Bernie will not be introducing a healthcare plan or costs

[MaggieD]

What?? Just a vague Medicare for all, with no costs associated with it. Oh my, he really is an amateur. Apparently his idea is "just trust me, we'll figure out how much it will cost later."

"Further, Mr. Briggs notes that Mr. Sanders has not put forward an updated health plan but doesn’t explain why not given that this is a proposal he talks about all the time. Aides had said over the summer that the plan might be released within weeks, but that never happened."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/11/18/for-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-a-slap-fight-over-health-care/

[riversedge]

1. But he will be finally giving his democratic socialist speech tomorrow whill Hillary gives Foreign

Policy speech. Many Nina Turner will step up and give it for him?

[NurseJackie]

2. "It's gonna be GRREAT! You people are gonna LUV-IT! You'll see! I can get it done!"

"I'll tell you more when I'm elected. You will be so amazed!"

Vague, detail-free pep-talk and bumper-sticker slogans work well for Trump. Why not Bernie?

[MaggieD]

3. LOL!

[RobertEarl]

10. Wow

Yall make fun of health care for all? Amazing.

[Skidmore]

77. Who is making fun of it?

Just want to have an understanding of how this is achieved. The bottom line is that there is no such thing as "free." Salaries need to be paid, facilities maintained, equipment produced, allied services supported, and medications needs met. It will cost something.

[BlueCaliDem]

27. That's pretty much his position. One of the many reasons I don't trust him.

I believe he's afraid that if he puts his health plan for medicare-for-all out there, it will be taken apart in the media and then the true cost will show just why the majority of working Americans aren't going for him. He's already come out and said he's going to raise taxes "on everyone" to fund family leave. That didn't go over well. Raising taxes is NOT a winning stump speech.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Because if the true costs were revealed, it would kill his candidacy

and voters would run away from him.

His campaign staff knows this.

[MaggieD]

5. Yep - I believe that is true

Love this quote from her:

"I don’t see how you can be serious about raising working and middle class families’ incomes if you also want to slap new taxes on them—no matter what the taxes will pay for,” Mrs. Clinton said at a campaign stop in Dallas on Tuesday. She said she was the “only one” in the Democratic debate “who will commit to raising your wages and not your taxes.”

[BlueCaliDem]

28. I believe that's exactly why. Yep.

[Recursion]

49. In a sentence, yes.

That is exactly why.

[nc4bo]

6. Wonder if the cost could be negated somewhat by putting

Our bloated MIC on a diet?

[MaggieD]

8. Bernie is a big MIC supporter, so that ain't happening

[zalinda]

9. Why? Because he supports the troops?

The troops that Hillary helped send over there, unprepared, with families having to buy armor for their kids and the vehicles in which they drove so they wouldn't die?

Or the F-35 which is what his constituents in Vermont want him to support. He does work for them after all.

Z

[MaggieD]

15. No, because he supports wasteful military spending for pork

.... while pretending he doesn't.

[neverforget]

17. Hillary voted for all that plus the war

[MaggieD]

18. Irrelevant

Bernie is not the guy who is going to cut military spending and spend it on your healthcare (or anything else) instead. His dead in the water for 2 years plan for single payer does not use cuts in DOD to fund it.

It raises your taxes by 10% instead (and FICA taxes at that, so NO deductions for poor people).

I assume that is why it doesn't have a single co-sponsor in congress even after sitting out there for 2 years. And it is definitely why he is not talking about it now.

[neverforget]

21. You said "No, because he supports wasteful military spending for pork"

that is what I responded too and it's absolutely relevant.

I keep seeing Hillary supporters saying that leaving out the fact that she voted for all that PLUS the war. Bernie voted against the Iraq War which cost trillions while Hillary voted for it. They both voted to fund the troops AFTER the war was started. All that money that was funneled into the military and Iraq could have been used to for domestic programs. Instead, we destroyed Iraq and birthed our new enemy, ISIS who we're fighting now. So yeah, it's absolutely relevant.

[MaggieD]

22. No, it's not relevant

Because no one, including Bernie, is willing to spend less on the military to give you single payer healthcare. Period. So let us stop suggesting Saint Bernie is going to cut military spending to give you healthcare. He isn't.

Instead he has a 2013 proposal that is out of date, never scored on costs, that lowballs costs and says your FICA taxes will be more than doubled to pay for it.

Again, NO ONE in congress is going to pass a bill that is paid for by doubling FICA taxes. Not happening. So can we please stop pretending it is a viable plan? It has no co-sponsors in congress after 2 years for a reason.

[neverforget]

24. And a tax cut is going to fix it?

If I got sick in March, I'd have to pay my bill within a couple months. How is a tax cut going to help me in March if I can't claim the credit until the following year when I need the money now?

The military budget and war is sucking the lifeblood out of this country. It's absolutely relevant.

[MaggieD]

26. ACA plans cap the out of pocket at $6450 per individual

And no healthcare entity expects you to just write a check for that much on day one. It's a payment plan. And her plan is far more realistic that Bernie's single payer plan that has sat with no co-sponsor in congress for years. Nor will it have any co-sponsor, ever, because it calls for FICA taxes to be increased from 8% employee / 8% employer (16% total) to 26% total, which is still less than what it will actually cost.

[zalinda]

41. Unless you get in an accident

or have cancer or any number of medical expenses that run more than $6450, then you are shit out of luck. Too many people have lost everything while HAVING health insurance, and she wants to continue that?

I'd much rather have Bernie fight for single payer, than keep the same old.

What is the saying? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome?

Z

[mythology]

59. That $6450 is the max out of pocket

There is obviously the problem of somebody who has surgery or a major cost that crosses the year, but it's a distinct improvement.

[zalinda]

73. I couldn't afford $6450

and most of us can't either. She wants us to pay premiums AND then pay $6450 before we get a break? That could put some people out of their homes. Most people would gamble and not get insurance at all.

Better to pay $1.58 a week times 52 weeks and get free health care.

Z

[AgingAmerican]

82. Every year

[Scootaloo]

32. If you bring up an issue, then you are making it relevant.

When you declare it irrelevant on and off like a light switch, it becomes special pleading and double standard.

[MADem]

29. She voted to base F-35s in Burlington VT?

Who knew? I thought that decision wasn't taken until AFTER she left the Senate...?

[neverforget]

34. She didn't vote for defense budgets? I thought the whole problem with Bernie

was that he votes for the troops after they've been committed to war? She was voting for those defense budgets when the F-35 was in development.

And it's provided jobs to New York State and Massachusetts

According to Lockheed Martin, the main contractor of the project is responsible for 33,000 direct and indirect jobs. Lockheed Martin said it has 1,300 domestic suppliers in 45 states and Puerto Rico. In nine years, the F-35 has infused $60 billion into the economy.

In Massachusetts, the F-35 is responsible for 1,500 jobs and $90 million in economic activity at 99 separate subcontractors. In Connecticut, the F-35 is credited with $635 million in economic activity, with 8,300 jobs at 84 separate suppliers.

Many of those suppliers are right here in the Pioneer Valley, said Allan W. Blair, the president and chief executive officer of the Western Mass Economic Development Council.

Lockheed Martin knows how to spread the pork throughout the US so it's too big kill.

[MADem]

35. Isn't "too big to kill" sorta like "too big to fail?" Why is one OK (the one that actually KILLS

people, ironically enough) and the other one not?

Again, I don't remember Clinton voting to base the F-35 in Burlington. I don't recall her lobbying for it, either.

You know that F-35, the worst fighter plane in the history of fighter planes? It blows up on the runway, it flies like a pig, it can't compete with last generation MIGs? That F-35? Some pork it most certainly is, that flies like a pig. We should do better by our aviators, should we not?

How interesting to know that the "Too big to fail...er, kill" meme is an excuse that Sanders' supporters are tossing around, while purporting to be against wasteful military spending. I always thought that if you were going down the wrong path, spending stupidly on a bad weapons platform, and you knew it, the smart thing to do was to STOP and reassess. Certainly not continue on, just because....

Throwing good money after bad is never a smart move, but that seems to be the excuse, here. Because .... jobs! Funny how we never hear that sad excuse for other enterprises. I can't imagine reading on DU things like:

Well, we've got to keep the health care insurance industry intact....because....JOBS!

or

Well, we can't break up those banks....because ...JOBS!

Why is this "because ... JOBS" lurch to the right with an endorsement of a lousy aviation platform OK for one candidate, but this same parsing regarding other issues doesn't get a pass for others, I wonder?

[neverforget]

37. The F-35 needs to die. Did I endorse it? Nope. It's funny how

Hillary supporters defend her vote for war and all the war funding afterwards but blame Bernie for the F-35. She had her chances to kill it while in the Senate too you know.

At least Bernie was smart enough not to trust Bush.

[MADem]

38. Bernie plugged the F-35, cozied up to Lockheed-Martin, and traded those "because...jobs"

for re-election.

But it's not corrupt when he does it. OK. Whatever.

I'm not "defending" Clinton's vote. Not sure where you get that. She did say it was a mistake, though, and I believe her.

Sanders hasn't said this flying pig is a mistake. He gives us the "Oh well, everyone ELSE is doing it" excuse. That's not leadership--that's being the ULTIMATE follower.

You're moving those goalposts mightily, you know.

[neverforget]

39. I disagree 100% with Bernie on the F-35.

Saying it's a mistake is not an apology.

[MADem]

40. If you want every Senator who voted the wrong way to apologize for their vote,

we'll need to fire up an apology channel on CSPAN, and we'll get to see a lot of our own so-called progressive favorites prostrating themselves in abject shame.

This "apology" stuff sounds a bit like the excesses of the Chinese government during the Mao years, where they'd film the hapless government officials offering up a litany of their sins for the consumption of the masses (before they killed or imprisoned them).

Shall we frog march 'em, too?

If they own what they did, and acknowledge it's an error, I am not going to demand they be tied to a post in the public square and given fifty lashes. I'm not even going to demand an apology.

I don't expect Sanders to "apologize" for his active role in wasting trillions on that pig plane, but it would be nice if he said "This was a shitty expenditure of funds" rather than weasel off with the "too big to kill" excuse.

[neverforget]

58. What a canard. Frog march? Comparing American politicians to Chinese government officials?

I thought we're better than them? Guess not. Our politicians can vote to give war authority to a President to country that had nothing to do with 911 and it's all cool. It's a "mistake" and an apology is not necessary. Sorry Iraqis and American military, we don't apologize for fucking up because reasons.

Hillary said "So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation."

She voted for the Iraq War with conviction. She believed all that bullshit from Bush. It goes to her judgement and her world view of using American Power.

What's worse? Voting to spend billions on a piece of shit aircraft or voting to give war authority to Bush?

[MADem]

74. It's not a canard when you're demanding ritual apologies like that's gonna happen.

It's weird, frankly.

Support people for office, or don't--but when you start demanding purity, ritual apologies, and dances to your tune, you sound a bit OTP.

Obviously, Clinton is not your candidate, and no matter how much bowing and scraping she might do, she never will be. So get over yourself and try finding something positive to say about your own candidate, insteading of raising that one up by pettily bringing another down. Vote for your choice, and stop demanding foolishness from the people you don't like in the first place and would never support.

[neverforget]

79. Get over myself? At least I know when my candidate is

wrong. I notice you never answered the question in my last post: What's worse? Voting to spend billions on a piece of shit aircraft or voting to give war authority to Bush?

try finding something positive to say about your own candidate, insteading of raising that one up by pettily bringing another down.

I thought this was a discussion board and you're not in charge? I see you trashing Bernie all the time so maybe you ought to take your own advice.

BTW, there's no politician I agree with 100%. I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.

[MADem]

80. Don't give me "what's worse?" questions. You don't get to be the Game Show host, here.

What's worse? A DUer who can't support his candidate with facts and cites, or a DUer who does nothing but trash his opponent's candidate without any attributive documentaton? Blah, blah, blah.

I think supporting a shit airplane is worse, if you must know. Why? Because if you take away Clinton's vote, that measure still would have passed. But the poor people of Burlington wouldn't have to worry about Death From Above rained down on them from a shit airplane had not Bernie and his buddies in the VT delegation thrown their principles to the wind to drag that piece of crap to their state.

FWIW, when I object to proposals made by Sanders, I provide links and sources with actual material--not generic "turd way-style" childish whines.


BTW, there's no politician I support 100%. I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.


If Bozo the Clown gets nominated at the Democratic Convention, I'm voting for Bozo. That's never been an issue for me.

[neverforget]

81. Talk about a "childish whine"

But the poor people of Burlington wouldn't have to worry about Death From Above rained down on them from a shit airplane had not Bernie and his buddies in the VT delegation thrown their principles to the wind to drag that piece of crap to their state.

It says a lot about a person that thinks that supporting an airplane is worse than voting to give a Republican President war authority to invade a country that did nothing to us.

I fixed this for you:

I think supporting a (shit airplane) war of choice is worse, if you must know. Why? Because if you take away Clinton's vote, that measure still would have passed. But the poor people of (Burlington) Iraq wouldn't have to worry about Death From Above rained down on them from (a shit airplane) the US had not (Bernie) Clinton and her buddies in the (VT delegation) Democratic Party thrown their principles to the wind to drag (that piece of crap to their state) the US into a war in Iraq.

[zalinda]

42. The F-35 is the preferred plane

of the military BRASS and they will build them. They have to be built somewhere, so why not Vermont?

Z

[MADem]

43. LOL!!!!!!!

You do realize that "the military brass" who conceptualized this aircraft are LONG retired, and they had no vision of the crapola that's been loaded on this flying pig.

This is the work of groupthink between the military industrial CONGRESSIONAL complex (to return the word that Eisenhower lined out to the phrase) and Bernie is a part of that group.

You can lead, you can follow, or you can get outta the way. Senator Sanders chose "follow" in this instance.

I think you'll find the process ironically illustrated in a little film called "The Pentagon Wars."

I urge you to take the hour and forty three minutes to view it--you will come away enlightened. This is a wry approach to the topic, but it's more accurate than most people want to admit:

[tammywammy]

48. Small correction, F-35s are not built in Vermont

There are three final assembly plants - Fort Worth, Texas; one in Italy and one in Japan. The Air Force has decided to station 18 aircraft with the Vermont National Reserve in Burlington starting in 2020.

[JaneyVee]

11. Crazy.

[Cha]

12. Thank you, Maggie~

[taught_me_patience]

13. Just like he disappeared when Vermont was trying to implement single payer

Why? Because he knows the cost will sink his candidacy. He cares about his own personal ambition than his "principles".

[MaggieD]

19. Exactly

[BlueCaliDem]

30. Exactly. But he's hoping his passionate supporters won't see that dodge.

Unfortunately for them, the majority does.

[MADem]

36. Jeez, he did the fifty yard dash AWAY from that issue in the fastest time I've ever seen!

Woooooosh! GREASED lightning!!!

Ever since that model failed, and at such an inconvenient time, there's no more talk about VT acting as the "test bed" for a national program.

And poor old VT could really use a little wellness help--they've got a heroin problem that is out of line for the tiny size of their state:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fed-up-with-heroin-vermont-town-fights-back/

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93228


Interesting article on the failure of the Vermont Experiment: https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/01/25/costs-derail-vermont-single-payer-health-plan/VTAEZFGpWvTen0QFahW0pO/story.html

[Alfresco]

14. Any specifics yet?

Just curious.

[MrMickeysMom]

16. There's nothing "vague" about Medicare...

Medicare, introduced under Johnson 50 years ago, has a cost model that shows what it takes to run it and how much it costs, AND how much is paid into it AND how solvent it is, if left alone.

Since 1945 under Truman, who was the first to introduce a national health insurance program, which failed that year, and in 47 and 49. Truman introduced it THEN for ALL. It took another 20 years and concessions for it to become old age insurance.

You don't have to think long and hard to see the advantage of Medicare program's overhead of 3%, versus what private insurance costs the under Medicare aged to run (25 to 30% overhead).

It's in place. It's ever evolving, as it should be. It's never perfect, but it's already in place. It's happened.

It's introduced. It only needs to be expanded. Maybe that concept has to be explained to some people more than others. What's keeping you from understanding the same system others have already been dealing with?

[BainsBane]

20. He still needs to account for what it will cost

And how it will be paid for. Or he would if he actually were serious about winning.

[MaggieD]

23. Exactly

But apparently dreamland is more attractive to people. SMH.

[moobu2]

25. +1

[MrMickeysMom]

31. He and who else?

I think that's a good question for all of them. I don't see budget numbers, which is the beginning of and not the end of true costs.

Who else has worked out the exact budget numbers? Clinton’s plan will cost $110 billion annually. Unfortunately, she doesn’t tell us how she arrived at that number.

The entire Sanders' budget plan for health care is figured to cost $15 trillion, based on it being universal. From that baseline number, you need to subtract the cost of what is paid into everyone who currently pays for private health insurance. It's more than the premium. or calculating the co-pay, it's more than out of pock payment for what is not covered by insurance, and it's what is paid into an employer based plan, or individual plan.
Then there's the $15 trillion price tag for universal health care. Is this a fair estimate? It's probably in the ballpark. Private health insurance accounted for about $1 trillion in spending last year, and assuming reasonable growth that will probably come to around $15 trillion over the course of a decade.

This total budget is based on money we already spend. Right now, employers and workers pay insurance companies $1 trillion for health care. Under Bernie's plan, we'd instead pay that money to the federal government. Generally speaking, this would be invisible to most of us. Behind the scenes, our dollars would flow to a different place, and that's about it. You should think of the Sanders plan as costing about $3.4 trillion. That's because of the elimination of un-negotiated pharmaceuticals, the cost of paying for indigent care (because they would be covered, too), the eliminated cost of the most expensive end (emergency, critical care). The health care outcome is better, and very expensive infant mobility/mortality trends would go back to where they should be in this country. Right now, they are abysmal.

[Recursion]

55. $15 trillion is way way low. It doesn't count usage increases

$15 trillion is the number you get if you take current usage and apply the savings Medicare has vs. private insurance over a decade. (The math is very simple, just multiplication by 0.8; people should really look at the numbers and do at least that on their own.)

And that's why, bluntly,it's a dishonest claim:it assumes usage won't go up. And if we literally extended Medicare as it exists today to everyone, usage probably wouldn't go up, because the currently uninsured can't afford Medicare's $1K deductible and 20% copays. And that also wouldn't actually solve the problem. That's why Sanders is talking about HR 676, which makes health care free at delivery. But because that solves the problem, it also makes usage go up. And that means the $15 trillion based on current usage is a lowball to the tune of the 30 million currently uninsured and the 50 million currently underinsured.

[MrMickeysMom]

63. Have you read through the Sanders/McDermott Bill?

I think the initial Bills, of which 676 is a simplified version shows the existing funding for Federal and State health care funds.But, in addition, there's a modest progressive payroll tax, paperwork reduction; bulk procurement of medication, existing Federal health care budget, personal income tax increase on top 5% of income earners; small tax on stock and bond transactions. In addition, employers pay 8.7% payroll tax, individuals pay 2.2% income tax.

I don't know why you keep talking about the uninsured never being able to fund the deductibles. There are no co-pays or deductibles. Providers accepting payment under the plan may not bill any patient.

I don't think you quite understand where the dollars under Medicare are spent, or when it's all spent down. These are in the most expensive portion of the health care delivery system. It's largely due to the cost of routine care and this is in large proportion to populations on fixed incomes. Who wants to pay new patient and follow up co-pays, then on top of it, over $300 dollars a month to control asthma or COPD because you have to see a specialist? Do you understand that people under the current system are under-utilizing the preventative end of care and the pharmaceutical end?

I don't think you do.

[Recursion]

66. As I've said over and over again, the deductibles and copays are *current Medicare*

You're conflating two arguments I'm making:

1. Opening literal Medicare to the currently uninsured wouldn't be affordable to them

2. Given that, expanding the program so that it is affordable to the patient makes it more expensive.

As long as doctors and hospitals and drug companies and device manufacturers make as much as they do in the US (much, much more than they do in other countries) health care will not be affordable. How we finance it is only a very small part of the problem (private insurance overhead -- including profit -- is about 4% of our total healthcare spending). We can't fix this through a different financing system. We need to actually restrict how much the services and goods cost.

[MrMickeysMom]

67. Okay... Now I KNOW you don't read what's in front of you...

Who's conflating the argument, now? You somehow lost lost the point of the Medicare for All legislation. These were introduce in 2013 (Senate Bill BY Sanders, House Bill BY Jim McDermott) to reform health care, thus expanding Medicare from under it's current system (what you keep using as an argument for it's being less affordable). The fix is to take it AWAY from the private sector and nationalize to expand it for all at lower cost.

FOR THE REASONS I EXPLAINED, the costs go down! We CAN fix this not only by financing it differently by nationalizing it, but by paying for preventative services and reducing the costs that have been gutting the system, namely pharmaceutical industry, heavily lobbied, non-negotiated and obscene in the way it's expanded.

What an insult to anyone who reads the statistics of how we currently pay when you say, "how we finance it is only a very small part of the problem" That nonsense is exacerbated by you saying, "private insurance overhead, including profit is about 4% of our total healthcare spending". Do you know what the profit margins for durable medical equipment to supply oxygen to a patient is? Yes, there are ways to deliver the care in a less expensive way, and by covering preventative services, disease management and where the care is delivered and by whom, all this becomes LESS of a revolving door to the acute care system.

If you think you have real evidence of anything you've said, then show it. I already know what you said is false, so I have to assume you love the privatization argument, which is bullshit.

And, I'm sure your cost of providing service reference DID NOT come from the CMS. That is patently false.

Finally, your, "We can't fix this through a different financing system... but by how much the services and goods cost.

Absolutely FALSE. You know it and yet, you provide nothing to back it up. Why? Because the private sector's cost is anywhere between 25 to 30% administrative.

[Recursion]

68. Define "the private sector"

Why? Because the private sector's cost is anywhere between 25 to 30% administrative.

Are you talking about private providers, or private insurers? Because CMS puts private insurers' overhead and administration at 12%. Providers have huge margins. Huge. And Medicare isn't particularly better at addressing that than private insurance.

FOR THE REASONS I EXPLAINED, the costs go down!

No. You wave your hands and say "they go down". But there's no evidence there. Medicare has about half the overhead rate of private insurance, and on average pays providers 15% less. I've conceded that when you add those savings up, you get about a 20% reduction in costs. We agree on that.

We agree that a single payer system could provide the treatments currently provided about 20% cheaper than what we're paying for them. You simply refuse to even address the 80 million people (that's a quarter of the US population) who have no insurance or can't afford to use their insurance.

If you're providing services for 33% more people than you are now, at a 20% lower rate, does the end result cost less, or more?

[MrMickeysMom]

71. If you're providing services question...

... for 33% more people than you are now, at a (20% lower rate), does the end result cost less or more?

It costs less. Why? Because WE ARE ALREADY SEEING THEM. Those who have no health insurance are SEEN in the most expensive part of the health care system. What? Do you think these people aren't showing up in the delivery of care system? They're showing up in the ER over and over. They have a higher recitivism in emergent and critical care. Why don't you hear this?

Here's some reading which is about 5 yeas old which also addresses the exponential way that private insurance has cost over public. Read it for explanation.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/

[Recursion]

72. I hear it but it's not true

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/28/nick-gillespie/does-emergency-care-account-just-2-percent-all-hea/

http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=nursing_honproj

The uninsured use emergency rooms at a lower rate than the insured, not a greater rate.

That's the unicorn again. It's not that we're "providing care more expensively" for the uninsured: we really just aren't providing care. (The other big unicorn is that preventive care will save money, but that's a different argument...)

[MrMickeysMom]

75. So, now your ignorance on this issue is based on a libertarian publication...

After the article points to the number of supporters who agree over what I know from personal experience and FOLLOWING THE STATISTICS, it's finally revealed ...

Nick Gillespie, the editor of Reason.com, a libertarian publication, say recently that emergency room costs actually represent a tiny share of health care spending.

Okay, I think I'm through with making arguments with people who are ignorant of the issues, then use this to back of their utter ignorance.

Buzz off, Recursion. You've been pegged and as if all your other arguments that didn't hold water weren't enough, this latest waste of time sure pegged you.

Buh-bye, now...

[Recursion]

46. Medicare wouldn't remotely help poor people. It has a $1000 deductible, 20% copays

and no out of pocket maximum. Even bronze plans are better than that.

Literal "Medicare" for all would be worse than the ACA, which is why that's not what HR 676 is. However, because it goes way beyond Medicare, it's much much more expensive than just opening up Medicare to everyone would be.

[MrMickeysMom]

52. That is not correct at all...

Right now... Its costing us more... Why? Because the poor do not pay anything towards this more expensive system. They would by far be included into an expanded Medicare for all system. That's part of the cost estimate figured up-thread (you'll see it, as I only have a few posts in this thread)

We spend over 17% of our GDP on the current system that excludes that care. What on earth are you saying?

The ACA is a big give-away to the insurance companies... and now, open up your paper to our front page to read how it's not working out. That's why insurance companies are dropping out of the program. Do you keep up with the news? You don't write like you knew that.

Inform yourself.

[Recursion]

54. That's hand waving

I've posted the numbers several times: 30 million uninsured and 50 million underinsured, which means that universal health care makes usage go up at least 25%.

Medicare's savings vs. private insurance are 20%.

That doesn't save money; it costs more.

[MrMickeysMom]

60. That's still not true... How many times do you want me to say it?

All the "several times" references are not providing any information on the cost of covering the present under-insured and uninsured. The present costs cannot be contained and they are failing for the very reasons I gave you.

Did you dream this up, Recursion? Or, are you getting it from Limbaugh and his friends?

[Recursion]

61. I'm getting it from CMS

not providing any information on the cost of covering the present under-insured and uninsured

I am: I'm taking the rate that the insured use medical services, applying that rate to the uninsured and underinsured, and applying to the entire cohort (privately insured, uninsured, and underinsured) the rates Medicare pays for those services. This isn't exactly rocket science.

If you have some evidence that the uninsured and underinsured would actually use health services less than the fully insured, present the argument.

[MrMickeysMom]

65. See response #63

[Sheepshank]

33. So now that $15 per hour platitude makes sense

Give everyone a raise so he can take it away to pay for his plans.

It's all so diabolically clever. He has so many people fighting for something they'll never get to keep.

[jamzrockz]

57. So he gives everybody a raise

Takes it all back in fees but also gives everybody universal healthcare. How exactly is that a bad thing? I'd vote for him in a heart beat if I thought he could achieve even that.

[Ron Green]

44. The fact is that we can't afford the health care system we have NOW.

Only a unified single-payer system funded by taxes LESS than the current premiums and out-of-pocket costs will be affordable in the future.

Small businesses will not have to go broke trying to cover employees, the system will negotiate for reasonable drug prices, and administrative costs will be cut by 80 to 90 percent. Everybody will be covered.

Study after study has been done. You can look it up. All that's missing is the political will.

Please don't make dumbass posts trying to prop up Hillary's bad ideas.

[Recursion]

45. Except just waving your hands and saying "it will cost less" doesn't make it so

Medicare doesn't really do much to change our overpriced providers. Sure: they pay about 20% less than private insurance does, and that's good. But it's not remotely enough, and we can't even get Congress after 20 years of it to fix the fact that doctors are overcharging by about 15%.

So if Medicare pays 20% less, and we keep usage the same, we save about 10% (since roughly half of the country has private insurance, which would be replaced by Medicare). That's cool. But we won't keep usage the same. We have 30 million Americans with no insurance, and 50 million Americans who avoid needed treatment because of copays and deductibles (and, keep in mind, Medicare has pretty high copays and deductibles and no out of pocket maximum). That means even with Medicare's savings we end up paying about what we pay now and a little more.

So either we'll keep Medicare's high copays and deductibles, in which case we aren't actually solving the problem, or we'll lower them and raise the usage, which means it will cost even more.

It's a pipe dream to pretend that without drastic reforms -- reforms Medicare doesn't provide -- to how providers work -- and specifically how much money they make -- we'll have anything like affordable health care. A doctor in Germany starts out at about $50K and maxes out at $88K. If we aren't talking about things like that, we're not going to see affordable health care any time soon.

[Ron Green]

47. You're right that drastic reforms are required.

Medicare has to be improved, and with its non-profit mandate it certainly can be; drug price negotiation is an obvious example, 2% admin cost is already a fact.

Greater usage costs more up front, but saves in the long run due to improved population health. Japanese go to the doctor 4X more often than Americans, yet operate a less costly system.

One small, affluent city in my state has 7 MRI machines. They need 2. Meanwhile, parts of the state go unserved. This is the market at work, and really illustrates the problem best: competition exists in the wrong places in our system, and resources are following investor needs rather than those of patients, or of healers.

And while you disparage the hand-waving, some is required to wake up enough people to what's got to be done.

[Recursion]

62. I don't know where people keep coming up with 2%. It's 6%. CMS publishes these numbers.

In 2013, Medicare had $35 billion in administrative costs on $585 billion paid. That's 6%.

The numbers for Medicaid are $38 billion in administrative costs on $449 billion paid. That's 8%.

The numbers for private insurance are $115 billion in administrative costs and profit on $961 billion paid. That's 12%.

[Ron Green]

69. Don Berwick, the former Director of CMS, is my source. n/t

[Recursion]

70. Well, CMS disagrees with him

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.html

For 2013 it was 6% for Medicare, 8% for Medicaid, 12% for CHIP, and 27% for Workers' Comp.

[hill2016]

64. prescription drug prices

are only about 10% of total health care spend. How much can you squeeze from that?

[LWolf]

50. "A Slap Fight."

How juvenile, and what a misogynistic way to draw a line between the candidates.

Meanwhile, there are already Medicare For All plans in existence, as Devine mentions:

...“He may just say, `It’s Medicare for all,’” he said, and then point to existing proposals as possible models. “I don’t think we want to have 14 plans (on various subjects) between now and Feb. 1” when the first votes are cast.

For example, HR 676, which I've supported for many years and is also supported by PNHP:

http://www.pnhp.org/publications/united-states-national-health-care-act-hr-676

[Jarqui]

51. He wrote this bill in late 2013

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1782/text#toc-H97FAADF0BE68465FBE1925001DA25491

S. 1782

To provide for health care for every American and to control the cost and enhance the quality of the health care system.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
December 9, 2013
Mr. Sanders introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL
To provide for health care for every American and to control the cost and enhance the quality of the health care system.

Seems to cover a lot of what he's been talking about

Here's where he's stood on healthcare issues:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Health_Care.htm

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/legislation/issue/primary-health-care
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/legislation/issue/dental-care

There's a fair amount of material on what his positions are on this issue

[Rosa Luxemburg]

56. There's a lot in the bill

[leftofcool]

53. Bernie doesn't need plans because he will never get near the Oval Office

[Agnosticsherbet]

76. In 2015, Medicare cost 511 billion for 54 million people.

Which comes to [link:http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go|$9,462.00 per person served.
]

It's finds come from three revenue streams, two trust funds and the genealogy fund because the trust funds do not provide sufficient revenue.

Medicare for all could not work with a trust fund because it would run from cradle to grave for 321 million people.

Keep in mind that Medicare does not cover all expenses.

That would come to a little over 3 trillion dollars.

There would be some savings from changes to the existing CHP and ACA programs.

This would put more than three million people on indmlloyment. (2.5 million employees in 2009) It would destroy an entire industry, causing massive losses and hurting the economy for several years.

We have a right to demand the total costs of implementing and operating this system before we vote on it.

[firebrand80]

78. It's official, Bernie isn't trying to win

He just wants to influence the debate and shed light on socialism.

Which most of us kinda knew anyway.

His supporters should take note and act accordingly