Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton Attacks Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda
Jonathan Cohn
Senior National Correspondent
This is why Hillary Clinton makes so many progressives queasy.
The former secretary of state and front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination has launched a new attack on her chief rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The subject is taxes and Sanders' apparent willingness to raise them, even on the middle class, to pay for his ambitious domestic agenda.
Sanders has proposed a variety of new programs designed to help Americans pay for everything from child care to college tuition. Most famously, Sanders is also a longtime proponent of single-payer health insurance -- in other words, expanding Medicare so everybody, not just the elderly, could enroll in it.
While Sanders has supported the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, he has described the legislation as merely a first step toward guaranteeing that every American has health insurance. He has said that creating a single-payer system, similar to the schemes that now operate in countries such as France and Taiwan, would achieve that goal.
more
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-taxes_564bcbbfe4b06037734ba1bd
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)an apple will do just as much for the unrich of the country.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)and the taste would be pretty gamey too.
Nothing would take THAT taste away.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)compared to what the Middle Class is NOW paying for their health care, their college educations, etc.
not to mention their pension funds and Social Security that the 3rd Way is salivating to steal, once
their Wall Street Queen is coronated.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)with those experienced under President Clinton? Seems to me I remember Obama kept the Bush cuts for the middle class intact. Frankly I would be fine going back to 1999 era rates if we got something like universal Heath Care!
Scuba
(53,475 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)about how his campaign theme "when we stand up together, we win" .. about how being
"in it together" with the social welfare in mind is good for everyone, except the vultures
and vampires on Wall St.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Capt.Rocky300
(1,005 posts)and we know where it got him in the general. I'm totally disgusted with the Granholm tweet. A complete distortion of Bernie's proposals. Wonder what Hillary promised her.
n8dogg83
(248 posts)Health care and her indebtedness to the pharmaceutical industry:
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/11/17/toughest-attack-yet-bernie-sanders-accuses-hillary-clinton-healthcare-flip-flop.html
Excerpt:
.
Its hard to understand how someone who claims to have been a supporter of universal health insurance for years is suddenly moving to the right and attacking universal health care. Or, maybe its not:
The Clinton campaign received far more money from the drug and medical device industries than any other presidential candidate in either party during the first six months of the campaign, according to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. She accepted $164,315 during that period.
At the same time, she has accepted significant contributions from individual donors. She received contributions, for example, from two executives at Jazz Pharmaceuticals, which raised the price of a drug used to treat sleep disorders by more than 800 percent, from roughly $2 to $19 a pill.
Glad he is fighting back. I have a feeling that having SuperPacs is going to be a liability for the candidates this election.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Stop with the polls and Bernie-hating and lies and just admit they prefer a conservative establishment president.
azmom
(5,208 posts)She won't raise taxes because she doesn't offer anything substantial. I would rather pay a little bit more to have a healthier more educated populace. What we have now, is not working for the majority of people. We need real and substantial change.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--with no deductibles. That would include eliminating deductibles from Medicare. We'd have to argue about copays when hashing out the details.
eridani
(51,907 posts)A standard Democratic presidential nominee representing the center-left of the party might call a single-payer system politically impractical in order to argue against it. If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system, Sen. Barack Obama said during his 2008 presidential campaign, for example. He then explained why he wouldnt pursue such a model: People dont have time to wait. They need relief now. So my attitude is lets build up the system we got. Lets make it more efficient. We may be over timeas we make the system more efficient and everybodys covereddecide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively. In the end that approach resulted in the Affordable Care Act, compromise legislation that greatly expanded coverage without really overhauling the countrys private health insurance model. But Obama didnt really disown the idea of single-payer, which many progressives still prefer to the current system.
Clinton, however, is going much further by appropriating one of the rights central talking points against government-funded universal health insurance: Think of the taxes! Shes not just saying that a single-payer system is a political nonstarter with conservatives. Shes reciting the actual conservative talking point that would make a single-payer system a political nonstarter.
There are fairly obvious policy counterpoints to that argument. She is well-aware of them and chooses to ignore them, because they would either blunt or negate her convenient political attack. Sure, under Sanders plan, the combination of the income and payroll taxes would add up to 8.9 percent (assuming employers pass on the full 6.7 percent payroll tax) on most earners. But people would not be paying for health insurance anymore, and a universal, public system would save money by eliminating all of the actuarial costs and profit expectations associated with the private insurance system.
If Clinton wanted to say that she wouldnt push for a single-payer system because its a political dead-ender right now, or because shes spotted another legitimate policy flaw with the idea, that would be more acceptable. What shes doing, instead, is essentially red-baiting about Bernie Sanders Wacky Taxes in her dismissal of a policy that, on paper, draws plenty of support among Democratic voters. Thats not good for the single-payer health care movement, which is hoping that some blue states will be able to use ACA waivers to experiment with single-payer in their states but so far are running into trouble thanks to the exact talking point Clintons deploying. And its not good for American liberalism in general, which is supposed to defend the belief that government funded by taxes can solve problems and improve peoples livelihoods.