2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie's proposals stick it to the poor and the middle class
Sorry, Bernie fans. His health care plan is short $17,000,000,000,000.
By Max Ehrenfreund
May 9
Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed paying for his proposals to transform large sectors of the government and the economy mainly through increased taxes on wealthy Americans. A pair of new studies published Monday suggests Sanders would not come up with enough money using this approach, and that the poor and the middle class would have to pay more than Sanders has projected in order to fund his ideas.
The studies, published jointly by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and the Urban Institute in Washington, concludes that Sanders's plans are short a total of more than $18 trillion over a decade. His programs would cost the federal government about $33 trillion over that period, almost all of which would go toward Sanders's proposed system of national health insurance. Yet the Democratic presidential candidate has put forward just $15 trillion in new taxes, the authors concluded.
In principle, national health insurance could make many families better off overall, without imposing unsustainable burdens on the federal budget. For the system to work in terms of dollars and cents, though, the benefits would have to be less generous than they are in the system Sanders has proposed, or the taxes would have to be more onerous for the middle class, as they are in many European countries."
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/09/the-17-trillion-problem-with-bernie-sanderss-health-care-plan-2/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)meaning the middle class and poor will be paying even more.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)
TheCowsCameHome
(40,169 posts)Same old - same old. Sit down and shut up.
No point in trying something better, right?
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)and be satisfied with the occasional dollops we get.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,169 posts)This is the kind of attitude we like.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)
TheCowsCameHome
(40,169 posts)
Human101948
(3,457 posts)People in those countries with "onerous" taxes are much happier than Americans. They get better health care at half the price.
This is the kind of crap that the insurance companies and the right wingers have always spouted about national health care and it has been proven to be a crock.
I suspect that this crapola is being repeated and repeated at the urging of David Brock and his minions.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Why don't you have anything to refute it other a "suspicion"
Human101948
(3,457 posts)While there is room for improvement in every country, the U.S. stands out for having the highest costs and lowest performance—the U.S. spent $8,508 per person on health care in 2011, compared with $3,406 in the United Kingdom, which ranked first overall.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/2014/jun/us-health-system-ranks-last
And yet we are being told that national health care would cost trillions more. How could that possibly be?
Perhaps we could copy the successes of other countries? And actually spend less than we cod now?
Certainly won't happen under Hillary. With her incrementalism we will all be paying $10,000 deductibles in a few years.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Read this report from reputable sources--
(excerpt)
In addition to the federal government saving money with NHI (national health insurance program), 95 percent of Americans would pay less than they now do for health insurance and medical care. NHI would be funded by a progressive system of taxation, mainly the payroll tax for those with annual incomes less than $225,000 - $900 for those with incomes less than $53,000 a year, $6,000 for those earning $100,000 a year, and $12,000 for those with incomes of $200,000. Employers would be relieved of their burden of paying for employer-sponsored health insurance, while gaining a healthier workforce and greater capacity to compete in a global marketplace.
So here's the bottom line - NHI would bring our entire population more protection against the costs of health care, at a lower cost than we now pay, with more efficiency and fairness, while eliminating today's narrow networks that restrict our choice of physicians, other health professionals, and hospitals. Opponents who decry its costs are distorting the issue as they try to perpetuate profit-driven markets at the expense of patients, their families, and taxpayers.
--more--
Truth-Out
Here's the reality (from the article)--
According to the Milliman Medical Index (MMI), the typical family of four with employer-sponsored insurance paid $23,215 in 2014 for health care, including payroll deductions and out-of-pocket costs. The MMI grew by an average of 7.6 percent a year between 2004 and 2014, about three times the annual growth rate of the consumer price index (CPI) of 2.3 percent. (4)
The median household income in the US was $53,657 in 2014, down from $57,357 before the recession and its peak of $57,843 in 1999, according to the most recent Census data. (5)
Deductibles for private health insurance grew by 42 percent in 2013 to an average of $5,081 a year in 2014. (6)
According to a 2014 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation, one in three Americans have difficulty in paying their medical bills, even when insured, especially as a result of unaffordable premiums, increasing cost-sharing, and health plan coverage limits or exclusions. (7)
New cancer drugs are routinely priced above $100,000 a year, about twice the average annual household income. (8)
We need Sanders' single-payer health care NOW!!!
TheBlackAdder
(28,255 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)It's just not sustainable! 
Mike__M
(1,052 posts)that this figure is exactly the same as Clinton's unfavorability rating when adjusted by the P. Banksiana Coefficient of Progressive Enthusiasm.
Politics moves in strange and mysterious ways, enit?.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)As usual
TimPlo
(443 posts)When Hillary has all but won? Do you not think she has won? Otherwise why bother posting lies that basically make you look foolish and a bit desperate. Or do you just have nothing better to do then post Right Wing lies over and over?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)The center’s latest analysis looks at who wins and who loses once Sanders’s new government benefits are taken into account as well.
TPC found that the average tax burden would increase by about $9,000 in 2017 but the average amount of benefits would increase by more than $13,000. As a result, households would on average receive a net income gain of almost $4,300 under Sanders’s proposals, TPC said.
Households in the bottom fifth of income would on average receive a net gain of more than $10,000, and those in the middle fifth of income would have an average gain of about $8,500. Those in the top 5 percent of income would see a net loss of about $111,000, TPC said.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/279201-study-most-would-see-net-benefits-from-sanderss-proposals
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)Hey, at least it's a $trillion down from the last time this lie went around.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251595479
http://www.democraticunderground.com/128051549