Bernie Sanders’s fiction-filled campaign

[Jarqui]

12. I'll focus on this lame crap:

Mr. Sanders’s story continues with fantastical claims about how he would make the European social model work in the United States. He admits that he would have to raise taxes on the middle class in order to pay for his universal, Medicare-for-all health-care plan, and he promises massive savings on health-care costs that would translate into generous benefits for ordinary people, putting them well ahead, on net. But he does not adequately explain where those massive savings would come from. Getting rid of corporate advertising and overhead would only yield so much. Savings would also have to come from slashing payments to doctors and hospitals and denying benefits that people want.

Unfortunately, The Editorial Board of the Washington just flunked reading comprehension.

Sanders got an economist to lay out his proposal financially
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/friedman-memo-1.pdf

FeeltheBern: BERNIE SANDERS ON HEALTHCARE
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/
See section on:
How the heck are we going to pay for it?

Sanders site: Medicare for All
https://berniesanders.com/medicareforall/
See section on:
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST AND HOW DO WE PAY FOR IT?

One thing a high school level journalist knows is that when they're going to write about something, they should research it a little. And if they're confused or want to know more (which they normally should if they're going to write about a subject), then they should try to contact a group like the Sanders campaign to get whatever understanding or clarification they require. The Sanders campaign is in the business right now of clarifying their policies to the media.

Has that happened here with the Washington Post? No way. I'd flunk their high school level of journalism.

And if they were really stuck, all they had to do was ask one of their other reporters who told Washington Post readers how it was going to be paid for right here!!!:
Bernie Sanders’s health-care plan is the biggest attack on the rich of this campaign
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/17/bernie-sanders-new-health-care-plan-is-his-biggest-attack-on-the-rich-so-far/

We also know that, by Sanders' accounting, the plan would actually put more money into the pockets of all but the very richest Americans.

That's because the planned tax increases would be more than offset by a decline in how much most Americans pay for their health care — their premiums, their deductibles, their co-pays, all of it — per Sanders' math.

There are still lots of questions about how the middle class would fare under his new plan. But it's clear they would definitely do better than the rich.

Employers would put up about half of what Sanders’ staff think the campaign would cost. They’d pay a new payroll tax of 6.2 percent, equal to the amount employers already pay to Social Security. That tax would raise $630 billion a year, the campaign projects.

A bunch of these guys were also able to figure it out:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/politifact-how-much-would-bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-cost-the-middle/2261384

Others, however, are more optimistic that Sanders' plan could be actuarially sound.

"The tax rates are probably on the low side of what would be necessary, but not out of the ballpark," said Peter Hussey, a healthy policy analyst at the RAND Corp., adding that they would work only with significant cost savings and lower benefits.

Hussey pointed to other financing models with higher taxes. In Sanders' own Vermont, the proposed single-payer state system would require a payroll tax of 11.5 percent and a sliding income tax of 0 to 9.5 percent. A national single-payer system would require a payroll tax of 11.7 percent, according to the National Institute for Health Care Reform.

Gerald Friedman, a health economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, analyzed a different 2013 Medicare-for-all bill proposed by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and concluded it would be enough to cover everyone, upgrade benefits and save the country $5 trillion over a decade.

But beyond a 6 percent income tax and a sliding payroll tax of 3 to 6 percent, that would require a financial transaction tax (Sanders included this in his 2013 bill but has since committed the tax to free college tuition) as well as an estate tax, a capital gains tax and a cap on high-income tax deductions. (Sanders has proposed these but hasn't said they'll be used to pay for health care.)

Friedman calculated that with the extra taxes and some tweaks, Sanders' plan would provide ample coverage and even generate a surplus of $51 billion. Meanwhile, he said, middle-class families would still save thousands, inequality in care and costs would be dramatically reduced, and the overall population would be healthier.

Right now, the United States spends about $3 trillion (roughly) on healthcare covering about 90% of it's people.

Let's do really simplistic ballpark math.
1. We want to cover the final 10% of those not covered so (and this is excessive) let's add 10% of $3 trillion (in fact, it's closer to half that according to Krugman).
2. Corporation / healthcare insurance company profits do not have to be paid anymore. There's 5% roughly
3. Administration costs go way down. Let's be conservative and say 5% savings.

So with single payer, we've simply added the 29 million people who don't have it (10%) and chopped corporate profit (5%) and admin costs savings (5%) you get with single payer. And it hasn't cost the United States a fucking dime. It's not rocket science to figure this out.

In fact, the real numbers are about twice as good as that:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost

July 2013: Economist Gerald Friedman, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts, Amherst

“Under the single-payer system created by HR 676 [the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich.], the U.S. could save an estimated $592 billion annually by slashing the administrative waste associated with the private insurance industry ($476 billion) and reducing pharmaceutical prices to European levels ($116 billion). In 2014, the savings would be enough to cover all 44 million uninsured and upgrade benefits for everyone else.

“Specifically, the savings from a single-payer plan would be more than enough to fund $343 billion in improvements to the health system such as expanded coverage, improved benefits, enhanced reimbursement of providers serving indigent patients, and the elimination of co-payments and deductibles in 2014.

“Health care financing in the U.S. is regressive, weighing heaviest on the poor, the working class, and the sick. With the progressive financing plan outlined for HR 676, 95% of all U.S. households would save money.

“HR 676 would also establish a system for future cost control using proven-effective methods such as negotiated fees, global budgets, and capital planning. Over time, reduced health cost inflation over the next decade (“bending the cost curve”) would save $1.8 trillion, making comprehensive health benefits sustainable for future generations.”

A fair review of Sanders plan to provide Medicare for All determines in the opinion of many that it's plausible. All those other folks above could figure it out but not the Washington Post Editorial Board ... who are owned by the corporate interests Sanders is going after.

I go back with the Washington Post to before Watergate. That's the most pathetic drivel I've ever read from their Editorial Board in my life. It's a lazy man's mindless bullshit deliberately intended to misinform and smear a candidate.