And then there's the cost of the required escort ships. So yes, the MIC has the money.

But we dare not cut out even one carrier. Because that would make the admirals sad.

[QC]

41. Charles & David's Little Helpers are very busy! n/t

[Hekate]

55. Care to elaborate? Are you saying things go better with Koch?

This is the second time today I've read that insinuation here -- are there really DUers flinging that kind of poo around?

[ehrnst]

143. Yes, they are trying to say it without "saying it."

Because it's fucking ridiculous once it's actually said or written. Conspiracy theorists...

[ehrnst]

144. .....

[Cha]

172. Look in the mirror.

[George II]

93. Ah, the ol' MIC complaint. Two simple questions:

Whose plan are we discussing here?
Who has never voted against a military spending bill in his career?

Hint: it's the same person.

[disillusioned73]

95. Yup..

[ehrnst]

192. Actually, no, "how do we pay for it?" is the question that Democrats ask

Last edited Mon Aug 27, 2018, 03:28 PM - Edit history (2)

whenever tax cuts for the wealthy are brought up.

Nice attack on Democrats, tho. Great parroting of right wing talking points - Rand Paul would be proud.


I watched ColoradoCare get rejected by the majority of voters. Costs were the cause of death.

[lapucelle]

26. HR 676 has funding details built into the legislation.

That's why medicare for all advocates have been pushing for this bill for 15 years.

Subtitle B–Funding

SEC. 211. OVERVIEW: FUNDING THE MEDICARE FOR ALL PROGRAM.

(a) In General- The Medicare for All Program is to be funded as provided in subsection (c)(1).
(b) Medicare for All Trust Fund- There shall be established a Medicare for All Trust Fund in which funds provided under this section are deposited and from which expenditures under this Act are made.

(c) Funding-
(1) IN GENERAL- There are appropriated to the Medicare for All Trust Fund amounts sufficient to carry out this Act from the following sources:
[NOTE: the following part of H.R. 676 describes only one idea for the funding. After sufficient support is established in the U.S. House of Representatives, many funding options will likely be debated. It will be important for some citizens to monitor the progress and give input at that time. In the meantime, any ideas or wishes you have for funding should be sent by letter in the U.S. Mail to your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators.]
(A) Existing sources of Federal government revenues for health care.
(B) Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners.
(to do: need to communicate what level of income this means)
(C) Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income.
[Current Medicare tax: 1.45% paid by employers and employees.]
(D) Instituting a modest tax on unearned income.
[This is an additional source of funding … added to the H.R. 676 that was proposed in the previous session of Congress. The expected percentage is not yet available. H.R. 676 will not be given an economic evaluation by the Congressional Budget Office until it gets to at least 100 cosponsors<.]
(E) Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.
(2) SYSTEM SAVINGS AS A SOURCE OF FINANCING- Funding otherwise required for the Program is reduced as a result of–
(A) vastly reducing paperwork
[Elimination of unnecessary administrative activities within all of our health care bureaucracy]
[for-profit bureaucracy]
[government bureaucracy]
[supporting bureaucracy that results from the other two types of bureauracracy and the overall negative situation that they cause]
[ Go to Costs and Savings for more information.]

(B) requiring a rational bulk procurement of medications under section 205(a).
(C) improved access to preventive health care.
(3) ADDITIONAL ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS TO MEDICARE FOR ALL PROGRAM- Additional sums are authorized to be appropriated annually as needed to maintain maximum quality, efficiency, and access under the Program.


* SEC. 212. APPROPRIATIONS FOR EXISTING PROGRAMS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there are hereby transferred and appropriated to carry out this Act, amounts from the Treasury equivalent to the amounts the Secretary estimates would have been appropriated and expended for Federal public health care programs, including funds that would have been appropriated under the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act, under the Medicaid program under title XIX of such Act, and under the Children’s Health Insurance Program under title XXI of such Act. »[The cost for most Americans will be primarily or only the tax on payroll (employee and employer) or self-employment income. The savings from not having to pay for-profit health insurance premiums will be dramatically more than the increased payroll cost, as seen at the Costs and Savings web page.]

NO SENATE VERSION OF THIS BILL EXISTS. We need a senator to step up and write and introduce a Senate version of this bill.

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/HR676

[DetlefK]

28. Look at the Koch-study that supports his plan:

Individual costs would go down while costs for the US government would go up.

People would pay less for insurance and more for taxes, but the overall costs per person would be lower.

[ehrnst]

145. The Mercatus study doesn't support his plan.

It is certainly kinder to the concept of single payer than most conservative analysis' but no, they didn't support what Bernie says they did.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/07/democrats-seize-on-cherry-picked-claim-that-medicare-for-all-will-save-2-trillion/?utm_term=.bd3227059a02

[Vinca]

29. I haven't been following this particular thread, but the obvious answer is taxes.

You get what you pay for. That's why taxes in countries that provide healthcare, education, etc. have high taxes. People have to decide which is more important to them: lives or money. Take the last tax cut for gazillionaires, for example. I'd bet the jar of pennies on my kitchen counter 99.9% of them are totally unaware of it. It's pocket change to them.

[Ace Rothstein]

31. Please stop peddling right-wing talking points.

[ehrnst]

149. Please stop smearing anyone who questions a bill as "peddling right wing talking points"

Saying that anything that contradicts your fave politician is 'fake news" is a right wing talking point.

[LexVegas]

43. Free stuff without a plan is Sander's specialty. nt

[CanSocDem]

46. Paying good money for things...

...that should be free, is an American specialty.

.

[SkyDancer]

85. +1

[David__77]

130. Right now, millions of taxpayers without children are paying for K-12 education.

Free free free stuff!!!!

[CanSocDem]

131. Most countries...

...consider that a good investment. Having an educated population lessens the chance of electing stupid people.

Having a healthy population eliminates so many of the USA's social problems that it is astounding to hear Americans fight so hard against this principle of democracy.

.

[David__77]

132. I think both are good investments.

...

[Hekate]

50. Unicorns who fart rainbows, where else?

Meanwhile, as the GOP works on the utter destruction of the ACA, "progressives" can fantasize about Bernie's plan instead of fighting to preserve protect and defend the ACA as the stepping stone it was meant to be.

[Squinch]

59. It could easily come from raising taxes on the rich to the same

level as the rest of us pay.

But we do need to acknowledge the cost so we know what we have to pay.

[dansolo]

68. Bernie already tried that option

He could only come up with half the amount needed by doing what you say. The rest will have to come from the rest of us, in the form of higher taxes.

[SkyDancer]

87. Would you stop this disinformation & conservative talking points?

It's bullshit.

How it's paid for is spelled out on Bernie's website.
Stop the conservative talking points, you sound more concerned with your taxes going up than the 10s of 1000s who die annually and all the people who can't afford to see a doctor or purchase their medication.

[ehrnst]

147. He doesn't link to the actual bill. Not surprised.

I imagine he doesn't want someone factchecking the claims on his Website.

That would be awkward.

[Gothmog]

152. Really?

Has Vermont adopted this plan yet? If this plan is so fully refined including funding, then it would make sense for Bernie to try a test program in a small homogeneous state. I look forward to hearing how this plan works in Vermont.

[SkyDancer]

173. I look forward to you explaining

how Bernie has any power at all in VT and tell us why Howard Dean hasn't implemented single payer there. See what I did there?

Bernie has no power on the state level, you're being disingenuous here with your argument & you're fully aware of it I suspect as well. Just like Hoard Dean has no power on the local state level. Can Bernie introduce a bill in the senate in Montpelier? Nope. Can Howard Dean sign the bill in VT? Nope.

Also, Bernie's plan is on the federal level and insures everyone. Would a local state level bill in VT do that? Nope. I live in Colorado, so I wouldn't be.

Bernie fully explains how the bill would be funded. Even the Koch funded study says it would save people money. PNHP says it would save money. You're on the wrong side of the argument here when a whopping 80% + of Democrats approve of Bernie's plan. This is the future Gothmog, like it or not, the times have changed.

That said, I'll be muting you. I have zero time for anti-single payer health care trolls. People are dying, I don't do Republican ideology and people have zero empathy for the plights of others.

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

186. But you claimed that bernie's plan is perfect and that this plan has all of the details filled is

If this plan is so perfect, then sanders should get it adopted in Vermont. We are waiting to see how this plan works out in a small homogeneous state. If sanders can succeed in Vermont, then people may be more willing to consider his plan nationally

[ehrnst]

190. However, if there was ever a state that was friendly to single payer, wouldn't it be the one that

Last edited Mon Aug 27, 2018, 03:24 PM - Edit history (1)

elected Bernie?

And if even that small, homogenous population couldn't agree on any plan that could make single payer work, doesn't that bode ill for other states that are more diverse and larger?

And can you tell us why Sanders refuses to even discuss lessons learned from the failure of Green Mountain Care? One would think that he would be happy to explain how it could have been saved.

Perhaps he truly has no idea, and that would cause people to wonder just how much he's actually got figured out.

Perhaps he will not tolerate talking about any scenario but his own?

Meanwhile, Massachusetts has an uninsured rate of just 2%, with a larger, more diverse population. That's way, way closer to actual universal health care coverage than any other state.

Do you think that Bernie could learn something from them that might get the rest of the population covered. I mean they've accomplished what the people who elected him couldn't manage to figure out.

But do carry on with slamming the ACA. Big Pharma loves this.

[George II]

159. That's not "how it's paid for", those are sweep generalities.

[Squinch]

90. Or some other source. Reducing military spending, etc. I have no problem paying more for

universal healthcare. I dislike when people blow smoke up our asses and tell us we won't need to.

[JI7]

123. no, rest of us would have to pay more also . this is why Vermont and other States never went through

with it.

Bernie Sanders himself took no part in helping the Governor in his own state get it through.

[SkyDancer]

127. No, it wouldn't

Even the Koch backed study says otherwise.

People would be saving money.

[ehrnst]

148. Actually no, they didn't quite support Sanders's claims

If you are talking about the Mercatus study...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/07/democrats-seize-on-cherry-picked-claim-that-medicare-for-all-will-save-2-trillion/

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/03/bernie-s/did-conservative-study-show-big-savings-bernie-san/

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/

[George II]

72. Your guess is as good as mine.

[at140]

77. Printing press is working fine

and there is no shortage of paper and ink.

[SkyDancer]

174. Funny. Rand Paul says the same exact thing.

[at140]

181. It is sad, not funny!

Printing money has never worked in history.
Starting with the Wiemar republic to Argentina to Zimbabwe.

[vi5]

83. You "concern" is duly noted....

....perhaps you can submit a proposal in writing to the Democratic party to make our new slogan "We probably can't pay for it so why bother?" Or perhaps "We probably won't have enough votes so don't get your hopes up"

Those approaches are sure to motivate people to get up off of their asses and vote.

[ehrnst]

153. "You can keep your health insurance policy!"

Yes, promising what we can't deliver never, ever comes back to bite us in the ass, and give the GOP ammunition to damage what we can deliver, does it?

[theaocp]

179. Who said that? n/t

[ehrnst]

180. Obama. 2012.

[BigMin28]

84. Meanwhile

While we argue, good people are needlessly dying. I may be one of them.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

88. Michael Hiltzik of the LA Times holds forth on this very question:

CHARLES BLAHOUS of the Mercatus Center, a libertarian think tank, is shown in 2014. He wrote a paper that found a slight decline in projected total public and private health expenditures under Medicare for All. (Susan Walsh Associated Press)

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a libertarian think tank partially funded by the Koch brothers, appears to be mighty embarrassed about its finding in a recent paper that the Medicare for All proposal from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) might actually reduce Americans’ overall spending on healthcare.
We know this because Mercatus has sent out several emails pushing back against reports about the finding. And the paper’s author, Mercatus fellow Charles Blahous, took to the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal to complain that “some have seized on a scenario in my estimates showing a slight decline in projected total public and private health expenditures under Medicare for All.”
Among those who “seized” on the scenario is Sanders himself, who crowed about it on Twitter after the paper was published at the end of July, mischievously getting the Koch brothers into his tweet because, why not?
Blahous grouses that Sanders and his followers overlook his main point, which is that the Sanders plan would sharply increase government spending on healthcare. He’s got the support of several conservative commentators and not a few credulous journalists.
The problem with Blahous’ complaint, as it happens, is that he actually did find that the Sanders plan could reduce overall healthcare costs. That conclusion is right there on page 18 of his 24-page paper. Under the assumptions in the Sanders plan, he writes, “aggregate health expenditures remain virtually unchanged: national personal healthcare costs decrease by less than 2%, while total health expenditures decrease by only 4%, even after assuming substantial administrative cost savings.”
According to his own math, under Medicare for All, national health expenditures would total $57.6 trillion through 2031. They’re currently projected to be $59.7 trillion. In other words, Medicare for All would reduce total U.S. spending on healthcare by 3.44% (a bit less than the 4% Blahous cited).
Mercatus in its emails cite several ostensibly objective journalism sources calling out Sanders for, in effect, “cherry-picking” Blahous’ results to make Medicare for All seem thriftier than it is. They include Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler , the Associated Press , and Jake Tapper of CNN. Some of Sanders’ critics panned him for failing to give the context to Blahous’ finding; but it’s a little churlish to complain about someone leaving out details from a 185-character tweet, since Sanders has published all the details and assumptions underlying his proposal, and Blahous found them easily enough to use them.
Moreover, those sources engaged in a fair amount of cherry-picking of their own. And Blahous is dancing as fast as he can to minimize the implications of his own math.
Let’s get to the bottom of the controversy.

The rest at the link: http://enewspaper.latimes.com/desktop/latimes/default.aspx?pubid=50435180-e58e-48b5-8e0c-236bf740270e

You'll have to scroll down the page to where the article starts; it's on the lower right.

[dansolo]

129. That article does not address funding

The issue is not whether Sanders' plan will save money. For sake of this discussion, I will give you that point. My problem is that Bernie's plan is entirely government funded. I just asked where the money to fund it is coming from. Bernie keeps suggesting that increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations will pay for it all. But even his own numbers don't show that to be true. The reality is that everyone's taxes will go up. How much, I don't know. What bothers me is that Bernie won't acknowledge that fact, and won't give any indication how much they will need to increase.

[ehrnst]

146. +1000. It's an editorial, and not a fact checking journalist.

A journalist that is angry that someone dared to fact check Senator Sanders.

[DiverDave]

98. Follow along now

The money being spent on for profit insurance is x dollars.
By giving EVERYONE healthcare it costs LESS!
So, a tax or a premium. Whatever you want to call it. IT SAVES EVERYONE MONEY.
Now, that really isnt that hard to understand. Is it?

[ehrnst]

156. Follow along now...

Changing over a system that has baked into our economy for 70 years will cost money -money that doesn't go to health care delivery.

Promising people WAY more than Medicare provides (and way more than Canadian health care does) , but calling it "Medicare for All" doesn't change the fact that if it covers more, then it will cost more.

The mandate in the ACA addressed that, as did Medicaid expansion. Because the GOP kneecapped the Medicaid expansion, many people can't get health care at all, and other prices rose.

If they could do that to the ACA, what do you think they will try to do to single payer?

If we can get back on track to where the ACA was prior to the GOP attacks, and expand it incrementally, that will make it less of a target, and more affordable.

Now, that really isnt that hard to understand. Is it?

[DiverDave]

198. Im sorry, I wasnt clear

Medicare has an overhead of 2% insurance company's
30%.
Nobody "gets more" everybody pays less. The savings help pay for folks that cant afford it.
But, I suspect you knew that. And want people to suffer needlessly.
Go kick a puppy, or something

[ehrnst]

199. Ah, yes.

Anyone who disagrees with you at all is evil, and "wants people to suffer needlessly."

The go-to argument of someone who truly has no logical defense of their argument left.

Also knows as "Ad Hominem."

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

[KG]

99. I lulz'd

[Adrahil]

134. Sander ALWAYS hand-waves the money.

Having said that, really, REALLY fixing the American health care system mean rebuilding it from the ground up.

Our whole system is a ridiculous kludge designed to funnel money to a few people.

[ehrnst]

157. There is no way to rebuild from the ground up without wrecking health care delivery.

That's why we're different from Europe - we are not starting from the ground.

We are starting from a private, baked in to our economy for 70 years system.

[roody]

158. I suggest the military budget.

[ZX86]

177. The money can come from right here.

"The Pentagon Can't Account for $21 Trillion"

"Twenty-one trillion dollars. The Pentagon’s own numbers show that it can’t account for $21 trillion"

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-pentagon-cant-account-for-21-trillion/

[mikehiggins]

182. Alinsky irony

It seems ironic to me reading that quote from SA. If there was anyone who would be backing Medicare for All, it would be Alinsky. Too bad we don't have anyone on the public scene willing to go all in to improve our "healthcare for profit" system, and that we have too many people parroting the right wing lines about how we would pay for it.

If the US decides to do it, we will do it. To me the point is that the "tax increases" so many seem to be whining about are secondary to bringing the US to a more legitimate recognition that health care, like clean water and air, is a right, not some favor we have to wait for the rich to grant us.

So the study in question suggests to some (with a lot of tongues in cheek) an overall saving to the entire population of 2T over ten years, good for it. It would seem logical to me that the figures aren't going to work out in the long run. That's just the way the world works. If we end up with a better health care system for everyone at the end of the road it is a trip worth taking.

And, in passing, I don't see much discussion of how much industry would save on their bottom line if they were freed of the obligation to provide health care for their employees, like our global competitors. Just saying...

[ucrdem]

184. Most employers would probably love to lose that obligation.

And the moral argument is perfectly sound. But who is going to make the legislation? It isn't hard to imagine what kind of privatized beast Trump and Ryan would foist on us given the opportunity, under the name of "Medicare for All" if that helps them sell it. And that is exactly what they will do if the ACA goes away, and that is why Sanders' M4A campaign, well-meaning though it might be, is an invitation to catastrophe.

[A HERETIC I AM]

197. Will you guys please fucking stop?

Seriously?

I mean....



what the ever living fuck has happened to this board, for fucks sake in a handlebar basket riding down the sidewalk.

[ehrnst]

201. May I suggest the "ignore feature"

Asking questions about legislation happens a lot here on DU.

[A HERETIC I AM]

202. Thanks for the tip.....

Ummmmm...person who has been here one year less than me.


I had no idea it was that easy!

I feel so silly, now.