"Medicare for all" The first thing Sanders said after emerging from a successful hernia procedure

[Luminous Animal]

https://twitter.com/wpjohnwagner/status/671486565143715841

[NurseJackie]

1. Wishing him all the best. May he have a very speedy recovery and that he'll soon be back to his

old self again. Feel better soon. Looking forward to see him up and about.

[Ned_Devine]

20. Once again, one of you managed to be the first post in a Bernie thread. You're all well trained.

[Matariki]

23. C'mon. That was a gracious post

[Ned_Devine]

32. I know. I was actually more irked by the post that followed, but I've been noticing this pattern.

[NurseJackie]

37. Yes. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable

... excuse to shit on my post and subtly suggest that I'm some sort of trained stalker. I get it.

[Ned_Devine]

41. Not just you. I see this pattern with lots of HRC supporters.

When I get a chance to read a Bernie thread, nearly every time I open it I see that the first to respond in the thread is someone from the HRC camp. It seems very disciplined. You say "trained stalker" but I didn't go that far. I just said it seems very disciplined.

[Trajan]

52. I don't see many Hillary supporters ...

I have them tucked away, all cozy in a warm , velvet box ... No bother at all ...

[Ned_Devine]

53. It' too bad that it has to come to that. I understand why though

[NurseJackie]

72. Yes, that's why I described it as being "subtle" ...

... but taken as a whole, the meaning was clear. Besides, I doubt seriously that you'd ever say something that direct. You're probably much too ... umm ... disciplined ... to do that.

It clearly annoys you, otherwise why spend your time looking for disciplined "patterns" or even bothering to point them out? I think it goes beyond mere observation or "amazement" as you say.

Perhaps I could even understand if your reply had been in response a rude message. But no, I offer my best wishes for his speedy recovery, and by virtue of the fact that it's first in line (and perhaps the presence of the Hillary logo) I get your dismissive snark. Weird.

No big deal really. But if you think about it, this type of overreaction (over a big fat nothing) speaks more of you than that to which you were expressing amazement. Your explanation and rationalization only help to punctuate and underline it.

Oy! This has got to be one of the most absurd exchanges I've ever had here. Moving on...

[Matariki]

40. Yeah.

Agreed. About the other post.

[NurseJackie]

24. Who cares? Why does it matter to you?

[Ned_Devine]

28. Just pointing out the patterns. It's pretty amazing. Very disciplined.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. I wish him well

Does this mean he's finally going to present a detailed Medicare for all plan?

[JDPriestly]

6. Medicare already is a detailed plan.

[Cali_Democrat]

8. Has Bernie's Medicare for all plan been scored by the CBO?

How much additional tax revenue will be required and what will the new tax brackets be for all Americans?

The CBO is more than willing to score any plan put forward by a presidential candidate, but Bernie hasn't put forward a detailed plan which can be scored.

These are questions that haven't been answered yet.

Shouting "Medicare for all" sounds nice, but it doesn't mean much if you don't have details

[thesquanderer]

13. If someone's taxes go up...

...but they no longer have to pay the otherwise federally required payment for private health insurance, then they could be no worse out of pocket even if their taxes go up.

[Cali_Democrat]

14. OK....so when will Bernie provide all these details which can be scored by the CBO? nt

[thesquanderer]

18. I agree, I'd like to see a more detailed analysis of this as well.

I'm just saying that it's more complicated than a CBO score. That score will tell you what it costs in terms of the federal budget (and in fact we do have some idea what those numbers are, see post #7). But what a CBO score doesn't tell you is what an individual will pay, or how that will compare to what that individual pays for private insurance (which in turn varies with what state they are in, which "metal" they select, whether they qualify for a subsidy, etc.).

[Fawke Em]

55. Well, there was Senate 915 back in 2011

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/docs/2011/Final-Draft-Sanders-S915.pdf

It's not like he hasn't been working toward this for years.

[senz]

69. HR 676 (Medicare for All) will save money.

Gerald Friedman, Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html

Projected 10 year impact of HR 676 in billions --

[eridani]

71. All you need to know is that we already spend twice per capita what other developed countries do

IOW, we are already paying for universal health care--we just aren't getting it. The Washington Health Security Trust estimates that a payroll tax of 1-1.2% for payroll under $500K/hear and 10-12% for payroll over that amount, plus $100-$200/month premiums would cover everyone in WA State. If you are on Medicare, you could voluntarily use WHST as your Medicare part B and D for $50-$75/month.

[George II]

12. Not for "all". When will he present his plan for "all"?

[gordyfl]

25. Just Mail Out the Medicare Cards and be Done With It

We all know what Medicare is. Just mail out Medicare cards to everyone.

Whatever the cost is, put that cost into the budget like we do with our many wars. But don't give tax breaks to those who don't need it, like we normally do during wars.

But my guess is Bernie will start off with a Public Option attached to ObamaCare- a Medicare Buy-In. Let the people choose. Insurance companies will be against it. Hillary won't support it. Most Americans will support it.

Put a Medicare Card in everyone's pocket and I guarantee you will be re-elected.

[floriduck]

26. NurseJackie gracious.

Your post, not so much. FAIL!!!

[slipslidingaway]

58. What is Hillary's plan for HC and what is the cost? Putting everyone into one insurance pool makes..

sense IMHO.

ACA is not working for many, our premiums are going up $200. per month with United Healthcare and the plan names have now changed to bronze, silver and gold. Even with the increase in premiums our annual out of pocket maximum is still over 8K per annum, we are going into the seventh year of paying the max, which is not really the max when you factor in travel and lodging costs. Glad we saved for retirement so we can spend it early on HC, but there are many people who were not able to do so and will find themselves declaring bankruptcy or just die.

What is Hillary's plan and what is the cost?

[MrMickeysMom]

3. Damn right...

Let's get it on!

[JEB]

4. One more year to go

before I get medicare and my hernia operation.

[MaggieD]

5. But no plan to make it happen

That's our Bernie!

Wishing him a speedy recovery.

[JDPriestly]

7. Actually, here are the economics of it.

It won't take that much of a plan. Medicare already exists. And we will save money with Medicare for all.

The economist is at the U. of Mass. The Wall Street Journal mangled his math to come up with their article criticizing Bernie's plan for Medicare for all. The economist set the Wall Street Journal straight on Huffington Post. Here you go. Medicare for all is a winner for all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html

The Journal correctly puts the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.

These financial savings would be felt by businesses and by state and local governments who would no longer be paying for health insurance for their employees; and by retirees and working Americans who would no longer have to pay for their health insurance or for co-payments and deductibles. Beyond these financial savings, HR 676 would also save thousands of lives a year by expanding access to health care for the uninsured and the underinsured.

The economic benefits from Senator Sander's proposal would be even greater than these static estimates suggest because a single-payer plan would create dynamic gains by freeing American businesses to compete without the burden of an inefficient and wasteful health insurance system. As with Senator Sanders' other proposals, the economic boom created by HR 676, including the productivity boost coming from a more efficient health care system and a healthier population, would raise economic output and provide billions of dollars in additional tax revenues to over-set some of the additional federal spending.

Summary of 10-year projections

Because of the nearly $10 trillion in savings, it is possible to fund over $4.5 trillion in additional services while still reducing national health care spending by over $5 trillion. With these net savings, the additional $14.7 trillion in federal spending brings savings to the private sector (and state and local governments) of over $19.7 trillion.

More at the link.

[arcane1]

9. That poster won't read it. Their role is simply to counter every pro-Sanders post with *something*

It doesn't have to make any sense, so long as it's contrary.

I, however, did in fact read and enjoy your post

[blackspade]

17. You called it. See post 11.

So apparently the CBO has to review all plans from Sanders....
Otherwise 'not good enough'.

[arcane1]

22. Notice how they continue to pretend it's all taxes but omit what those taxes pay for?

It's like arguing with toddlers who can't say more than "I know you are, but what am I?"

[blackspade]

68. Exactly.

[MaggieD]

11. Yeah, yeah, yeah

Nobody gives a crap what somebody at UMASS with a political agenda thinks. Bernie needs to have it scored by the CBO, and he has not bothered to do that in over 2 years.

So again, he has NO PLAN TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

[floriduck]

27. Actually

Nobody gives a crap what MaggieD with a political agenda thinks either. President Obama never put out a plan concerning the ACA when he campaigned. And the ACA is far more complicated mechanically than giving everyone Medicare.

Why do you people not think before you push keyboard buttons?

[arcane1]

34. They aren't here to think, they are here to counter any positive Sanders posts.

It doesn't matter if what they post makes sense or not, that isn't the role.

[JDPriestly]

39. It's almost like a professional campaign. Very strange.

And now they are focusing as a group on being the first to answer threads about Bernie.

It's very odd in my view.

And they don't answer questions or comments with positive information about their favorite candidate.

[MaggieD]

45. Obama did not propose the ACA when he ran

You're thinking of Hillary. Obama said he was against mandates except for children. And yes, people DO care. His pie in the sky, no plan proposals aren't flying with people. Or hadn't you noticed he's getting trounced in every poll?

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2008/oct/the-2008-presidential-candidates-health-reform-proposals--choices-for-america

[floriduck]

50. You need to re-read paragraph 5 of your link.

Obama wanted a healthcare plan modeled after the MA plan. That's what we got.

[MaggieD]

51. You need to read the whole thing AND

Have paid attention when he ran. He was against the mandate except for kids. He was wrong of course. Or more likely against it because he thought it was too much of a political risk.

So if we're keeping score Obama was wrong, Hillary was right, and Bernie as usual said and did nothing. Because that is Bernie.

[floriduck]

62. I'll let sleeping Hill's lie.

Hill is wrong again, Bernie is on target and we will leave it at that. You made your argument, failed and I'm done pissin' in the wind with someone who can't face reality.

[MaggieD]

67. I can't face reality?

You're trying to rewrite history. Now THAT is an inability to face reality.

[MeNMyVolt]

54. Uh, I give a crap what Maggie thinks.

Grow up, Duck.

[sleepyvoter]

64. I don't.

*plonk*

[George II]

16. Here's the chart from that article.

It's bad right from the git-go. It says that Sanders proposes revenue from "progressive taxation". Then move over to the right column and we see that "progressive taxation" includes PAYROLL TAXES, a highly REGRESSIVE form of taxation.

Payroll taxes come straight from the pay of lower and middle class Americans (as well as the "oligarchy&quot .

How much "pay" does Donald Trump get? What % of his total income would that be? One-percent, five-percent?

The total income for most middle and lower class Americans is 100% pay - they have very few or no investments or income other than pay. So if the payroll tax is say 2% (just picking a number), someone earning $40,000 a year with no investment income will pay $800 in "payroll tax".

On the other hand, Donald Trump may pay himself $1M a year in "salary" even though his overall income from other sources is $50M (again just picking numbers) So his "payroll tax" would be 2% of one million dollars, or $20,000 dollars. A lot of money for most, but a mere 4/100 of one-percent.

So the poor working slob is paying 2% of his total income, a rate FIFTY TIMES the rate that the rich guy is paying on his income.

So the lower and middle class is once again getting screwed, but this time by the darling of the "progressives"!

[arcane1]

21. Not a bad trade-off for no longer having medical bills and insurance premiums.

I'm sure someone will cry a year for the insurance company CEOs

[gordyfl]

31. Employers will Contribute as well.

Employers can replace their private health care premiums for their employees with Medicare - if they choose. It's not as complicated as Hillary supporters (and Republicans) make it out to be.

I heard Sean Hannity making the argument about how costly Medicare for All would be.

Bill O'Reilly of FOX News made similar claims...

O'Reilly pointed out that Sanders' plan calls for free Medicare for all Americans, an increase in Social Security payments, guaranteed paid family and medical leave, tuition-free schools at all levels and much more.

"The freebies and programs Sen. Sanders supports would cost the American taxpayer $18 trillion over a decade," O'Reilly said. "Obviously, that's not fiscally possible unless the federal government begins seizing assets, which is certainly in line with the socialist philosophy."

O'Reilly noted that Clinton has seen how popular Sanders' message has been, so she's trying to get on the "free stuff" bandwagon with a proposal for essentially free college tuition.

"So, with Hillary Clinton now imitating Bernie Sanders, the country faces a very interesting scenario: Capitalism versus socialism. We'll see what prevails."

[arcane1]

38. It's very telling to see such a progressive plan being shit on here as "more tax-and-spend"

It fools no one.

[George II]

47. Oh cut it out - now you're equating my objection to REGRESSIVE taxes....

......to that of O'Reilly and Hannity and then going on about what they said specifically ("seizing assets", "Clinton imitating Sanders", etc.)? That's highly offensive.

[JDPriestly]

29. Bernie plans to raise the cap. Hillary will not do that.

If we raise the cap, we may be able to lower the rate of the payroll tax.

Besides, the point in Medicare for all or single payer is that people pay a percentage of their paycheck for their contribution to the cost of medical care.

Everybody pays in a percentage of their paycheck. If you earn less, the amount you pay in is much lower than the amount that a top earner pays in.

Your analysis fails because you are assuming the same kind of tax system with the same allocation of taxes to the people earning less that we have now. Medicare for all would be accompanied by a change in our tax system.

Right now, already, with the ACA, the cost of insurance for people who earn less is subsidized by the taxes and prices paid for insurance by people who earn more. The difference is that part of the insurance premium now goes to for-profit insurance companies. They take a cut.

And as we know from Medicare when contrasted with private insurance, the administrative costs will go down quite a bit when we switch to Medicare for all. There will be fewer restrictions on care since co-pays and the like will be sharply reduced.

Our current Medicare provides for seniors. It provides for us at the time of our life when not only our medical costs are usually at their highest but also when the administrative costs because of the large number of claims and the large amount of pharmaceuticals that elderly people need are at their highest.

Medicare for All will save money. As one who paid for my own insurance when I had my own business, I can see the great advantage of Medicare for all. Many people have no idea how much their employers really pay for their health insurance.

As I have mentioned so many times that I can't believe people don't remember it, I lived in Europe for years in several different countries. We were "on the local economy" and had the local single payer insurance. The programs differed, but they all shared the fact that the insurance companies were almost all as far as I know not-for-profit. Our insurance covered dental care as well as medical care, much longer hospital stays than I have heard of in this country and excellent medical care. In addition, the health insurance covered "Kurs" which were sort of stays at spas or baths that I almost think of as recovery resorts for people with certain chronic ailments. Alcoholism was one of them but there were others.

Single payer in my experience is far cheaper and far better than our ACA or any program we have here.

It will be cheaper too. The article proves that.

Remember the "taxes" that will be paid for the insurance will be INSTEAD OF and not in addition to the money we now pay to private insurance companies for coverage. They really aren't "taxes" for the general fund at all.

We will all save money if we have single payer. The article proves that.

[George II]

48. I'd feel a lot better about his plan (vague as it is so far anyway) if he changed his regressive....

...payroll tax and replaced it with an income tax, which EVERY person with "income" would pay, not just those who are on payrolls.

[floriduck]

35. Did you consider health care costs of prescription drugs?

Hill wants to leave the ACA intact and improve it. But which candidate is MORE likely to fight big pharma, especially with Bernie opposing TPP day one and Hill (who was quoted as it being the "Gold Standard&quot suddenly deciding against it. She was also quoted as being consistent with Obama in her foreign policy. Wrong again. So thanks for your one sided view. But it is very difficult, no impossible, to believe what Hill says one day and does on another.

[jeff47]

57. Oh the horror of $5k leaving my paycheck per year instead of $10k for my current insurance

You're right! That extra $5,000 per year would be an AWFUL problem to have!!

[George II]

59. So you're content with Sanders' plan allowing the poor and middle-class subsidizing the......

.....health insurance of the rich?

[jeff47]

60. I'm not the rich, and it will save me $5k/year.

You just keep forgetting that people are already paying for insurance.

Also, payroll taxes are mostly regressive because of the cap. Guess what Sanders also wants to remove?

[Douglas Carpenter]

61. like with Social Security and the current Medicare? Means testing is a way to make programs resented

and unpopular forever. Social Security and Medicare are not means tested and are overwhelmingly popular - attempts to abolish them or privatize them or make major cutbacks on them are almost always universally opposed by the overwhelming majority of American people. Other "help the unfortunate" programs that are means tested are always politically open to cutbacks and are in general unpopular - because people frequently have trouble imagining themselves in such unfortunate circumstances. Means tested programs insure that the very poor will be often resented by the middle class and the working poor who make just enough to put them above the limits to qualify.

Doesn't Hillary know that? Surely she must?

[PatrickforO]

33. Very good article. Between my employer and I, 18.5% of my gross goes for shitty

rationed healthcare from an HMO that cares more about keeping costs down than giving me the care I actually need.

So...Medicare for All Americans ASAP.

For once, just ONCE, let's use OUR tax dollars for something constructive for US, the people of the United States, instead of for Halliburton and the rest of the MIC who even now is positioning us for another forever war.

Just once.

And, the rest of you, why are you SO concerned about how much this will cost? No one (except Bernie) had ANYTHING to say about how much the war in Iraq would cost. And you know what? My healthcare is a hell of a lot more important to me than 'boots on the ground' somewhere for the sake of Halliburton's profits. And it SHOULD be more important to any presidential candidate as well.

Let's take care of our own people for a change.

[gordyfl]

36. Well Said.

Many of us share your view.

[LibDemAlways]

43. HMOs are the worst of the worst. A friend has

suffered with shoulder pain from an injury for over a year because her shitty HMO refuses to authorize treatment. My daughter's boyfriend has been unable to see an allergist because his HMO flatly refuses to authorize a visit to a specialist. He is miserable with constant congestion and wheezing. What good is "healthcare" if you are denied access to it unless you are financially able to foot the considerable bill yourself?

Yes, an investment in the health and well being of the American people would be a welcome change. We pay taxes through the nose and get nothing but weapons and more weapons that benefit only corrupt corporations and the politicians they own.

[arcane1]

44. I'm honestly amazed that more people don't "go postal" over this kind of crap.

It sucks so much even having insurance, I can't imagine what it's like to have none. But at least the person with none doesn't end up with a series of false hopes dashed.

[LibDemAlways]

49. I left out another one that just came to mind. A friend

tripped over a box helping her son move into a college apartment and fractured her foot. In considerable pain, she somehow managed to drive three hours home with her swollen foot wrapped in an ace bandage. She contacted her HMO that night and was told to keep the foot elevated and that the next available appointment was in two days. She headed to urgent care instead where the foot was x-rayed snd the break was confirmed. When she finally got to the HMO two days later, she was told a boot would be necessary but it would have to be approved. The approval process took another 2 full days and then she was told she could only get the boot at a facility an hour away and it would be available in 2 more days. Meantime she was in pain and living with a broken foot that was not being properly treated. This all happened in September and the foot is still not healing properly -- no doubt as a result of all the unconscienable delays.

I wouldn't have blamed her for going postal. Being injured is bad enough. Being jerked around on top of it is more than anyone should have to put up with.

[Art_from_Ark]

73. Holy crap

That story sounds similar to one I heard from a Japanese researcher who had been living in Boston and had to get urgent care, only to be given the runaround because his American insurance didn't cover this, that and the other.

[sleepyvoter]

65. My friend..

[AtomicKitten]

10. Best wishes for a speedy recovery.

Medicare.For.All.

[blackspade]

15. I feel his pain.

Hernias suck.

[cantbeserious]

19. Speedy Recovery Senator

eom

[eggplant]

30. Fox News headline: Socialist wacko demands all citizens undergo hernia procedures. n/t

[Cheese Sandwich]

74. LOL!

Pretty much this.

[LibDemAlways]

42. My 92 year old mother is, of course, on

Medicare. She recently underwent a half hour outpatient diagnostic procedure at 9:00 AM and was having lunch with me in a restaurant before noon. The bill came yesterday. It was $12,000. The provider agreed to accept Medicare payment as payment in full. Medicare paid something like $600 and the rest was written off. I suspect someone without insurance of any kind would be in deep deep shit. Medicare for all. Yes.

[slipslidingaway]

46. Good for your Mom, it is amazing what they bill and then write off when you have insurance ...

or can get a cash discount.

[MeNMyVolt]

56. But where's the plan?

Who pays what, and what do we get. Lot'sa yelling, and that's about it. What I've seen from him sounds like block grants to the states. Folks in the red states..... good luck.

All vibes for a speedy recovery.

[slipslidingaway]

66. Please link to Clinton's HC plan and the CBO score, thanks. n/t

[cui bono]

63. He's so great! He really cares about helping everyone live a decent life.

In all honesty, I just don't see what there is that can possibly make someone support Hillary over him.



.

[senz]

70. The anti-medicare for all folks argue like Republicans.

Now isn't that strange?