Sanders in 1987: 'Astronomical' Cost of Single-Payer 'Would Bankrupt the Nation' (VIDEO)

[RandySF]

[George II]

1. Hmmm, "I don't understand why some folks run as if the internet doesn't exist"!

[Docreed2003]

39. +1

Took the words right out of my mouth

[Scurrilous]

71. She was on a roll that day. Giddy even.

[redstatebluegirl]

2. The videos the GOP will be using to run against him are popping up all over.

[yaesu]

3. posted for the zillionth time on DU

I would much better see the time machine go in the future & pick some lotto numbers for us.

[NewJeffCT]

4. First I've seen it

but, I generally avoid the primaries forum

[Scurrilous]

16. The second time.

People's Action was the one posted a 'zillion' times.

[DanTex]

5. Do the people cutting these anti-Bernie videos even watch them first? Seriously....

What he says, very clearly, is that "unless we change the funding system" then it would bankrupt the nation. Yeah, no kidding! That's what single payer is!

This is a pro-single-payer video from way back then, discussing why Canada's system is so efficient compared to ours. It shows that, yes, Bernie is consistent.

I have no idea where these anti-Bernie (and the anti-Warren video the other day) are coming from, but can we at least not post misleading videos against Democratic candidates?

[brush]

8. And you think the repugs will run the entire clip?

[DanTex]

10. No, they will take things out of context like they always do. To any candidate.

But should we be doing that too?

[brush]

13. The whole clip ran. It's a warning of the oppo repugs will run against Sanders.

[DanTex]

14. Any candidate's words can be taken out of context. You don't seriously think they'll only do that

to Sanders, right?

[brush]

19. No, but the socialist aspect of the Sanders oppo will render him McGovern 2.0.

that stuff will run 24/7 on FOX and hate radio, they'll paint him redder than any red state. There are videos all over Youtube of Sanders saying "I am a socialist."

Why do you think they're so trying to damage Biden?

They want to run against Sanders.

[DanTex]

21. Maybe, but that has nothing to do with this misleadingly titled Youtube video.

McGovern was 48 years ago.

[brush]

25. Just means Sanders will lose in a landslide like he did.

[DanTex]

27. In the primary? He's currently got the best odds to take the nomination.

[RandySF]

31. In the general.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

34. He's doing better than Biden in many match ups.

Certainly better than all the other candidates in match ups.

Yet people want to compare to a weak (polling) candidate who had to replace his VP in a scandal.

[brush]

32. Come on, you must know I mean in the GE.

There's so much socialist oppo on Sanders available for free, the repugs are just salivating to run against him.

[stopbush]

6. I'm not a Sanders supporter, but taken in its entirety, that sound bite is dead on.

[awesomerwb1]

7. Well, but but

come ride with me on my money making unicorn!! Makes $1 Trillion per day*!!

* Maybe less, because you don't know, I don't know, nobody knows how much this thing really makes!!

[Hoyt]

9. If we give everyone a Medicaid card, Medicaid-for-All will bankrupt country. Medicaid costs less

than Medicare.

So if we give everyone a Medicare card, remove the 20% copayments, remove deductibles, give everyone dental, etc., that would have to bankrupt the world.

Not sure it is necessarily that bad, but the fact Sanders saw it at one time as cost prohibitive is quite startling, especially when he is now saying no one can predict the cost.

[DanTex]

11. Except that he didn't, if you watch the video.

He says that unless we change the funding mechanism, that would happen. The whole clip was a discussion about Canada's Single Payer system and why it's so much more efficient than ours.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. Yep. He makes total sense. This is a pretty funny fail attempt at bashing Bernie.

They really have nothing.

[LanternWaste]

15. Ten bucks say you fail to see the irony

in your most righteous indignation of a candidate being "bashed."

Pretty funny, indeed.

[Tiggeroshii]

29. Still waiting to see evidence that people actually watched the video and didn't

just take the title at face value.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

37. Nothing, nada, zip, diddly-squat...what a bunch of malarkey they keep throwin @Bernie. But then...

I hope they keep it up... it's why Bernie's is surging in the polls!!

There's a name for the phenomenon... it's called the Baseless Bernie Bashing Backlash!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[Hoyt]

17. So, how do you change the funding mechanism? Remember, in 1987 taxes were much higher than they are

now on middle class and higher incomes. Yet, Medicaid-for-All would have bankrupted the country, according to Sanders in 1987.

How much would Sanders increase taxes to fund something that no one can project, while funding response to climate change, paying for education, infrastructure, bolstering Social Security, deficit and debt reduction, child care, and whatever else Sanders and Warren can promise to attract votes.

Could Sanders be talking about nationalizing hospitals, medical practices, etc.? That's about the only way one can get providers to accept Medicaid rates, which are roughly half of private insurance rates.

I don't think that's going to fly in 2020.

While I want to see universal coverage, nothing will happen in next 10 years running on Medicare-for-All because GOPers will kick our ass.

Now, if someone campaigns on universal coverage by increasing subsidies for ACA, significantly decreasing cost-sharing, adding a Public Option, expanding Medicaid for poor, etc., we might have a chance.

[DanTex]

18. I'd say a dedicated tax that would replace health insurance premiums that are currently taken out

of paychecks. If you want more detail, you can see either Warren's or Bernie's webpages.

The point is, in that video, he's clearly saying that it would bankrupt the country without changing the funding mechanism, which is basically a tautology. Of course it requires a different funding mechanism.

When he said nobody knows what it would cost, he was also right. The American people are going to be paying health care costs anyway, whether it's through premiums and copays, or through single payer. The amount of health care cost inflation isn't predictable exactly by anyone, either in the status quo, or with single payer, but that's not an argument against single payer any more than it's an argument in favor of it.

[Hoyt]

20. Oh, I saw Warren's plan. Before November 2019, both were projecting $3.5 Trillion per year because

that's what the country supposedly spends now for healthcare.

Then, Warren was forced to provide some detail. On November 1, 2019, she released her new projections -- $5.2 Trillion per year. Almost a 50% increase in the cost bandied about a month earlier.

How has Sanders responded, "No One can predict the cost."

The chances of Sanders' or Warren's plans passing is close to nil. About the same as their chance of winning the general election running on that pipe-dream.

[DanTex]

26. I don't see how single payer would cost *more* than our current system.

I mean, we already pay like 1.5 to 2 times more than the rest of the world, most of which have something resembling single payer.

I would agree that claiming drastic immediate cost reductions would be unrealistic. But at worst, it would just be the same cost, but instead of routing it through the insurance companies, it gets routed through the government.

The numbers look big when you talk only about the money going to the single payer, and not the money we are currently sending to insurance companies. But really, at heart, single payer is just re-routing the same cash flow.

[Hoyt]

33. Ask Warren. She supposedly studied it.

Both Warren and Sanders have been telling us that it would cost $3.5 Trillion per year because that's what we supposedly spend per year on overall healthcare costs.

However, when forced to do a more thorough analysis in November 2019, her cost estimate went to $5.2 Trillion per year ($52 Trillion over 10 years). Other credible organizations -- like the Urban Institute -- put it at $59 Trillion.

Point is, they don't know what it will cost, and apparently really don't care. It's just a promise that they think will bring them votes.



https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/01/elizabeth-warren-releases-plan-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all.html

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/01/775339519/heres-how-warren-finds-20-5-trillion-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/01/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-plan-063775

https://khn.org/morning-breakout/warrens-52t-plan-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all-leans-heavily-on-employer-taxes-avoids-increase-for-middle-class/

[thesquanderer]

38. Two important differentiators between Medicare and Medicaid

* Medicaid is paid for largely by the states. And since states (unlike the federal government) must balance their budgets, there is less leeway in what they can do in a given year.

* Medicare is a system that is specifically funded, by the people who benefit from it. Right now it's from a payroll tax essentially implemented as insurance, and in the future it may be an income tax, but still, it is specifically paid for, in some way, mostly by the people who will be benefiting from it. OTOH, Medicaid is strictly an expense... the people who receive it are generally the poorest, i.e. people who have NOT paid for it. And sure, providing free healthcare for everyone without collecting anything for it could bankrupt the country.

[Hoyt]

42. Not true, roughly 70 to 90% of what states pay for Medicaid comes from the federal government.

So, are you proposing that to go to Medicare-for-All, we wait until someone has paid in for 30 years before getting any benefits?

Medicare expenditures for the elderly and disabled is pretty much paid for by what current workers pay into the system, plus a little bit paid by beneficiaries, but mostly by general tax revenues.

The Medicare taxes don't come close to covering the cost of the program:

[thesquanderer]

47. re: "roughly 70 to 90% of what states pay for Medicaid comes from the federal government."

Not according to this...



re:

So, are you proposing that to go to Medicare-for-All, we wait until someone has paid in for 30 years before getting any benefits?

No MFA proposal says that. All MFA proposals are based on collecting revenues AND providing health service across all ages, rather than the current method of paying into a system now that will take care of you later.

[Hoyt]

49. First off, I was closer than you because you said Medicaid was paid largely by state. Second --

That map is only part of what the feds pay toward Medicaid. For example, the feds pay 90% of the cost of expanded Medicaid under the ACA.

https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/medicaid-financing-how-does-it-work-and-what-are-the-implications/

https://www.verywellhealth.com/how-the-federal-government-funds-medicaid-4129352

[thesquanderer]

51. "Largely" does not mean "mostly." The states do pay a significant portion. 50% in many states. nt

[Hoyt]

50. Except, what we are paying into MediCARE doesn't come close to covering the cost.

[thesquanderer]

52. MFA, while federally administered like today's Medicare, would not be funded the same way.

As I said, Medicare "is specifically paid for, in some way, mostly by the people who will be benefiting from it" ("mostly" does not mean "entirely" ), and MFA, while funded differently, would also be designed so that it is mostly paid for by the people who benefit from it (at least Sanders' plan does involve a tax increase for most people, excluding those of low income). What percentage of MFA costs would be covered by MFA revenue, I can't tell you. I assume the target is 100%, but I would not be surprised if it fell short of that.

[ProfessorPlum]

23. What Sanders is proposing is essentially Medicaid for all

and he is accounting for the current costs by proposing changes to how costs are set.

Don't get fooled by this extraordinarily weak snippet

[Hoyt]

30. Then, why is Warrens' latest projection of cost $5.2 T/year instead of much less than $3.5 T

we are currently spending under a system where Medicare pays 30% or so more than Medicaid, and private insurance pays 130% to 170% of Medicaid rates? Something ain't right, and I think neither Warren or Sanders is being honest with us on how much taxes will have to increase.

I want universal coverage, but I don't want a bunch of BS on funding that gets us beat in 2020, putting the goal off many more years.

[ProfessorPlum]

35. I'm saying the payment model is similar to Medicaid

not that coverage levels are the same. Medicare has premiums and other payments (does it have copays? I think it does).

But Medicaid has no costs at the point of service. You pay your taxes, and then that's it.

[Hoyt]

40. Yes, Medicare has copays. For most part, Medicaid does not. My point was that if Medicaid bankrupts

us -- as basically the lowest paying large system in this country -- what will a system that pays closer to Medicare or private insurance do, especially if you add "free" dental on top of it?

[ProfessorPlum]

41. costs are now set by a for-profit series of mafia-like middlemen

who squeeze people for astronomical costs a the lowest and most vulnerable times in their lives.

Nothing bankrupts us faster than that. It would be extraordinarily expensive for the government to just pay healthcare costs as they are now.

but if we cut out the rapacious middleman, costs will go down and access will go up.

Please stop deliberately "misunderstanding" this point.

[Hoyt]

44. We can't make it on Medicaid, Medicare is 30% or so more. You do the math as to how we'd make it

on Medicare-for-All, if we can't make it at Medicaid.

Providers simply will not work for Medicaid rates, that is why so many don't even participate in Medicaid now. Every projection -- even Warren's startling November 2019 $52 T over 10 years (from her previous projection of $35 T over 10 years) is based upon Medicare rates, and there are many observers who think Medicare reimbursement rates would have to be increased to keep hospitals from going out of business.

I suppose, Sanders and Warren can nationalize the system, make docs employees, etc. See how that works out for healthcare and every other industry.

[ProfessorPlum]

55. Listen

As if this point hasn't been made a million times before, every other civilized country makes it happen, usually for about half of what we currently spend. How do they do it? The same way we will.

See this link and the accompanying graphs.

We _already_ pay what it would cost for single payer universal healthcare. And much more on top of that. Quit the ignorant act and educate yourself.

[Hoyt]

57. They make it happen differently from your candidate. Canada doesn't cover drugs, nurses get paid les

less. UK has drug copays, nurses and docs get paid less, there are longer waits, some rationing of care, etc. Admittedly, not having coverage here is the most severe rationing.

Point is, neither your candidate nor Sanders are talking about how to control cost, not to mention the fact Warren increased the total cost by 48%, when her folks finally were forced to take a closer look in November. What’s the cost going to be in 3 months, or when nurses say they aren’t taking less, etc.? Warren lies saying it won’t cost middle class more in taxes (although offset by no premiums, etc.)

I want universal healthcare, but neither Warren’s or Sanders’ proposal will give Democrats the Presidency. Might even lose house.

[ProfessorPlum]

60. That's like your opinion man

You're welcome to it. But know that we now, right now, we pay about twice what other countries pay for healthcare, and let that sink in in regard to what we can and can't do for ourselves.

[ProfessorPlum]

22. Is this supposed to be some kind of a gotcha on Sanders?

He's saying costs are too high to just give everyone Medicaid without addressing the way costs are set.

to which I say, no duh.

fortunately, he is also suggesting ways to address the costs that will cut the costs.

Remember, a Koch-funded study found single payer medicare for all (really medicaid for all, but that doesn't poll as well) saved over $2 trillion in 10 years.

which isn't refuted by this out-of-context video. Weak sauce.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

54. It's a lame attack on Bernie...shows how desperate some are to counter Bernie's surge in the polls!!

I get why many fear the Bern, that he'll will the nomination and go on to defeat Dolt45... but geez, you'd think they could be a little more creative with their attacks!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[NurseJackie]

24. So much material for oppo ads... so easily and readily available... all for free!

BS should withdraw now.

[Tiggeroshii]

28. "Unless we change the funding systems, and the control mechancisms, then..."

Which is exactly what he is proposing to do. What a misleading title!

[ProfessorPlum]

36. IKR?

terrible propaganda

[Polybius]

43. If only you knew the crazy alien conspiracies that I said in 1987

Of course, I was only 14.

[Prosper]

45. Current health care cost - 3.65 trillion, Bernie care - $3.9 trillion.

Difference .25 Trillion . Med 4 All would be net .25 Trillion dollars. M4A would be 1% increase in national debt. Could probably squeeze that out of some loop holes with no pain at all. That also means that 3.8 trillion would be injected into the USA economy every year. With correct and proper progressive government management the country would stampede into prosperity.

[Hoyt]

48. You'd think Warren's cost projection would be close to Sanders'. But Warren says it's $5.2 T.

[Prosper]

59. In spite of Republicans and austeritists the more money spent

the better. A movie theater or restaurant or hospital or country need money spent in circulation to survive and be prosperous. How well the right wing have succeeded in propagandizing that spending is bad is evident by the criticism of wasted money. The only way money is wasted is if it is burnt or spent in a country that doesn’t have balanced trade. As long as foreign trade is balanced spending is good. Spend!

[Hoyt]

61. I hope that is not what Sanders really thinks.

[Prosper]

63. Lots of customers spending lots of money is success to any business.

The only way to get customers with lots of money is through spending creating product producing jobs. That doesn’t happen with austerity.

[Hoyt]

64. A bit naive.

[Prosper]

66. The opposite happened here and that is why the top top 1%

own more wealth than 150 million. They sent the future and opportunity of the bottom half overseas so they could make more money faster and easier and quicker.

[Cha]

46. Haha...

[Turbineguy]

53. Yes,

much better to bankrupt the nation by giving tax cuts to the rich.

[betsuni]

56. K&R

[David__77]

58. Nice video of Sanders.

...

[brooklynite]

62. Unfair! these were just the youthful, naive musings.....

....of a 46-year old.

[Hortensis]

65. Sanders was speaking against MfA and ACA type programs,

the capitalism-based, for-profit medicine that he loathes so much he has never admitted any benefit from. But this shows a bit of the 70 years liberal Democrats have been advocating for universal healthcare within a capitalism-based economy against the intense opposition of a huge number of conservatives joined by a relative fringe of far-left believers in collectivist answers.

[Cha]

67. Kick

[myohmy2]

68. sure...

...in 1987...

Bernie said,

"...number one, you want to guarantee that all people have access to healthcare as you do in Canada..."

...and

"...unless you change the funding system and control mechanisms..."


...Bernie hasn't changed positions, times have changed and he's only improved...that's why we have MFA on the table today as answer to those concerns...

...1987 was long before the chimp and trump's tax give-a-ways to the 1% and corporate America...

...if we rid ourselves of republican's lining their pockets with our cash, we'll have plenty of money for MFA...


...it's amazing how little Bernie has changed his overall views since 1987...you know what?

...that's why we love him and that's why he'll be our next President...

[UniteFightBack]

69. Do people not know what pukes will do with this? I mean how easy are we going to make it

for them? No...we must coalesce around a candidate and knock Sanders out.

Coalesce now and I'm sorry your candidate will be out but at least you'll get something out of it..Sanders will be gone. Can I get an AMEN !!

Signed,
An Atheist

[Scurrilous]

70. He's right. For once.