HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Im all for single payer i...

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:27 PM

Im all for single payer if you can write a bill that makes sense, but this bill is an embarrassment

Oh jesus fucking christ bernie. I take back my praise of Booker, Warren, Harris et al who endorsed this new medicare for all "bill". Bernie just released the specifics and it's incredibly disappointing.

I’m all for single payer if you can write a bill that makes sense, but this bill is an embarrassment. It doesn't list a funding mechanism.

No specifics on how to pay for it. Whose taxes go up? By how much? This is the same fatal flaw that killed California’s bill. The same problem that killed Vermont’s system. Not even going to address it? After we spent months criticizing republicans for supporting phantom bills with no specifics in their repeal efforts? I thought we were better than this.

It’s legislative malpractice, and it’s political malpractice. Now the GOP can frame the funding structure however they want, they can fill the void with their narratives. Already we’re seeing reports on how it would raise taxes by trillions each year. And now all of our presidential candidates are tied to that framework, on a bill that hasn’t even been properly written yet. All for what? Even if somehow this all succeeds and we get to the stage where the bill must be finalized (with actual specifics), it’ll just fall apart. It’s the same problem the right had by getting commitments to vague notions of repeal with no specifics, you’ll never know that you have the votes on anything specific when it comes down to actually legislating.

At worst this severely harms our chances in 2020.

At best we win in 2020 but then spend all our capitol trying to get this done only to fall apart when we realize no one actually agreed on how to fund universal health care.

We had a policy wonk and the left flipped their shit. Now we've become the Bernie party, the party of vague ideas but no idea on how to legislate. We now have two stupid parties in american politics.

According to Bernie (in the WaPo) Americans dont mind paying more taxes....
All the repubs hsve to do in 2018 and 2020 to win= connect the Dem party to Bernie and then show people how much their taxes would go up.
Bernie just handed trump his victory in 2020.

146 replies, 5250 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 146 replies Author Time Post
Reply Im all for single payer if you can write a bill that makes sense, but this bill is an embarrassment (Original post)
factfinder_77 Sep 13 OP
Eliot Rosewater Sep 13 #1
HarmonyRockets Sep 13 #7
Eliot Rosewater Sep 13 #9
HarmonyRockets Sep 13 #16
Eliot Rosewater Sep 13 #17
ismnotwasm Sep 13 #45
Egnever Sep 13 #70
still_one Sep 13 #92
Eliot Rosewater Sep 14 #122
Name removed Sep 14 #141
HarmonyRockets Sep 14 #142
Eliot Rosewater Sep 14 #143
George II Sep 15 #145
InAbLuEsTaTe Sep 14 #126
Demsrule86 Sep 14 #118
greeny2323 Sep 13 #2
Adrahil Sep 13 #29
SunSeeker Sep 14 #113
BannonsLiver Sep 13 #44
George II Sep 13 #52
forgotmylogin Sep 13 #97
peggysue2 Sep 13 #98
delisen Sep 13 #102
JI7 Sep 13 #3
factfinder_77 Sep 13 #5
HarmonyRockets Sep 13 #12
Eliot Rosewater Sep 13 #19
Demit Sep 13 #34
scipan Sep 14 #138
Adrahil Sep 13 #31
HarmonyRockets Sep 13 #32
Adrahil Sep 13 #33
George II Sep 15 #146
LuvLoogie Sep 13 #58
Gore1FL Sep 13 #86
beam me up scottie Sep 13 #87
ProfessorGAC Sep 14 #119
MyNameGoesHere Sep 14 #120
Gore1FL Sep 14 #144
TCJ70 Sep 13 #36
beam me up scottie Sep 13 #83
Gore1FL Sep 13 #90
HarmonyRockets Sep 13 #4
Donkees Sep 13 #15
factfinder_77 Sep 13 #18
beam me up scottie Sep 13 #23
factfinder_77 Sep 13 #25
HarmonyRockets Sep 13 #27
SunSeeker Sep 14 #114
dogman Sep 13 #6
Demsrule86 Sep 13 #13
dogman Sep 13 #20
Warren DeMontague Sep 13 #8
beam me up scottie Sep 13 #14
Warren DeMontague Sep 14 #112
R B Garr Sep 13 #10
tymorial Sep 13 #28
R B Garr Sep 14 #139
LexVegas Sep 13 #11
Lee Adama Sep 13 #21
HarmonyRockets Sep 13 #22
beam me up scottie Sep 13 #24
R B Garr Sep 13 #93
tymorial Sep 13 #26
HarmonyRockets Sep 13 #30
factfinder_77 Sep 13 #35
dogman Sep 13 #46
tammywammy Sep 13 #94
lapucelle Sep 14 #115
InAbLuEsTaTe Sep 14 #127
bettyellen Sep 14 #136
chowder66 Sep 13 #39
pangaia Sep 13 #60
guillaumeb Sep 13 #37
pangaia Sep 13 #63
guillaumeb Sep 13 #66
pangaia Sep 13 #76
guillaumeb Sep 13 #79
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 13 #38
R B Garr Sep 13 #40
TCJ70 Sep 13 #41
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 13 #42
TCJ70 Sep 13 #48
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 13 #50
leftofcool Sep 13 #59
JHan Sep 14 #111
brer cat Sep 14 #123
JHan Sep 14 #135
crosinski Sep 13 #43
lostnfound Sep 13 #47
JoeOtterbein Sep 13 #55
Chimichurri Sep 13 #49
George II Sep 13 #51
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 13 #53
dogman Sep 13 #56
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 13 #62
Egnever Sep 13 #65
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 13 #77
Egnever Sep 13 #82
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 13 #84
dogman Sep 13 #85
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 13 #96
Egnever Sep 13 #61
Not Ruth Sep 13 #78
George II Sep 13 #80
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 13 #88
NurseJackie Sep 13 #64
Egnever Sep 13 #67
QC Sep 13 #105
George II Sep 13 #109
comradebillyboy Sep 14 #128
CentralMass Sep 13 #54
pangaia Sep 13 #69
Warren DeMontague Sep 14 #116
lapucelle Sep 13 #57
TCJ70 Sep 13 #71
BayouBengal07 Sep 13 #68
INdemo Sep 13 #72
LovingA2andMI Sep 13 #104
Gothmog Sep 13 #73
Egnever Sep 13 #74
samnsara Sep 13 #75
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 13 #81
ucrdem Sep 13 #89
NurseJackie Sep 13 #95
ucrdem Sep 13 #99
comradebillyboy Sep 14 #129
Docreed2003 Sep 13 #91
Kleveland Sep 13 #100
Lee-Lee Sep 14 #117
panader0 Sep 13 #101
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 13 #110
MichMan Sep 14 #130
relayerbob Sep 13 #103
Post removed Sep 13 #106
BainsBane Sep 13 #107
ucrdem Sep 13 #108
heaven05 Sep 14 #121
Calista241 Sep 14 #124
Nanjeanne Sep 14 #125
QC Sep 14 #133
Nanjeanne Sep 14 #134
riderinthestorm Sep 14 #137
Weekend Warrior Sep 14 #131
KPN Sep 14 #132
Skittles Sep 14 #140

Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:29 PM

1. Why in the WORLD would he put forth a bill like this, ESPECIALLY this and not

show how to pay for it?

It is very very troubling.


Do we now have a "position" others must adopt, even if there is NOTHING in there about paying for it, that if they dont adopt it their path forward will be in doubt?

I cant say what I think this is, not here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #7)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:35 PM

9. Why dont you copy and paste for us the details of how it is paid for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #9)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:41 PM

16. Why don't you just go ahead and read it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:42 PM

17. I am waiting for someone to copy and paste the detailed explanation here

of exactly how it is paid for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #17)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 08:47 PM

45. I just read it

ALL of it is based on a a shitload of legislation and tax code revision. Which will have to pass congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #45)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:35 PM

70. is there some magic way to do it that would not require tax revision?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #45)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:18 PM

92. I read it to, and I am not even sure if the revenue he is suggesting is enough. There are a lot of

assumptions being made, and a big unknown is how the distribution of services will occur, and how much will the healthcare providers be reimbursed for those services. If the reimbursement is too low, a lot of healthcare providers I suspect will not take Medicare assignments. If the reimbursement is too high then they will have to generate more revenue

You are correct, a whole lot tax legislation would need to be passed, which under republican control is definitely not going to happen in this environment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #45)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 11:10 AM

122. OK, well if it does describe in detail how to pay for it, and if the problem

is getting people to agree, then that is one thing, not having the details is another.

We are too stupid as a people to agree, we cant have nice things and we wont. I am all for trying however, but the main emphasis has to be improving ACA (removing the unconstitutional decision made by Roberts and the poison Rubio pill legislation)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #122)


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #17)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 05:33 PM

142. Here

 

It took forever to copy and paste this over from a PDF and correct all the formatting, but here it is:

OPTIONS TO FINANCE MEDICARE FOR ALL

Introduction

Today, the United States spends more than $3.2 trillion a year on health care. About sixty-five percent of this funding, over $2 trillion, is spent on publicly financed health care programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs. At $10,000 per person, the United States spends far more on health care per capita and as a percentage of GDP than any other country on earth in both the public and private sectors while still leaving 28 million Americans uninsured and millions more under-insured.

Today, health care spending in the U.S. accounts for nearly 18 percent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and is on track to total over 20 percent of GDP over the next decade. It is projected that if we do nothing and maintain our current dysfunctional system that we will spend $49 trillion over the next decade on health care. That would be an incredible burden on businesses, working families, and the entire economy.

The most cost-effective and popular solution to this health care crisis is to guarantee health care as a right through a Medicare-for-all single-payer health care system.

Today, the traditional Medicare program only spends two percent of its costs on administration. That’s less than one-sixth the administrative costs of private health insurance companies.

Studies have found that our federal government could save up to $500 billion per year on administrative costs by moving to a Medicare for All, single-payer health care system.

Moreover, the United States pays, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs because Congress has done nothing to regulate the price of medicine. If the U.S. joined the rest of the industrialized world and negotiated with the pharmaceutical companies to lower prices, our country could save up to $113 billion per year.

As the wealthiest country in the world, we have a variety of options available to support a Medicare for All single-payer health care system that guarantees high quality, affordable health care as a right, not a privilege, to every man, woman, and child in this country. This paper explains just some of the policies that could provide revenue to finance Medicare for All. Under every single one of these options the average American family will save thousands of dollars a year because they will no longer be writing large checks to private health insurance companies.

If every major industrialized nation on Earth can make health care a right, provide universal coverage to all, achieve far better health outcomes in terms of life expectancy and infant mortality, while spending far less per capita than we do, it is absurd to suggest the United States of America, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, cannot do the same.

In my view, there needs to be vigorous debate as to the best way to finance our Medicare for All legislation. Unlike the Republican leadership in Congress which held no hearings on their disastrous bill which would have thrown 32 million off of health insurance and dealt with one-sixth of the American economy, it is our intention to get the best ideas we can from economists, doctors, nurses, and ordinary Americans. Below are a number of options to begin that discussion. Under each and every one of these options the average American family will end up in a better financial position than they are under the current system.

Options to Save Families and Businesses on Health Care Expenses

7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers
Revenue raised: $3.9 trillion over ten years.

Businesses would save over $9,000 in health care costs for the average employee under this option


In 2016, employers paid an average of $12,865 in private health insurance premiums for a worker with a family of four who makes $50,000 a year. Under this option, employers would pay a 7.5 percent payroll tax to help finance Medicare for All – just $3,750 – a savings of more than $9,000 a year for that employee.

During the four-year transition period to guarantee health care as a right, millions of workers will have the option to transfer from their employer-provided health care to the new Medicare for All system. As workers shift into the new system, employers will be required to pay either 75 percent of what they are currently paying for health care costs for each of their employees who enroll in Medicare for All, or the 7.5 percent payroll tax, whichever is higher.

An employer’s first $2 million in payroll would be exempt from this premium protecting small businesses throughout the country.

4 percent income-based premium paid by households
Revenue raised: $3.5 trillion over ten years.

The typical middle class family would save over $4,400 under this plan.

Last year the typical working family paid an average of $5,277 in premiums to private health insurance companies. Under this option, a typical family of four earning $50,000, after taking the standard deduction, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All – just $844 a year – saving that family over $4,400 a year. Because of the standard deduction, families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium.

Savings from Health Tax Expenditures
Revenue raised: $4.2 trillion over ten years.

Several tax breaks that subsidize health care would become obsolete and disappear under Medicare for All. The biggest health expenditure is the preference that excludes employer-paid premiums from payroll and income taxes. This is a significant tax break that would be eliminated under this plan because all Americans would receive health care through the new
Medicare for All program instead of employer-based health care. The exclusion for contributions to cafeteria plans and the medical expense deduction will also be eliminated.

Options to Make the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share

Make the Personal Income Tax More Progressive
Revenue raised: $1.8 trillion over ten years.


Another option is to reform the personal income tax system by strengthening progressive income tax rates, taxing capital gains and dividends the same as work income, limiting deductions for the wealthy, taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and requiring derivatives to be marked to market.

o Progressive income tax rates.
Under this plan the marginal income tax rate would be:
§ 40 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000.
§ 45 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million.
§ 50 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. (In 2014, only 136,000 households, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers, had income between $2 million and $10 million.)
§ 52 percent on income above $10 million. (In 2014, only 16,700 households, just 0.02 percent of taxpayers, had income exceeding $10 million.)

o Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work. Warren Buffett, the second-wealthiest American in the country, has said that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. This is because he receives most of his income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a much lower rate than income from work. This option would end the special tax break for capital gains and dividends on household income above $250,000, treating this income the same as income earned from working.

Taxing all income received by the rich at the same rates would simplify the tax code and eliminate the opportunities to game the system by making other types of income appear to be capital gains or dividends. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 68 percent of the benefits of the special income tax rates for capital gains and dividends went to the richest one percent of Americans in 2013.

o Limit tax deductions for the wealthy. Wealthier households are able to take advantage of various itemized deductions that generally do not provide any benefit to lower income workers. Under this proposal, itemized deductions would be capped at 28 percent for households making over $250,000. In other words, for every dollar in tax deduction a high-income household could save at most 28 cents. This limit would replace more complicated and less effective limits on tax breaks for the rich.

Make the Estate Tax More Progressive
Revenue raised: $249 billion over ten years.


Currently the estate tax only applies to the wealthiest 0.2 percent of Americans. In other words, 99.8 percent are not impacted by this tax. Under this option, the estate tax would return to the exemptions that were in effect in 2009 and rates would be made more progressive. Specifically, the plan would exempt the first $3.5 million of a single person’s estate and the first $7 million of a married couple’s estate.

The existing flat 40 percent estate tax rate would be replaced with the following progressive rates:

o 45 percent for the value of an estate between $3.5 million and $10 million.
o 50 percent for the value of an estate between $10 million and $50 million.
o 55 percent for the value of an estate in excess of $50 million.
o An additional 10 percent surtax would apply to estate value in excess of $500 million ($1 billion for married couples). Further, the proposal:
o Closes loopholes for “grantor retained annuity trusts” (GRATs) and other types of trusts and valuation techniques that have allowed the Walton family of Wal-Mart and other billionaires to save over $100 billion in taxes since 2000; and
o Increases existing protections for farmland and conservation.

Establish a Wealth Tax on the Top 0.1 percent
Revenue raised: $1.3 trillion over ten years.


Over the past several decades America has experienced an explosion of wealth concentration. Today the wealthiest 0.1 percent – just 160,000 households – own nearly the same amount of wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Meanwhile, a report from the Institute on Policy Studies concludes that America’s 20 richest individuals now own more wealth than the entire bottom half of the American population.

This severe inequality threatens to warp our democracy by concentrating too much power in the hands of a tiny elite. It also holds back our economy, funneling resources to a few families rather than creating the broad base of middle-class consumers that can drive economic growth.

This option would establish an annual 1 percent federal wealth tax on the net worth of the wealthiest 0.1 percent of U.S. households. The tax would apply to net worth exceeding $21 million for a household. That means a household with $21.5 million would pay 1 percent of $500,000, or $5,000.

Close the Gingrich-Edwards Loophole and Create Parity for Wealthy Business Owners
Revenue raised: $247 billion over ten years.


This option closes the Gingrich-Edwards loophole which allows individuals who own and run an S-Corporation to game the system and avoid paying payroll taxes by claiming some income as business profits. Under current law, these business owners are required to report a “reasonable” amount of salary income and pay the appropriate amount of payroll tax. However, many times these individuals deliberately under-report a reasonable salary in order to avoid these taxes.

Additionally, this option would ensure that all business income of high-income people would be subject to the existing 3.8 percent tax to fund Medicare, either through the net investment income tax or the additional Medicare tax on earned income. These taxes were designed to ensure that high-income people pay the 3.8 percent Medicare tax on all income, regardless of the source. However, some business income slips through the crack and is not subject to either tax. This proposal would close that loophole.

Options to Make Wall Street and Large, Profitable Corporation Pay Their Fair Share

Impose a one-time tax on currently held offshore profits
Revenue raised: $767 billion over ten years.


For years corporations have been avoiding paying their fair share of taxes by stashing their cash in the Cayman Islands and other offshore tax havens where there is no corporate income tax rate. This situation has become so absurd that one five-story office building in the Cayman Islands is the “home” to close to 20,000 companies.

Today corporations hold a staggering $2.6 trillion offshore in order to avoid paying taxes in the U.S. Under current law, a corporation does not pay corporate taxes on these profits until it sends, or “repatriates”, the money back to the U.S. This option would require these companies to pay a one-time tax now, based on what they owe under current law.

Impose a Fee on Large Financial Institutions
Revenue raised: $117 billion over ten years.


Today, the six major financial institutions in this country have over $10 trillion in assets, equivalent to 56 percent of our entire GDP. The largest financial institution, JP Morgan Chase, has received more than $22.2 billion in tax breaks since 2008. Meanwhile, during the financial crisis, JP Morgan Chase received a $391 billion bailout from the Federal Reserve. It is time that Wall Street start paying its fair share in taxes. One option would be to impose a fee of seven basis points (.07 percent) on covered liabilities of financial institutions with $50 billion or more in total assets, as proposed by President Obama.

Repeal Corporate Accounting Gimmicks
Revenue raised: $112 billion ten years.


This option would eliminate the “last-in, first-out” (LIFO) accounting method that allows corporations to manipulate their inventory and make it appear like they have lower profits. They do this by deducting the higher cost of newer inventory, rather than the lower cost of older inventory, resulting in lower profits and lower taxes. Democrats and Republicans have both supported repealing LIFO in various budget and tax reform proposals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #142)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 05:36 PM

143. Perfect, and it will work, but not until

a. Democrats control the government, we are a decade from that possibly

Putting this forward now, without full support of the party, when the OTHER party has control, will just highlight the costs, not the benefits.

I am all for this, by the way, when the time is right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #142)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 02:22 PM

145. I didn't see any of that in what was proposed on Wednesday. In fact none of that...

...was mentioned in the 59 minute press conference.

Are we expecting the Senate to pass a sweeping bill like this without a single word about how to pay for it?

PS - that document lists "options for funding", which accomplishes nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #16)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 01:02 PM

126. Guess that would take too much effort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #7)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 06:40 AM

118. Ok I read it and it involves raising taxes substantially and does not address the 20% gap

Medicare pays 80%...it is a bad idea and the GOP are already using it against us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:29 PM

2. It's just aspirational symbolism for now

Shouldn't be taken more seriously than that.

It is interesting that so many Democrats are willing to line up for the concept, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greeny2323 (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:55 PM

29. I agree with that.... but....

Why isn't he advancing proposals that actually stand a chance to make a difference I people's' lives, like a public option for the ACA?

Sanders seems to spend most of his effort in grand gestures that ultimately mean nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #29)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 03:25 AM

113. Thank God we have Schumer and Pelosi trying to fix DACA and the ACA.

You, doing crucial stuff that actually stands a chance of passage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greeny2323 (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 08:47 PM

44. Bingo. You touched on the only thing that matters

I believe Harris and the like will make it clear they support the idea of universal care in 2020 but they will all want to put their own stamp on it, as any candidate would.

And they won't have any problem with that because by then this bill and its defeat (assuming it ever comes up for a vote) will have been long forgotten, while the idea behind it will endure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greeny2323 (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:13 PM

52. Aspirational for what....a successful bill or something else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greeny2323 (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:25 PM

97. To be fair, 45 has floated a lot of stuff without basis in reality.

Nor a funding mechanism. (He thinks he's supposed to issue edicts and let other people work out the details.)

And it's not like there aren't examples (Canada, Australia) we can look at for guidance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greeny2323 (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:26 PM

98. Ding Ding. Ding!

"Aspirational Symbolism."

Yup, that's exactly what this is in the moment. The problem is that symbolism will not take care of the sick or the uninsured.

We can strategize about how we eventually get to single-payer but in the now this bill is going nowhere fast. Sanders knows this himself. Without a Democratic majority (and we would really need a super-majority in both houses) there's not a shot in hell that a bill even remotely as broad as this one would stand a chance. It takes more than hefting the banner and shaking pom-poms to get the job done. Restructuring nearly 20% of the US economy will never be easy or fast. We're deluding ourselves to think otherwise.

I think the vast majority of Dems, particularly liberals support the idea of a single payer system, something like 65% But there's an entire country out there. According to the Pew poll in June of this year only 33% of the American public supports single-payer, another 25% think there should be a public/private structure. Those numbers can change, of course, and have changed. But they're not going to radically change overnight. If a program like this hasn't nailed down every detail (including specifics, not suggestions on how we pay for it) the Democrats will be slaughtered. And rightly so. Because healthcare is deeply, deeply personal. You'll recall how President Obama was torn to pieces with the "you can keep your doctor" promise, followed by an awful roll-out. With healthcare, you can't afford mistakes or wobbly details or make promises you cannot keep, regardless of how well-meaning the program might be.

Our most realistic way to address healthcare is winning in 2018 & 2020. Until then, we need to protect (and where we can improve) what exists in the here and now, the ACA. Too many lives are at risk with the GOP's full intent to dismantle the program that is to shift massive energy/attention to a program that isn't. Yes, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. But walking comes first unless we want to end up on our knees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greeny2323 (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:34 PM

102. Over 100 house members signed on to Conyers bill

for single payer. He's been working on this for years. There is bipartisan interest.

I think Sanders bill is aspirational, sort of marketing for presidential politics.

I think Conyers bill is a serious attempt to build on the ACA and move to single payer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:31 PM

3. Republicans control congress right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:34 PM

5. The GOP has already started:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:38 PM

12. Just to be clear

 

Are you endorsing these right wing talking points?

It should be noted that we spend more than that on healthcare currently. A Medicare for all would actually save us 500 billion per year. And it could be paid for through progressive taxation.

Also, check out polling on Medicare for all. It polls pretty well. Way more popular than repealing the ACA. Democrats should absolutely run on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #12)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:43 PM

19. MOre likely the poster is showing you now what at least half the country believes

about this bill.

Give the bastards at the GOP time and they will have more than that believing it soon.'

The ticket, you see, is to provide detailed explanations of HOW to pay for it so the GOP cant do this.

Now the harsh reality is even when you do show how to pay for it, because it surely can be done, half the country or more will still be scared into not believing it is possible.

I am still all for trying though, just have to be smart about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #19)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 08:06 PM

34. I think the smart part is making people want it first.

The ticket is keeping it slogan-simple, at first...something that fits on a bumper sticker, the way the GOP has done so brilliantly & effectively. Sell people on the concept, get down in the weeds later. It's not going to get anywhere near being brought to a vote in Congress right now. But it gives the people a reason to vote for Democrats in the coming elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #19)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 02:36 PM

138. You were provided a link to how to pay for it and you refused to click on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #12)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:58 PM

31. The problem is that Bernie's bill....

Promises all the goodies, but doesn't include how to get them.

Any honest effort must include the funding mechanism as an integral part of the proposal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #32)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 08:03 PM

33. Not good enough.

He needs to step and propose an actual mechanism, numbers and all.

Until then, it's empty rhetoric.

But these kinds of grand gestures are Bernie's bread and butter. He can claim to "fight for the people" while never having to take actual responsibility for it. It's the main thing that frustrates me about him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #32)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 02:24 PM

146. Legislators don't pass laws based on "options".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #31)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:28 PM

58. Bernie doesn't know how to build consensus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #31)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:03 PM

86. Just like when the fucking John F. Kennedy talked about going to the moon

He didn't give any specifics or anything. It's like he thought it needed to go through a process or something.

These damned progressive visionaries are always dreaming things up and ruining it for everyone...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #86)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:04 PM

87. Right?

PONIES! They all want PONIES!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #86)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 06:54 AM

119. Thanks!

The haters gonna hate!
All of a sudden everybody's a policy wonk and doesn't care about politics and PR
Must have every detail worked out to the nth degree
Your JFK comparison is perfect

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #86)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 07:24 AM

120. Other countries have single payer

so this dream has been done before. There was no one that had traveled to the moon before, so it's not even a close comparison. If your going to dream about something that has already been done you should be prepared for providing specifics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MyNameGoesHere (Reply #120)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 06:42 PM

144. See his website for more specifics.

The link is in this very thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 08:13 PM

36. The responses to that tweet are awesome. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TCJ70 (Reply #36)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:53 PM

83. Yeah they are!




Twitter doesn't suffer GOP fools and their canned talking points gladly.




Waiting for the FREE STUFF! SOCIALISM! DEATH PANELS! tweets from conservatives, you know they're coming. It'll be called an entitlement and they'll try to terrorize people with boogeymen about HUGE tax increases and horror stories about how Nigel had to wait for an operation because NHS sucks and Pierre had to travel to the US for cancer treatments because Canada is a third world country.

Wait for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TCJ70 (Reply #36)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:14 PM

90. Thanks! Those were fun to read! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:40 PM

15. :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:43 PM

18. So Sanders require Trump tax reform to match up with his "options"..its just empty words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:45 PM

23. Well lookie there...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:47 PM

25. Rep. Conyers Funding of H.R.676 - Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act

Subtitle B—Funding

SEC. 211. OVERVIEW: FUNDING THE MEDICARE FOR ALL PROGRAM.
(a) In General.—The Medicare For All Program is to be funded as provided in subsection (c)(1).

(b) Medicare For All Trust Fund.—There shall be established a Medicare For All Trust Fund in which funds provided under this section are deposited and from which expenditures under this Act are made.

(c) Funding.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—There are appropriated to the Medicare For All Trust Fund amounts sufficient to carry out this Act from the following sources:

(A) Existing sources of Federal Government revenues for health care.

(B) Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners.

(C) Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income.

(D) Instituting a modest tax on unearned income.

(E) Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.

(2) SYSTEM SAVINGS AS A SOURCE OF FINANCING.—Funding otherwise required for the Program is reduced as a result of—

(A) vastly reducing paperwork;

(B) requiring a rational bulk procurement of medications under section 205(a); and

(C) improved access to preventive health care.

(3) ADDITIONAL ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS TO MEDICARE FOR ALL PROGRAM.—Additional sums are authorized to be appropriated annually as needed to maintain maximum quality, efficiency, and access under the Program.


SEC. 212. APPROPRIATIONS FOR EXISTING PROGRAMS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there are hereby transferred and appropriated to carry out this Act, amounts from the Treasury equivalent to the amounts the Secretary estimates would have been appropriated and expended for Federal public health care programs, including funds that would have been appropriated under the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act, under the Medicaid program under title XIX of such Act, and under the Children’s Health Insurance Program under title XXI of such Act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Reply #25)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:52 PM

27. There you go

 

Of course this can be paid for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #27)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 03:42 AM

114. You're kidding, right? All that says is "taxes, if passed in the future, will pay for it."

It does not specify the amount nor who will be taxed and how. It is just a list of suggested funding mechanisms. The amount of the tax and the actual collection mechanism is all left up to potential future tax bills.

THIS is why the Vermont single payer law failed. Bernie was all over radio and TV pushing the Vermont single-payer law and it easily passed. But the Vermont single-payer law that he pushed was just an aspirational law that called for future legislation to be passed to pay for it. When it came to actually passing a tax bill to pay for Vermont's single-payer law, and they found out how much taxation they would actually need, everyone ran for the hills. No one wanted to defend the 12% tax increase on the middle class that it was calculated to take to pay for Vermont single-payer. The tax bill was never even brought to the floor. This, despite the fact that a 12% tax increase would still be cheaper than everyone paying for health insurance and co-pays. And mind you, this was in Vermont, the bluest of blue States. National single payer will involve similar numbers. What Dem, let alone Republican, will push for a 12% tax increase on the middle class?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:34 PM

6. The same way they fund wars and tax cuts.

The Democrats who support the status quo are the embarrassment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dogman (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:39 PM

13. The status quo is all we have for the foreseeable future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #13)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:44 PM

20. And they wonder why Dems lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:34 PM

8. I stand with Senator Booker, Senator Harris, and Senator Gillibrand!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #8)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:40 PM

14. But the REPUBLICANS DON'T LIKE IT! And they're TWEETING!

OH NOES!

All the more reason to stand with Kamala, Cory, Kirsten and Bernie against the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #14)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 12:45 AM

112. In some alternate universe, this exact same proposal has been raised in the Senate, but without

Bernie Sanders's name attached to it.

One wonders what the discussion looks like, there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:36 PM

10. Yeah, that's where it looked like this was headed -- no costs attached. I think that's

called grandstanding.

Of course, anyone questioning the costs will be maligned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #10)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:52 PM

28. I expect the "concern troll" label will be applied

Quite soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tymorial (Reply #28)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 03:11 PM

139. Oh, your observation has been coming true all over the place. Any comments

about costs or other practicalities and good Democrats are accused. So tiresome and predictable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:37 PM

11. Its not serious. Its more bullshit. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:44 PM

21. Yep, it will definitely cost usa few seats in 2018 because of how stupid it is.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:44 PM

22. What a real Democrat looks like

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:46 PM

24. I stand with Senator Cory Booker!



Let the Republicans do their damnedest, Cory isn't running from a fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #24)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:18 PM

93. Cory Booker 2020!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:50 PM

26. This has been my thought too

I asked similar questions in other posts concerning medicare for all, universal healthcare, single payer etc .

I have considered writing my own post about this subject but I just don't want the argument. Specifics matter, especially when it comes to legislation that would far-reaching impact Health Care, the economy, employment and taxes. Much must be done in order for single payer to succeed and funding is a big part of it. How healthcare is delivered, paid for, employment opportunity and retraining programs for the millions of displaced worker, economic fall out all must be considered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:55 PM

30. WOW

 

Look at all of the Democrats under attack on this board. Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris. And they all just happen to be considered 2020 contenders too. Yet they are being attacked by a certain group on posters.

It is... interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #30)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 08:07 PM

35. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) voted no on prescription drug price legislation

Booker and other no-voters have claimed that their votes stemmed from concerns about the safety and quality of imported drugs — which is also an argument frequently made by the drugmakers.

But its safe for the Canadians...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Reply #35)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 08:48 PM

46. Looking for redemption?

Maybe the reaction to that vote is dawning on him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Reply #35)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:22 PM

94. Booker is a co-sponsor of the Affordable and Safe Prescription Drug Importation Act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Reply #35)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 06:21 AM

115. In Canada, imported drugs are subject to strict regulations.

Exported drugs are not.

Booker signed on to a different drug importation amendment.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/18/other-98/viral-image-about-democratic-senators-and-big-phar/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Reply #35)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 01:07 PM

127. Very disappointing to say the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Reply #35)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 01:51 PM

136. And then he voted yes on an amended proposal a week later- out of the loop?

Or just repeating anti-Dem talking points without checking out the whole story you're spreading to smear him with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #30)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 08:25 PM

39. I agree with you. It really is interesting.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #30)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:29 PM

60. Yup. Can't imagine why.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 08:19 PM

37. Most people already pay a lot in taxes for their healthcare.

But that money is called premiums instead of taxes.

Yes, it is that simple. And it works in every country where it exists, unlike the dysfunctional and very expensive US system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #37)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:32 PM

63. right, Some seem to forget the expenses that will disappear or be greatly reduced...



For some it seems to be ONLY more tax..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #63)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:34 PM

66. I mentioned this in another thread:

Even conservatives in countries with single payer support the concept because it works better and is cheaper.



Single payer works, the US system does not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #66)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:44 PM

76. Conservatives in other countries are.. what... moderates? here.

Friends in Norway, Denmark, for example, always complain about taxes, the electronic tolls on the highways, VAT( I think), etc.... Its the thing to do. Blah blah...but when push comes to shove, they LOVE the great roads, the health care, the school system, the family care, child care, They, for the most part, understand the concept of 'the commons.' And the great value of caring for it.


here.... I WANNA DO WHAT I WANNA DO. Its MY money.. FREEDOM..

They wouldn't move to this soon to be shit hole for anything..

Shit, I'm retired and have an offer of a place to live in Finland. It IS on my mind. freakin cold in winter, though. LOL. But, the ALLEGRO goes directly from Helsinki Station to St Petersburg and THERIN lies the Mariinsky Theater...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #76)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:47 PM

79. I would not have to move too far.

I could move back home to New Brunswick and be closer to cousins, but farther from the children. So "here" wins. And yes, taxes are an admission price of sorts to live in a civilized country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 08:19 PM

38. We would be better off rallying around a public option.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029589633


We checkmate the Republicans. Who can oppose more choice ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #38)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 08:28 PM

40. This is absolutely the way to go. Half the nation wouldn't want to give

up their plans. A public option makes the most sense in these times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #38)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 08:28 PM

41. Medicare-for-all would be the ultimate freedom of choice...

...why stop at simply "more" choice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TCJ70 (Reply #41)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 08:32 PM

42. How would it be the ultimate freedom of choice if you can only choose from one plan?

Are we really going to go through if you like your doctor you can keep him or her, no you can't brouhaha again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #42)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:00 PM

48. What kind of argument is that?

If there's only one insurer, your doctor has to accept it, or lose all their patients and quit I suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TCJ70 (Reply #48)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:06 PM

50. It's a good argument. That's what it is.

As you said he or she can quit. He or she could also limit the amount of patients he or she sees, or he or she could accept patients who pay out of their own pockets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TCJ70 (Reply #48)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:29 PM

59. No they do not.

Doctors don't have to do anything. They do not have to take Medicare patients and they do not have to accept any type of insurance. Our doctor is the only one out of 14 doctors in our county who takes Medicare. All the others have thriving practices. Our doctor does well but he is not taking any new Medicare patients.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #38)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 12:38 AM

111. that's the smart thing to do at the moment.

Jonathan Chait has a good write up about this:

The barrier to single payer is that the American health-care system has been built, by accident, around employer-based insurance. The rhetoric of single payer concentrates its moral emphasis on people who lack insurance at all. (“Do we, as a nation, join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee comprehensive health care to every person as a human right?” writes Sanders today.) But the barrier to single-payer health care is the people who already have coverage. Designing a single-payer system means not only covering the uninsured, but financing the cost of moving the 155 million Americans who have employer-based insurance onto Medicare.

That is not a detail to be worked out. It is the entire problem. The impossibility of this barrier is why Lyndon Johnson gave up on trying to pass a universal health-care bill and instead confined his legislation to the elderly (who mostly did not get insurance through employers), and why Barack Obama left the employer-based system intact and created alternate coverage for non-elderly people outside it.

In theory, the transition could be done without hurting anybody. The money workers and their employers pay to insurance companies would be converted into taxes. But this means solving two enormous political obstacles. First, most people who have employer-based coverage like it and don’t want to change. Second, higher taxes are unpopular. Yes, in an imaginary, rational world, people could be reassured that Medicare will be as good as what they have, and the taxes will merely replace the premiums they’re already paying. In reality, people are deeply loss-averse and distrustful of politicians.


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/sanderss-bill-gets-u-s-zero-percent-closer-to-single-payer.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHan (Reply #111)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 12:36 PM

123. Nice dose of reality, JHan.

Adding this:

Sanders is not a details person, though. He prefers to act as though the important barrier is the abstract notion of government-run insurance, turning every question about specifics into a question about values. But the concept of a government-financed insurance program has never been the controversial part. (This is why single-payer Medicare is a beloved institution Republicans swear up and down never to change, while privatized Obamacare is a detested socialist monstrosity.) The controversial part has always been the mechanics of change.


Sanders can't dream away the opposition as being simply evil corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brer cat (Reply #123)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 01:51 PM

135. Shoring up the ACA should be the focus.

On that score Pelosi is bang on,

"Sanders can't dream away the opposition as being simply evil corporations." - well, it's a very "populist" approach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 08:36 PM

43. Ain't it about time you picked our side on this one?

This is really similar to Bernie's 2016 Medicare for all plan. I'm sure you've all read that, and you all knew this would be similar. So what's this big upset really about?

You knew darned well that Healthcare for All was never going to be pretty. A bill can change substantially before it's done. We can still go forward with the ACA. We might end up with a hybrid of the ACA and Medicare for all. Every other developed country has already figured out how to provide it citizens with healthcare, and we can do it to.

Pick a damned side and stick!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 08:59 PM

47. I'm all in favor of starting a war in Iraq or Afghanistan but darn there's no funding for it. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lostnfound (Reply #47)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:20 PM

55. Good one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:03 PM

49. Same thing was said about Obamacare. We gotta start

Somewhere. I'm sick and tired of both the Bernie bashing and the Hillary bashing. This is why we lose despite having common goals.

We must unify. It's the Republicans that our ire should be aimed at

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:12 PM

51. Not surprising. We can do anything and everything. Don't worry about how to pay for it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #51)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:16 PM

53. I saw that to pay for it we would need an eleven percent payroll tax and a nine percent income tax.

I realize that people would no longer have to pay for insurance but we will get killed if we ask for a twenty percent combined tax increase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #53)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:22 PM

56. Or call it F35 Stealthcare.

We always have money for what the rich want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dogman (Reply #56)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:32 PM

62. Payroll taxes are 15.3%, from the first dollar earned.

If we ask people to pay a 26.3% payroll tax and nine percent more in income tax they are going to kill us.

I don't believe there is any way in Hell Chump can get re-elected but if we run on raising taxes to such an extent I might revisit my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #62)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:33 PM

65. Your numbers are off

and the real numbers actually represent a savings for most people currently paying for insurance under their employer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #65)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:45 PM

77. I will wait for the CBO Score

We all opposed Trump Care and rightfully so because the CBO said it would be a disaster.

If the CBO's numbers are anything like those I initially cited we will never be able to sell it to the American people. Our political opponents/adversaries/enemies will weaponize it and use it like a club against us.

We have Trump and the GOP on the ropes. God, I hope we don't snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #77)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:51 PM

82. Now you will wait?

didn't stop you a minute ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #82)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:56 PM

84. Am I allowed to elaborate ?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #62)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:02 PM

85. My self-pay premium for my employer based plan while unemployed was $1600+/month.

It was a plan that covered my wife and I with limited dental and optical. It was 10-20% co-pay with $100 deductible each.While working, my employer paid that and more if I worked overtime. That was in addition to payroll taxes. The point is that people rarely know what they pay now. I think the key is education about reality. Until ACA there was also a $1 million cap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dogman (Reply #85)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:24 PM

96. COBRA insurance is obscenely high. Under my plan you could buy into Medicare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #53)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:32 PM

61. According to Bernies proposal those numbers are off.

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers
Revenue raised: $3.9 trillion over ten years.
Businesses would save over $9,000 in health care costs for the average employee under this
option

4 percent income-based premium paid by households
Revenue raised: $3.5 trillion over ten years.
The typical middle class family would save over $4,400 under this plan.


And both parties would save money not pay more. Don't see how saving people money would kill us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #53)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:46 PM

78. Or Berniecare might end up costing nothing due to decreased administrative overhead

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #53)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:47 PM

80. Some estimates have been as high as 26%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #80)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:08 PM

88. I am going to do the prudent thing and wait for peer reviewed numbers.

Too many numbers being bandied about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #51)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:32 PM

64. Excellent analysis.

Pretty much what I expected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to George II (Reply #51)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:43 PM

105. As long as your Medicare is covered, right? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #105)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 11:08 PM

109. What does that have to do with this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #105)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 01:17 PM

128. I paid into medicare for more than 50 years

before I could receive benefits. And bare bones medicare has huge coverage gaps that I pay for via part B coverage drug coverage and supplemental insurance. So why shouldn't my medicare be covered?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:18 PM

54. The organized attacks on Bernie and all that he does are interesting.

He mist be on the right track.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CentralMass (Reply #54)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:35 PM

69. LOL.

Some things never change..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CentralMass (Reply #54)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 06:31 AM

116. Seriously. I guess criticizing Booker, Harris, Franken and Gillibrand is okay now?

you know, under extreme circumstances, like here- where they're associated with something having to do with that man.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:25 PM

57. Is there an actual piece of legislation or is it still in the proposal stage?

Does anyone have a link to the text of the bill?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:34 PM

68. Hey, it worked for the GOP

Even if this didn't make sense, that hardly seems to matter. Vague ideas and no way to implement them got Republicans elected...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:38 PM

72. Your post is BS too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to INdemo (Reply #72)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:38 PM

104. This Right Here.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:40 PM

73. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:40 PM

74. One would also hope that you would show how their savings in health care spending

would completely offset the raise in taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:43 PM

75. in my gut i questioned the whole thinig.. i didnt even listen to

anyone explaining it. I guess cuz I'm not that much of a Bernie fan so I didn't get too excited about it right away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samnsara (Reply #75)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:49 PM

81. I am willing to wait for a CBO score or a score from a dispassionate researcher.

If it can be done with tax increases we can sell to the American people I will support it. If it can't I won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:08 PM

89. LOL. Gee who could have predicted that he'd do for health care what he did for Hillary.

Well, me for one. But does anyone ever listen? Nooooooooooooooo . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #89)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:23 PM

95. You're not alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #95)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:27 PM

99. Thank you!

Love your posts btw!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #89)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 01:19 PM

129. Ouch!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:16 PM

91. Regardless of the facts of this particular bill. In regards to health care

And frankly all other public services, the question will come down to this:

Are we willing to continue obscene spending in defense, which has had no honest oversite since the 70's, or are we willing to trim defense to cover the costs of healthcare, welfare, "food stamps" and other government services.

That's where we are now, because I can assure you that the GOP has no qualms about cutting every single government program that benefits the least in order to continue funding taxcuts for the wealthiest and defense funding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:32 PM

100. Why would there need to be tax increases?

Could there just not be a redirection of the funds currently being spent by employers who offer health insurance, and the percentage that employees also contribute?

It is a sizable amount of money.

Call those redirected funds taxes if you wish, it is still a cash flow and system that currently exists.

That, and removing the greedy middleman of healthcare providers who overpay their administrators, who essentially do nothing, and place controls on big pharma, who obviously is gouging all US citizen for medications and essential health products.

The solutions are not that difficult.

What is difficult is dealing with the rampant bad side of capitalism, which is lining the pockets of those who really do not give two shits about the average person. Excessive unearned income is not the solution to the worlds ills.

They hide behind false complications and details.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kleveland (Reply #100)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 06:37 AM

117. "Call them taxes if you wish"- that's what they would nd

But you can't just say "send government money". Taxes have to be codified into law and set with rates and rules. You either have to create new taxes and set the rates to match what you say or you have to increases rates on existing taxes to equal that amount.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:32 PM

101. How do all of those first world countries do it?

C'mon-- are you saying give up? Why can't it be done?
Many other things were seen as un-doable in the past.
It needs to happen somehow, and this could be another
part of that start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #101)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 11:19 PM

110. Universal coverage and single payer aren't synonymous.

Last edited Thu Sep 14, 2017, 12:30 AM - Edit history (1)

Many nations provide medical insurance to everybody using a hybrid system of public and private plans. Australia, France, Japan, and Italy come immediately to mind. I'm sure there are others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #101)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 01:19 PM

130. Well Ontario has a 15% Goods and Services tax.

That is one way to pay for some of it. Everyone pays a 15% sales tax on everything they buy. Works for Canada

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:34 PM

103. Yes, please provide a balanced plan

Putting up a straw man that you know will never pass and really can't work as proposed isn't much better than the GOP repeal and replace with nothing to replace it with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:54 PM

107. It doesn't look like it's meant to become law

You can't have legislation without specific numbers on funding. . I suppose after the problems with his last single payer bill, he figured it was best to leave off numbers altogether.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:56 PM

108. You want to see our details?? We don't need no stinkin' details!!

As I read it the trust fund sends a monthly tab to the Treasury and the Treasury simply covers it. Easy eh?




https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/medicare-for-all-act?id=6CA2351C-6EAE-4A11-BBE4-CE07984813C8&download=1&inline=file

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 10:49 AM

121. typical

of a politician. Big on quantity of words, very little of substance when it comes to really providing help for struggling americans....and those political hopefuls signing on to this crock of shit? SHAME!!!!! Political expediency, that's all. What I've come to expect from the american political system....NOTHING!!!!!!!! In this case more than likely higher taxes which the author claims I don't mind paying. He can afford them, I can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 12:42 PM

124. The issue i have with this, is that today, true health care costs are hidden form taxpayers

and paid for by corporations as a benefit. At some point, the GOP is going to say that your middle class tax bracket is going from 28% to 56% for something they basically already have. That's when every Democrat either walks away from the plan, or loses their job to some anti-tax Republican.

Right now the GOP is saying it's going to "hike taxes", but as soon as they put numbers behind it, the debate is over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 12:46 PM

125. I'm glad Rep. John Conyers isn't embarrassed by Sen. Sanders in their joint effort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #125)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 01:31 PM

133. They have been friends and allies for decades.

It is only in the junior high lunchroom that DU has become that they are imagined to be enemies.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #133)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 01:44 PM

134. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #125)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 02:12 PM

137. Thanks for this. This is a great move by Sanders AND Conyers nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 01:23 PM

131. Sanders has an extremely poor record of legislative success.

It's no surprise.

I still like the other names getting out there with it. The legislation will not pass. This is strictly political and each is doing their thing for different reasons. It is still helping to normalize the concept, overall. Sanders is one off the biggest career politicians out there. This is a personal(He's cashing out) and political(He's working to weaken and divide a party he doesn't represent) move for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 01:31 PM

132. Blah, blah, blah.

Hyperbolic. Please demonstrate how all Congressional bills include specific details about how they will be paid for.

Here are options Bernie has already proposed:
[link:https://berniesanders.com/medicareforall/|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 03:40 PM

140. it's not the first time Bernie has been lax on details

I dislike his stance on free college for all too - people want to pay reasonable rates, they weren't even asking for "free college"

this kind of bullshit feeds right into the socialist stance that will not win elections

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread