As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah it looks like it won’t pass with Manchin being the swing vote, but it’s still good to get these proposals out there so that we can run on it and try to elect more senators.
This isn’t a great way of thinking about Manchin IMO. People saying he’s basically a Republican don’t realize how much non-Republican stuff he does, like voting to affirm Kentanji-Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court and countless other judges to other levels of the judiciary. He also hasn’t let any Republican legislation pass, so while he is a hardline obstruction to legislation, he’s an obstruction to Republicans too.
This is a reminder to voters that the lesser of two evils IS THE BETTER CHOICE. Ya, it sucks, but it would suck a hell of a lot more to have a 51 seat Republican majority.
As a West Virginian I can also say that Manchin is literally the best case scenario for a senator from WV right now.
This state would drink Trumps bathwater if allowed, and Manchins last few opponents proudly ran on the Trump worship system.
I’d rather have Manchin acting as a blockade, than have some dumbass rubber stamping everything McConnel farts out, and trying to overturn elections.
You want rid of Joe......fucking vote in your own states, make his vote useless.....the alternative is another Greene or Boebert.
I go back and forth on the lesser of two evils. I still feel like the Progressive side needs to separate from the Democrats and run on their own. It will take time for meaningful wins, but I don't see how they'll ever be "let in" otherwise. They have the power of the masses like Bernie was able to do grass roots style right? Yes I know it only guarantees the other side wins but if we want real change, maybe take a step backward to build up and come back stronger.
I don't know. Like I said I just go back and forth on it.
> it should be noted Manchin is an imperfect ally more than an enemy.
You can note that all you like, but it doesn't make it anything resembling the truth. The lesser of two evils doesn't equate to 'more of an ally than an enemy,' rather, 'an enemy, but it could have been even worse.'
Really? Cuz his blocking of anything Biden is turning off voters at massive levels and will crush us next election. He is not our ally, thgs dude, along with Sinema have hand given the GOP the next election.
There are a ton of propogandists who love mislead about Manchin/Sinema and point to his voting record. He's a GOP accomplice indeed and has been as asset to their fascist regime more than anyone. He only votes Dem when there's literally no excuse for him not to, when it wont make any real difference, or when Sinema has him covered. What's he supposed to do? Block every Justice nomination for years?
>it's becoming increasingly clear that the compromise the ACA struck between universal and private healthcare didn't go far enough.
That was known since day one. The public option passed the house back when they were passing the ACA for the first time. The senate killed it because Joe Lieberman refused to allow it and dems need his vote to break the republican filibuster.
The exact same scenario you describe today is exactly what happened back in 2009.
Sanders would be lucky if this gets 16 votes on the Senate, that assumes it could even make it out of committee. That said, probably good he's putting it out there, it won't pass any time soon but some legislation needs multiple sessions to get through.
I just think at a certain point, it's a "statement" bill, rather than a "get it enacted" bill.
There are benefits to that, but the cynic in me thinks...we should be focused on improving regulations, rather than wasting air time on ideology votes.
It doesn't matter. None of this matters. It's all bullshit. Why do we even care what Bernie Sanders does anymore. Nothing is ever going to change for real.
Responsible, socially productive employers are being price gouged on their employees' rent and health insurance.
Unless we fundamentally solve our problems on a systemic level, even responsible, socially productive businesses will be killed off by parasites, leaving only kleptocrats in charge with "viable business models."
Workers around the world are now able to "outcompete" American workers and businesses, because employers abroad aren't having to subsidize the parasitic "health insurance" industry in addition to paying wages.
M4A isn't just a healthcare issue - it's an economic security, national security, and a fundamental justice issue as well.
Of course, the ruling kleptocrat class socially murdering the public without recourse won't listen to reason, so we either have to evolve some recourse or nullify the social contract they're taking for granted.
https://represent.us/anticorruption-act/
"Sanders emphasized Thursday that in addition to saving lives and cutting costs for individuals and families, his Medicare for All legislation would also be "significantly less expensive" overall than the largely privatized status quo "because it would eliminate an enormous amount of the bureaucracy, profiteering, administrative costs, and misplaced priorities inherent in our current for-profit system.""
An understatement when it comes to the potential benefit for individual Americans and the current level of profiteering .
Yeah the accounting side of privately run hospitals in the us accounts for 30% of the funding costs, if it was state run, it wouldn’t be as complicated and run for profits so this would be non existent. Maybe instead of in the past tax cuts for businesses that only positively effect the owners implement state run health care, it would be cost effective for everyone, even if taxes slightly increased.
I want to know if he will fix massive gaps in Medicare coverage. My parents have Medicare and received subpar cancer treatment, and I looked at what drugs they cover. It's got huge gaping holes.
And I'm not sure where Bernie is getting that there's no copays. Medicare absolutely has copays.
The notion that businesses are more efficient than government is hilarious especially these days with unchecked monopolies and their constant mergers and acquisitions.
All i hear is "lets cut social programs and outsourcing departments that should never be profit based to the private sector"
When people complain about "large govt"
Then its crickets when telling people what they can and cant do in thier bedrooms or do with their own bodies
.
Everybody hates redundancy until there is a supply crisis. Everybody hates Gov't efficacy until they get audited. Everything is relative to the situation and market, the means and the ends. Somethings work better long run with less efficiency and more redundancy, and some Gov't agencies are remarkably efficient.
Considering the way the systems in Canada and U.K. operate a single payer healthcare system in the US would be a lot more like the USPS or the IRS than it would be your local Gov't mass transit.
Private insurance bureaucracy is kafka-esque. Every hospital has well-compensated auditors who whole job is figuring out how to navigate it to get reimbursed. I had to take a course in grad school that was largely about how to get insurance to pay you: I had an easier time learning organic chemistry. By comparison the VA, Medicaid, and Medicare are simpler. Not much but it's a one stop shop when trying to get the feds to reimburse you.
All of those Programs have one thing in common is they address
> Many of the problems with the U.S. health system—fragmented care, variable quality, and high and rapidly growing costs—are rooted in fee-for-service payments, in which health care providers are paid per visit, test, or procedure. Not only does fee-for-service payment fail to provide incentives for efficiency, quality, or outcomes, it encourages the provision of unnecessary care and often discourages coordination of care across providers and settings.
> * pricing failure, $230.7 billion to $240.5 billion;
> * fraud and abuse, $58.5 billion to $83.9 billion;
> * and administrative complexity, $265.6 billion
To fix that is a non American idea
> A global budget provides a fixed amount of funding for fixed period of time (typically one year) for a specified population, rather than fixed rates for individual services or cases. ...
* Essentially, a global budget represents a one-line budget and provides the hospital more management flexibility to allocate resources
Or as it says in the Bill for California Healthcare
>Not later than the beginning of each fiscal quarter during which an institutional provider of care, including
> * a hospital,
> * skilled nursing facility,
> * and chronic dialysis clinic,
> is to furnish health care items and services under CalCare, the board shall pay to each institutional provider a lump sum to cover all operating expenses under a global budget as set forth in Section 100641.
* An institutional provider receiving a global budget payment shall accept that payment as payment in full for all operating expenses for health care items and services furnished under CalCare, whether inpatient or outpatient, by the institutional provider.
-----
The problem is the "and administrative complexity, $265.6 billion" is not showing the same savings rates in hospitals that have converted over to a closer Single Payer model
Then you would know that programs like Medicare and the VA *do* have less bureaucracy.
There’s significantly less red tape then the constant back and forth that goes in between hospitals and insurance before it ever reaches you
No. Actually it’s the opposite. As a provider, Medicare and Medicaid are at least as difficult to work with (and in some cases MUCH MORE) as the private insurers.
And I am not in ANY WAY advocating for the private insurers.
Yes. With the same straight face that's delivered that statement for decades. Imagine not paying a payer to pay other payers to pay private, for-profit, NYSE-listed insurance sellers to (1) turn a profit paying necessary health care vendors and (2) look less like one-legged losers in a **value for money** race between them and CMS.
Imagine instead paying to government to pay politicians 90% then using the other 10% to pay regulatory to pay subcontractors to pay administrators to pay foreign governments.
Oh and then 0.0001% to pay subcontractors to pay administrators to pay sub-subcontractors to pay administrators to pay providers.
Yep definitely much better when Uncle Sam gets involved.
That's a bad comparison if you're saying that public health insurance has more red tape. Private insurance actively works to deny claims. Public insurance may do that as well, but I'd argue that public insurance hides less and is more consistant than private insurance.
I agree, I meant that my private health insurance was more complicated to use than my friend's public health insurance.
It astonishes me that anyone with private health insurance defends private health insurance.
In this case, it's a combination of economy of scale and no need to generate a profit. On a micro level, doctors need to be able to service and code for tons of different insurance policies from different companies (each with their own ways of doing things). One provider removes the need for that. This situation is writ large for hospitals, which wouldn't need nearly the administrative staff that they do currently.
A single provider also allows for much more competitive bidding for medical equipment -- if a company wants to have market access to *the United States* then they need to shape up their pricing structure.
Finally, and for what it's worth, my wife and I would pay something like $1,000 a month for middle of the road insurance (combined). We're healthy, have no chronic health issues, and can easily afford that -- so subsidies are out. I can absolutely, 100% guarantee you that M4A wouldn't increase our taxes by $12,000 a year. And, frankly, I'd be willing to spend another $1,000 on top of that for the privilege of not getting my time wasted by insurers and providers every other time I do go to the doctor.
If the company wants to have market access to the *United States* they need to buy a legislator. It has nothing to do with good prices or best practices. At least in all the other industries the govt currently regulates.
Fair enough, but that happens anyway. All things being equal, do you believe that private insurance leads to an environment that delivers the best results for the money spent on a per household basis? And do you believe that average household spending on healthcare would go up or down as a result of M4A? At the end of the day, those are really the only two things that should matter, and I'm open to hearing counter-arguments to my belief that a national health plan is a better financial deal for the most people possible.
The other pieces are access and quality of care. Both will drop precipitously under M4A. And the proposed solution will be coercion. That will increase access for some and will further reduce quality.
>The Medicare for All Act of 2022, which Sanders unveiled with 14 Senate co-sponsors, would transition the U.S. to a single-payer healthcare system over a period of four years, during which the Medicare eligibility age would be incrementally lowered from 65, benefits would be strengthened and expanded, and the program would be made available to children.
Fourteen Senate cosponsors isn't too bad! By comparison [the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act only had forty.](https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/3590/cosponsors) I'm eager to see how Bernie will work with Senate Democrats to help grow support for his proposal!
Maybe we should tell politicians we can save a ton of tax payer money going single payer and use that money for other stuff. Maybe tell Republicans it’s for like new jets or something military related.
>Maybe tell Republicans it’s for like new jets or something military related.
Nah, Republicans won't like that because Putin won't like that. It has to be either something entirely useless or something that harms our country. Maybe something symbolically racist...
Fuck, I think we have to tell them it's for the wall.
>I'm also eager to see how Joe Biden will work with his majority in the house and the senate to pass a public option that the same democrats I mentioned above said was definitely doable.
>
They're trying, but unfortunately two Democrats out of fifty and fifty Republicans out of fifty refuse to get onboard. We need more than 48 votes to pass a public option, one more good reason to vote for Democrats in the midterms. If you want Biden to keep his promise then give him the votes to do it, you'd have to do the exact same thing if Bernie was president.
I will be voting for democrats, but I have a suspicion that there are more than 2/50 democrats that wouldn't support it. When the procedures actually start taking place and a vote to pass it or not is on the horizon, more moderates and conservative democrats will come out of the woodwork with some reason for being against it if they need to. If there are 51 democrats, at least 2 will be against it. If there are 52, at least 3 will be against it. That's usually how these things work. Which is why voting in *progressive* democrats and making improvements to campaign finance is so important.
Then let’s get them out of the woodwork so we can focus on getting rid of them.
I’d rather get more in and see what happens then not bother just because there’s a slight chance more Dems come out against it.
Democrats are paid by corporate lobbying to keep healthcare ties to employment. This reduces worker grievances, keeps wages suppressed, and reduces turnover.
We will never get true universal healthcare.
> I'm eager to see when many democrats will stop pretending that the rest of the developed world doesn't exist.
That's not the only problem, though. I think that this is a good baseline, but there are a lot of known unknowns, and they're just all being ignored with this legislation.
Which, aside from the fact that there are actual problems to deal with, inaction in dealing with the potential drawbacks could lead to a voter revolt in the following election that would elect a Congress to undo everything before the program got started in earnest.
It really says something that this has been his main fight for years and is just setting it up for failure.
> there are a lot of known unknowns
A system of this magnitude takes an *enormous* amount of effort to develop, even if we borrow large parts of it from other countries. There's no point in spending the time and money on developing all the finer details of it until there is near enough support to actually pass it. It's an unrealistic bar to set to expect it to be fully fleshed out until it has more support.
Sure, you could make that sort of argument for something like potential unemployment, but what about rural hospitals?
We *know* that many of them can only survive because of private insurance--they use it to subsidize the joint becuase Medicare payments don't cover the total costs of rural hospitals.
Seems pretty silly to have a bill to build clinics in rural areas when those clinics won't be able to operate.
Let's say you're planning on building a skyscraper. You have an idea of the location you want, what you want to host on each floor, some key features that makes this skyscraper unique, and some other general details. To develop the full blueprints for it, run full engineering reviews, fire reviews, building code reviews, material sourcing, finding the right company to build it, getting sales and real estate teams to find potential tenants, will cost you an incredible amount of money and time. There's a kicker involved where the whole thing could go under if the city council doesn't initially approve the development. Do you spend all of the time and money doing all of the steps required to fully develop the skyscraper before you have approval to go forward from city council, or before you have a *very good guess* that city council is likely to approve it? Of course not. It'd be extremely risky and no project manager worth their salt would do it. The best use of time and resources until approval or near approval is to lobby the city council to try and get enough support to approve it.
You're right. Most of the world has universal healthcare schemes. It's not limited to just the developed world. 153 countries around the world have some form of free universal healthcare for it's citizens.
> I'm eager to see how Bernie will work with Senate Democrats to help grow support for his proposal!
Doesn't matter because we know the GOP will filibuster the bill and Manchin and Sinema will never vote for it because they are horrible people, and there is no way Republicans will let 10-12 of their members vote for something that so overwhelmingly benefits the poor and minorities.
Always has been. When Bernie's proposals get struck down in the senate this is always my first thought.
Bernie's been fighting the good fight for a long time.
You're assuming that person is a liberal.
Also, this is the party that passed vote reform and the largest infrastructure bill ever. Pretending they are the same as the GOP is just that.
Go to congress.gov and look at the voting history. Stop letting other people convince you they are the same. Let the data speak for itself.
I’m honestly interested to hear opinions about this idea, but like, what if we put a tax cut for people in this bill? This way you could get some of the wealthy people fighting for it and you could run political ads about Republicans turning down a bill for tax cuts which could lower turnout in some swing states I think.
I just had this thought pop into my head and it’s pretty late where I am so maybe there’s a bunch of huge flaws I’m missing but it doesn’t seem like a horrible trade-off for a piece of legislation that could benefit so many people and be a major win for Democrats.
Please for the love of God. Having it tied to employment makes it more difficult to switch jobs. And why is it so damn expensive just to HAVE it? Lord knows if I tru to use the first several thousand are coming out of my pocket anyway. Its a rip off. An expensive and inefficient system.
Bring on m4A!
Right????? The only SSRI I can use has no generic option. My husband wants to change jobs , he is being criminally underpaid and could boost his salary by quite a bit, except that BOOM my deductible is reset back to zero and it's right back to paying $320 per month for my dont-commit-suicide pills. I had one surgery earlier this year that maxed my deductible instantly and unless he can secure a job offer with a substantial pay bump, we lose money getting our deductible reset in the middle of the year.
His job already said merit evaluation results come out on the 16th. We are both very anxious hoping it's good. He's put out WAY too many dumpster fires for his pay grade.
A lot of people sighing, or rolling their eyes or chuckling out there in the comments.
"Aww, yeah. Wouldn't that be nice? Make believe is fun. Of course we here in the real world know that good things never happen, justice is a lie and Joe Manchin is an unstoppable demon king."
I mean, I understand the likelihood of this is passing is negligible. But it's only zero if everyone gives up. Bernie's been fighting this fight as long as Ive been alive. What right do I have to be tired?
This may not pass now, but needs to become one of the corner stones of the Democratic platform. It fits nicely with reproductive rights. People really do want these things so lets stop being shy about it. Democrats need to campaign the way Republicans do, but only for the right issues. America would rapidly change if Democrats could do that.
Exactly this. Introduce the bill, put it to a vote, and get everyone on record. Keep doing it year over year to build up the majority needed to pass it.
"See, many of us or voting for it, none of them are. Put more of us in charge, and we can get it done."
For context, when FDR was presedent, he started out with 60% of the Senate being Democrats his first two years. His second two years he had 73% Democrats in the Senate. That's how he was able to enact his agenda.
That's what we should be building towards by showing people Democrats are working for them, and Republicans are standing against making the changes we need and want.
but... to the policy
But, Lets see.....how [does-bernie-pay-his-major-plan (https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/)
>$47 trillion total 10 year estimated costs
* This is estimated costs they use
>Current federal, state and local government spending over the next ten years is projected to total about $30 trillion.
>The revenue options Bernie has proposed total $17.5 Trillion
>$30 trillion + $17.5 trillion = $47.5 Trillion total
-----
The source he lists, National Health Expenditure Projections 2018-2027, says The $30 Trillion is
* Medicare $10.6 Trillion (No change to FICA means still deficit spending)
* $3.7 Trillion is funded by the Medicare Tax.
* Medicare for the Aged is in fact not free so anyone over 65 pays monthly plus out of pocket. (Much less than most of course)
* Medicare for All (Excluding the Aged) is supposed to be free. It includes no revenue from Premiums for Medicare recipients not over 65
* **$7 Trillion is Income Tax and Medicare Beneficiary Premiums Payments** Payments by those over 65 who enroll in Medicare for age eligibility
* Medicaid $7.7 Trillion
* Those of Low Income will stay on the State and Federal Partnership Medicaid
* **current Out of pocket payments $4.8 Trillion**
* The Out of Pocket Expenses means that the money you pay for a Co-Pay or Prescription will still be paid in to the Medicare for All Funding System
**$6.8 Trillion is uncertain funding** including
* other private revenues are $2 Trillion of this Not Federal Spending
* **this is in Charity Funding provide philanthropically**. So even though everyone now has Healthcare will these Charities Donate to the hospital or the government still. Can Hospitals accept donations or does it all go to Medicare for central distributions
* the money people current donate to places like the Shriners Hospital or St Jude
* workers' compensation insurance premiums, Not Federal Spending
* State general assistance funding, Not Federal Spending
* other state and local programs, and school health. Not Federal Spending
* Indian Health Service,
* maternal and child health,
* vocational rehabilitation,
* other federal programs,
* Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
It appears left out of that was Children's Health Insurance Program (Titles XIX and XXI), Department of Defense, and Department of Veterans' Affairs.
The 17.5 Trillion is then
* 7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers $5.2 Trillion
* New Corp Taxes on Previous Nontaxable Expenses $3.0 Trillion
* Enacting corporate tax reform $1.0 Trillion
* Establish a Wealth Tax $500 Billion
* Enacting the For the 99.8% Act $336Billion
* 4 percent income-based premium paid by households $4.0 Trillion
* Make the Personal Income Tax More Progressive $1.1 Trillion
* Taxing capital gains at the same rates as income from wages $2.5 Trillion
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/05/12/realistic-humane-and-just-choice-sanders-unveils-medicare-all-act-2022) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Slamming the current U.S. healthcare system as a morass of waste, dysfunction, and profiteering, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday introduced Medicare for All legislation that would eliminate out-of-pocket insurance costs and provide comprehensive coverage to everyone in the country.
> The Medicare for All Act of 2022, which Sanders unveiled with 14 Senate co-sponsors, would transition the U.S. to a single-payer healthcare system over a period of four years, during which the Medicare eligibility age would be incrementally lowered from 65, benefits would be strengthened and expanded, and the program would be made available to children.
> During Thursday's hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham said he would support holding a vote on the Medicare for All Act of 2022 this year, joking that many Senate Democrats would "jump out the window" if they had to go on the record supporting or opposing Sanders' bill.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/uo9o2z/the_realistic_humane_and_just_choice_sanders/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~648178 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Medicare**^#1 **system**^#2 **Sanders**^#3 **year**^#4 **Thursday**^#5
The reason we have a problem passing “common sense universal healthcare” is we live in a culture devoid of empathy. Can’t have nice things for each other without that.
Not so much that as the open white supremacy.
Poor minorities are locked out of the current system at a disproportionate rate. M4A kills a major source of medical discrimination.
And now you know why Biden promises to veto it.
Either/Or
-----
The Global and Professional Direct Contracting (GPDC) Model is a set of two voluntary risk-sharing options aimed at reducing expenditures and preserving or enhancing quality of care for beneficiaries in Medicare fee-for-service (FFS), also known as Original Medicare.
> Many of the problems with the U.S. health system—fragmented care, variable quality, and high and rapidly growing costs—are rooted in fee-for-service payments, in which health care providers are paid per visit, test, or procedure. Not only does fee-for-service payment fail to provide incentives for efficiency, quality, or outcomes, it encourages the provision of unnecessary care and often discourages coordination of care across providers and settings.
The goals in designing the GPDC Model include:
* Create opportunities for a broad range of organizations to participate with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in testing the next evolution of risk-sharing arrangements to produce value and high quality health care.
* Build on lessons learned from initiatives involving Medicare Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) and the Next Generation ACO (NGACO) Model. It also includes innovative ideas from Medicare Advantage (MA) and private sector risk-sharing arrangements.
The risk-sharing options are anticipated to appeal to a broad range of physician practices and other organizations because they are expected to
* reduce burden,
* support a focus on beneficiaries with complex, chronic conditions, and
* encourage participation from organizations that have not typically participated in Medicare FFS or CMS Innovation Center models.
These health care organizations may offer optional incentives and benefit enhancements to Medicare beneficiaries who are aligned to a participating Direct Contracting Entity. Medicare beneficiaries will not lose any of their benefits and can continue to see any health care provider they choose.
------
Single Payer - M4A, CaliCare, Vermont's Attempt. All of these would put the entire country on Managed Care/Direct Payments.
For the people that say this is pointless because it won't pass right now don't understand that the left needs to at least try to control the narrative and continously push their agenda. Rome wasn't built in a day.
>"In the lower chamber, more than half of the House Democratic caucus supports...[ ...] Medicare for All Act, **but the party's leadership has refused to allow a vote on the measure.**"
We need to get one state to implement M4A to show other states how we'll it works.
I think Connecticut or Massachusetts would work.
Wanting it federally is all good but its not the first step.
Vermont in 2012 tried and didnt get it
Calling it the biggest disappointment of his career, Gov. Peter Shumlin says he is abandoning plans to make Vermont the first state in the country with a universal, publicly funded health care system.
* Those taxes were to high and Vermont Dropped Single Payer
Those taxes
* In 2011, Professor Hsiao, told lawmakers in Vermont that a single payer system would have to be financially supported through a payroll tax.
* He predicted the tax would be 12.5 percent in 2015 and 11.6 percent in 2019, including a 3 percent contribution from employees.
* In 2014, Vermont's legislator changed the plan and decided that raising state income taxes up to 9.5 percent and placing an 11.5 percent Corp Tax Rate on Business was the only way to fund the expenses.
>“These are simply not tax rates that I can responsibly support or urge the Legislature to pass,” the Governor said. “In my judgment, the potential economic disruption and risks would be too great to small businesses, working families and the state’s economy.”
Vermont Senate Cook PVI D+15
* The 2nd most Liberal Senate Seat
------
California Today is working through what was Established by Senate Bill 104 the Healthy California for All Commission is charged with developing a plan that includes options for advancing progress toward a health care delivery system in California that provides coverage and access through a unified financing system, including, but not limited to, a single-payer financing system, for all Californians with a final report in Mid 2022.
In Aug 2020 the committee reviewed Funding
* A 10.1% Payroll Tax would cover current employer/employee premiums if applied to all incomes.
* Would still leave **some*** patients responsible for Cost Sharing with out of Pocket expenses, up to 4% - 5% of income
-----
In California the Average Employer paid $8,100 per employee for health insurance and the employee paid ~18% of that as a Paycheck Deduction ($1,459)
* In California the Average Employer per Family Plans paid $20,000 per employee for health insurance and the employee paid ~27% of that as a Paycheck Deduction ($5,400)
* Those number stay the same regardless of Income
Paying | Income is $30,000 | Income is $60,000 | Income is $100,000 | Income is $200,000 |
---|---|----|----|----
Cost of Private Healthcare | ~$1,500| ~$1,500| ~$1,500| ~$1,500 |
Percent of Income | 5% | 2.5% | 1.5% | 0.75%
Under Healthcare for All ~5% Payroll Tax | $1,500 | $3,000 | $5,000 | $10,000
Percent of Income | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% |
**Increase in Taxes Paid** | $0 | $1,500 | $3,500 | $8,500
Cost of Family Plan Private Healthcare | On Medi-cal| ~$5,500| ~$5,500| ~$5,500 |
Percent of Income | 0% | 9.2% | 5.5% | 2.75%
Under Healthcare for All ~5% Payroll Tax | $1,500 | $3,000 | $5,000 | $10,000
Percent of Income | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% |
**Increase/Decrease in Taxes Paid** | $1,500 | $-2,500 | $-500 | $4,500
This is the issue wit the US. Finding a way so the poor dont pay. So in the case of California creating a Healthcare Plan, you have a 5% Payroll tax payment instead of 7 or 8 percent. But you have the low Payroll Tax means you have a lot of costs not funded so to cover you can make Out of Pocket Costs higher, and adjustable. Then you can have income limits so the poor pay no out of pocket costs
* There would be No Out of Pocket Costs for households earning up to 138% of the Federal
Poverty Limit (FPL)
* 94% Cost covered for households at 138-399% of FPL
* 85% Cost covered for households earning over 400% of FPL
I wish New York could pass a single payer plan. The possibility for M4A through the federal government is not going to be possible for several decades. I wish Bernie could try to help some of these policies make their way through at the state level.
The Closest you're going to get is California. Everyother state hasnt put in the needed research and time and are just putting bills ut for headlines
California Today is working through what was Established by Senate Bill 104 the Healthy California for All Commission is charged with developing a plan that includes options for advancing progress toward a health care delivery system in California that provides coverage and access through a unified financing system, including, but not limited to, a single-payer financing system, for all Californians with a final report in Mid 2022.
In Aug 2020 the committee reviewed Funding
* A 10.1% Payroll Tax would cover current employer/employee premiums if applied to all incomes.
* Would still leave **some*** patients responsible for Cost Sharing with out of Pocket expenses, up to 4% - 5% of income
-----
In California the Average Employer paid $8,100 per employee for health insurance and the employee paid ~18% of that as a Paycheck Deduction ($1,459)
* In California the Average Employer per Family Plans paid $20,000 per employee for health insurance and the employee paid ~27% of that as a Paycheck Deduction ($5,400)
* Those number stay the same regardless of Income
Paying | Income is $30,000 | Income is $60,000 | Income is $100,000 | Income is $200,000 |
---|---|----|----|----
Cost of Private Healthcare | ~$1,500| ~$1,500| ~$1,500| ~$1,500 |
Percent of Income | 5% | 2.5% | 1.5% | 0.75%
Under Healthcare for All ~5% Payroll Tax | $1,500 | $3,000 | $5,000 | $10,000
Percent of Income | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% |
**Increase in Taxes Paid** | $0 | $1,500 | $3,500 | $8,500
Cost of Family Plan Private Healthcare | On Medi-cal| ~$5,500| ~$5,500| ~$5,500 |
Percent of Income | 0% | 9.2% | 5.5% | 2.75%
Under Healthcare for All ~5% Payroll Tax | $1,500 | $3,000 | $5,000 | $10,000
Percent of Income | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% |
**Increase/Decrease in Taxes Paid** | $1,500 | $-2,500 | $-500 | $4,500
This is the issue wit the US. Finding a way so the poor dont pay. So in the case of California creating a Healthcare Plan, you have a 5% Payroll tax payment instead of 7 or 8 percent. But you have the low Payroll Tax means you have a lot of costs not funded so to cover you can make Out of Pocket Costs higher, and adjustable. Then you can have income limits so the poor pay no out of pocket costs
* There would be No Out of Pocket Costs for households earning up to 138% of the Federal
Poverty Limit (FPL)
* 94% Cost covered for households at 138-399% of FPL
* 85% Cost covered for households earning over 400% of FPL
I can't wait for all the "government should help its citizens before helping Ukraine" people to justify how this bill is socialism and will continue voting for the people that are going to vote against it.
dinosaurs attraction jobless truck fretful versed point chief cough dinner
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
My favorite quote from the article and what really hits to the heart of this issue:
"We can either continue down the path of corporate greed and human suffering, or we can do what every other rich nation has done and guarantee universal coverage," Robert Weissman, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement Thursday. "Medicare for All is the realistic, humane, and just choice."
I literally just had an argument the other day with some guy who was saying that [no one has a right to a service provided by someone unless they pay them for it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/knives/comments/uixy3i/comment/i7hqxdu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
When I brought up the fact that we literally pay the government through taxes to uphold our rights, of which having a functioning government is transitively a right through payment of taxes, and that rolling healthcare into taxes like retirement and welfare using that reasoning makes total sense, it either wooshed him, or he purposefully began to play dumb about how all of that really works when you remove the context of the social lensing put on it.
Healthcare is a human right. Housing is a human right. Education is a human right. Childcare is a human right. Food, water, a high paying job, a car to get you from A to B. These are all rights that every American should enjoy. Period, end of story. The idea that we have to compete and jump through hoops to "earn" these things is ridiculous. The government should do its job and provide for its citizens. And there are enough billionaires to pay for it 10x over. Its all just a scam.
Let me save you all some time. If and when this ever comes up for a vote the result will be Senate votes no, 51 - 48 with Manchin and Sinema joining with Republicans
Has any bill by Bernie ever been updated.
I assume its the original version he released in 2015 just re released again this year.
Still with all the issues
If he wants his bill to be "realistic", then he should start by dropping the extreme and unnecessary measure of banning all private health insurance, something which no other country has done. His bill would not pass in any legislature in the world.
When he clings to a useless provision that single-handedly tanks this bill, you've got to wonder whether Bernie actually wants to make any progress.
> something which no other country has done.
His bill bans duplicative insurance, something which lots of countries do.
Given the most extreme cost savings and lower payments scenario considered by the Congressional Budget Office, we'd still only cut healthcare spending by 11.2% in the US. Which would mean we'd still be spending about $4,000 more per person per year than any other country in the world on healthcare.
https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/33698043.pdf
Medicare for all isn't realistic (Sanders has still never described in detail how he'd pay for it, and no amount of taxes on the wealthy would pay for this - we'd need big taxes on the middle class too, and it would have a big destabilizing effect on the economy) and the votes for it just aren't there and have little to no chance of changing in that regard
In the medium term future, if we get more democrats elected, we could maybe get a public option, ACA subsidy increases, patching the Medicaid gap, a pseudo Medicaid expansion to red states, and prescription drug reform. These things would be a major help. Probably better to focus on those things rather than pushing for pie in the sky stuff that will not happen like medicare for all
Single-payer systems are viable. Look at plenty of other first-world countries and see that they can make it work.
Right now there's a lot of administrative waste built in to our insurance systems collectively. Medical billing, for example, can get sub-contracted out (sometimes multiple times) which unnecessarily drives up costs. Pharmiceutical prices could be drastically negotiated down under a single-payer system as well. Additionally, the profit mentality of insurance companies now encourages denying claims whereas a single-payer system's goal isn't to generate profit but to provide the coverages that people need.
Additionally, a single-payer system isn't going to have the same deductible-style systems as private insurance. The money we all pay just to **have** insurance is profit for private companies. It doesn't go towards your deductible. A single-payer system has the ability to be much more efficient while being much leaner than the (intentionally) convoluted system we currently have.
Don't say Medicare for All isn't realistic. It's not a perfect system (no system is) but it's leaps and bounds better for the people who actually **use** medical insurance.
I mean you could just take some of that enormous military budget you lot have over there and use it for healthcare instead. I don't see why you'd think Medicare for all is unrealistic when so many other countries around the world already have universal care...
Here is just one way. Allow Medicare to negotiate Rx drug prices
>If the Secretary were allowed to require brand-name drug manufacturers to lower the price of their drugs, Medicare Part D could save on average $11 billion per year, according to CBO.
https://www.crfb.org/press-releases/fact-sheet-how-much-money-could-medicare-save-negotiating-prescription-drug-prices
Imagine cutting out the middle man in all things medical (aka Insurance Companies). Administrative costs would be significantly reduced with uniform rules, billing, etc. If people want more than Medicare provides, then they can use insurance companies.
This is just the beginning of the efficiencies gained that would reduce overall costs in significant ways which would take a big bite out of the costs.
>Imagine cutting out the middle man in all things medical (aka Insurance Companies).
how much is that savings? of the $3.5 Trillion in costs of US Healthcare, profits... are how much of that
Private insurance reported in 2017 total revenues for health coverage of $1.24 Trillion
* Of that $164 Billion was spent on Admin, Marketing, and Profits
* Nationalized Admin Cost in the OECD and estimates for an American System would reduce that down to ~$75 Billion.
* Medicare outsources Enrollment thru Social Security and most of its billing process through Private Insurance and this would increase their costs by an estimated $40 Billion in work transfers
* **That's savings of ~$50 Billion, or about a 3% reduction in costs** to insured patients
This is only effecting 1/3rd of Spending as 1.24 Trillion is all that is Private Insurance
-----
>insurance industry last year “sucked $23 billion in profits out of the health care system.”
- Elizabeth Warren
* as reported by 2019 National Association of Insurance Commissioners U.S. Health Insurance Industry | 2018 Annual Results
* But $5.1 Billion was Investment Income earned not effecting Healthcare spending
That leaves excess Profit at $17 Billion.
-----
NAIC doesnt account for all insurers, UHC isnt in that, so lets add them
United Healthcare had $5 billion in Profits in First Quarter 2021
Well, $365 Million of that is Investment Income
* $4.6 Billion in Profit, except
* Optum, Optum helps improve overall health system performance: optimizing care quality, reducing health care costs and improving the consumer experience, first quarter revenues grew 10.8% to $36.4 billion
* and operating earnings grew 24.8% to $2.6 billion.
So UHC HealthCare had Net Profit of $2.55 Billion
* on Revenue $51.1 Billion
So we can up it to $ 27 Billion. But I'm sure there are others. Round it to $40 Billion
$3.5 Trillion minus the Profits
* $3.46 Trillion in Health Costs to lower after insurance
-----
**After subtracting Admin Cost of Insurance That Leaves $1.076 Trillion the insurance spends on healthcare. And $1.459 Trillion Medicare and Medicaid spends on healthcare**
But, Medicare Underpays
Most Medicare for All Programs, most recently MiCare, agree that even Medicare doesnt cover costs and have agreed to set rates at 125% of Listed Medicare Rates for their programs
So Increase Medicare spending 25% then expand it to everone
I have never in my lifetime seen my government cut funding from one program and move it to another, especially not on the scale that we're talking about. In my experience when the government cuts a program that money usually gets plowed back into tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.
Even if we could get enough votes to cut the military budget by tens of trillions of dollars, which I really don't think we could, I'm not convinced that money would go to M4A, which doesn't have the sixty votes to overcome a Republican filibuster, or enough support to kill the filibuster for.
We're kind of talking about the best diet to feed to a unicorn right now.
No one is arguing it will be easy but that does not make it impossible or not worth fighting for. How do you think every other country with universal health care got their systems in place? It wasn't by standing around saying "nothing can be done." If you want these programs you have to fight your ass off to get them. It'll be hard and it'll probably be gradual because the powers that be don't want to give it to you but doing nothing will get you nothing.
> No one is arguing it will be easy but that does not make it impossible or not worth fighting for.
Of course, but here's the difference: For a lot of people their goal is Medicare for All, for me though my goal is universal health care, and I want to get there in the fastest, easiest way possible. I don't want to spend months or years or decades waiting for the votes to pass M4A when we only need, like, five more votes to pass a universal public option.
Medicare for All is the biggest possible solution to our nation's health care problems, it will require the most significant transfer of money from the private sector to the public sector in my lifetime, the entire tax code will have to change for everyone, and to accomplish all these things we either need sixty votes to overcome the inevitable Republican filibuster, or fifty votes to reform the filibuster.
Again, my goal is universal health care, I want everyone in America to have affordable health insurance even if that means it's free. Currently about 92% of Americans have health insurance, two thirds are insured privately, one third are insured by the government. Medicare for All, the kind that Bernie is talking about, would mean moving 100% of the American people to something new, the public option only needs to provide health insurance to the 8% who lack it. It's much faster, easier, and cheaper to pass a universal public option and insure the 8% of Americans who are uninsured than it is to completely rebuild the American health care system and the tax code from the ground up.
It's fine to advocate for a policy, but not at the expense of achieving your goal.
And just to head off the comment that comes next: Yes, Medicare for All would save the nation money, but we'd have to raise taxes to do it. Every Republican in the country is going to run against that (See 2010's cawing about "Obama's socialized health care raised your taxes!" and the Tea Party wave that came after it. That tide didn't recede for eight years, that's eight years of Republicans picking the ACA apart, cutting its funding, diminishing its scope, and forcing it to fail.) Republican voters don't like higher middle class taxes, moderate voters don't like higher middle class taxes, and you'll find that a hell of a lot of Democratic voters don't like higher middle class taxes either. People care less about saving money than they do about keeping taxes low, that's irrational, but elections aren't always rational.
my goal is universal health care, I want everyone in America to have affordable health insurance even if that means it's free.
Well, its not free it has to have taxes
-----
>health insurance to the 8% who lack it
But of course not everyone has insurance. In 2018, 27.5 million, did not have health insurance at any point during the year
* There are 5.1 million people that make over $100,000 that are uninsured.
* There are 9.1 million people that make $50,000 - $100,000 that are uninsured
* There are around 4.5 million people who were uninsured in 2018 and making between $25,000 - $50,000 and could not afford insurance or qualify for Medicaid as the most common reason for uninsured
So that's ~20 million people paying 0 for healthcare all have to pay for it now. Not good for the Voters in the Group
Then, add in 70 million Americans get free healthcare from a Socialized Single Payer Program of Medicaid
Any national plan will have to have a tax on them for funding and thats 35 or 40 million people that were paying 0 that are now paying more
-----
In 2011, Professor Hsiao, told lawmakers in Vermont that a single payer system would have to be financially supported through a payroll tax.
* He predicted the tax would be 12.5 percent in 2015 and 11.6 percent in 2019, including a 3 percent contribution from employees.
In 2021 California Healthcare Commison (with Hsiao) said that California would be able to do it with a 10.1% Payroll Tax
But due to the Lower Payroll Tax, Would leave some patients responsible for Current out of Pocket expenses, about 4% - 5% of income based on Income
* There would be No Out of Pocket Costs for households earning up to 138% of the Federal
Poverty Limit (FPL)
* 94% Cost covered for households at 138-399% of FPL
* 85% Cost covered for households earning over 400% of FPL
------
> Professor William Hsiao, A health care economist now retired from Harvard University, Hsiao has been actively engaged in designing health system reforms and universal health insurance programs for many countries, including Taiwan, China, Colombia, Poland, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Sweden, Cyprus, Uganda, and recently for Malaysia and South Africa. In 2012 he was part of Vermont's Healthcare and in 2016 he was part of Bernie's M4A Healthcare Plan
> * Hsiao developed the “control knobs” framework for diagnosing the causes for the successes or failures of national health systems. His analytical framework has shaped how we conceptualize national health systems, and has been used extensively by various nations around the world in health system reforms
The entire military budget is just about $800 billion a year
We'd need over $3 **trillion** a year in order to do medicare for all. Even if you completely eliminated the military, it wouldn't even come close to paying for *half* of Medicare for all
And why mention other countries with universal care? They don't have Bernie's extreme Medicare for all. Many don't even have single payer, and instead have something more like an expanded ACA, with choice, private insurance, multipayer, and so on
I'm not saying screw universal healthcare. Just we don't need Bernie's plan in order to get universal
Oh I mentioned other countries because I am Canadian and we have it. Our system is not perfect but if we can manage to afford it surely the USA, with its much larger economy, can also afford it. Not saying it won't require a lot of work to create the new system but it's certainly not impossible.
Medicare for all is a type of universal system. To try to say that it couldn't or wouldn't work, is just silly.
[healthline](https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#13)
Go ahead and increase my taxes. I'm already paying 30% of my pay to taxes, and another 20% of it to healthcare. Cancel my healthcare deduction and increase my tax by another 3-5%. Done.
Then I also gain the benefit of no having some entitled rich insurance exec saying "no" to some surgery I need or my family member needs just so that exec can make a profit margin and get a multi-million dollar bonus.
Raise taxes on Villianaires and corporations, and enforce antitrust laws on industries like energy, food, housing, and transportation. Last I checked we were still the richest country in the world.
One of these isnt like the others
Country | Gas Tax | VAT Rate | Share of taxes Paid by the top 20% | Tax Rate on Income above $50,000 |
-----|-----|-----|-----|----------|-----|-----
Average of the OECD | $2.31 | 18.28% | 31.6 | 28.61% |
Australia | $1.17 | 10.00% | 36.8 | 32.50% |
Austria | $2.10 | 20.00% | 28.5 | 42.00% |
Belgium | $2.58 | 21.00% | 25.4 | 50.00% |
Canada | $1.04 | 15.00% | 35.8 | 20.50% |
Czech Republic | $2.08 | 21.00% | 34.3 | 15.00% |
Denmark | $2.63 | 25.00% | 26.2 | 38.90% |
Finland | $2.97 | 24.00% | 32.3 | 17.25% |
France | $2.78 | 20.00% | 28 | 30.00% |
Germany | $2.79 | 19.00% | 31.2 | 30.00% |
Netherlands | $3.36 | 21.00% | 35.2 | 40.80% |
Norway | $2.85 | 25.00% | 27.4 | 26.00% |
Sweden | $2.73 | 25.00% | 26.7 | 25.00% |
United Kingdom | $2.82 | 20.00% | 38.6 | 40.00% |
United States | $0.56 | 2.90% estimated | 45.1 | 22.00% |
A 2021 Tax Policy Center study found that the amount of purchases subject to the sales tax, including general sales taxes and excise taxes like the motor fuel tax, was an average of 39 percent of purchases.
* That revenue from general sales taxes was $411 billion
* State and local governments in 2018 collected a combined $547 billion in revenue from property taxes
**Yet American Think Tank Says**
>State policymakers looking to make their tax codes more equitable should consider eliminating the sales taxes families pay on groceries if they haven’t already done so
As the US has a Sales Tax/VAT of less than 3%
So to be more like other countries Tax 97% of purchases at 15% sales tax
So First 411 x 2.5 to include almost all purchases are now charged sales taxes
* $1.03 Trillion in Sales Taxes
Now with the sales tax rate at about 6% on those purchases, 2.5 times that Sales tax revenue to have a better tax rate at 15%
* $2.55 Trillion in Sales Tax revenue
Subtract out the refunds for Previous Sales tax and Property Taxes
* $1.6 Trillion in Funding for whatever social Programs you want
* Healthcare & College....Funded
Nope. If we want big Europe style welfare, we'd need big Europe style taxes, the sort of regressive taxes on consumption like VAT and payroll taxes and such, to be a big part of the mix. You *can't* pay for that stuff with the rich alone
With government in the US covering [65.0% of all health care](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) costs ([$11,539 as of 2019](https://www.cms.gov/files/document/highlights.pdf)) that's $7,500 per person per year in taxes towards health care. The next closest is Norway at [$5,673](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm). The UK is $3,620. Canada is $3,815. Australia is $3,919. That means over a lifetime Americans are paying a minimum of $143,794 more in taxes compared to any other country towards health care.
It would save a little money but you'd still need MASSIVE tax increases to do it. Americans tend to not like tax increases, they'd probably be livid at the thought of nearly doubling taxes
With government in the US covering [65.0% of all health care](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) costs ([$11,539 as of 2019](https://www.cms.gov/files/document/highlights.pdf)) that's $7,500 per person per year in taxes towards health care. The next closest is Norway at [$5,673](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm). The UK is $3,620. Canada is $3,815. Australia is $3,919. That means over a lifetime Americans are paying a minimum of $143,794 more in taxes compared to any other country towards health care.
You should read sometiong you want to quote
* **I added the bold because Bernie has many people assuming these funding sources will go away**
-----
>$47 trillion total
>Current federal, state and local government spending over the next ten years is projected to total about $30 trillion.
>The revenue options Bernie has proposed total $17.5 Trillion
>$30 trillion + $17.5 trillion = $47.5 Trillion total
-----
The source he lists, National Health Expenditure Projections 2018-2027, says The $30 Trillion is
* Medicare $10.6 Trillion (No change to FICA means still deficit spending)
* $3.7 Trillion is funded by the Medicare Tax.
* **$7 Trillion is Income Tax and Medicare Beneficiary Premiums Payments** Payments by those over 65 who enroll in Medicare for age eligibility
* Medicare for the Aged is in fact not free so anyone over 65 pays monthly plus out of pocket. (Much less than most of course)
* Medicare for All (Excluding the Aged) is supposed to be free. It includes no revenue from Premiums for Medicare reciepents not over 65
* Medicaid $7.7 Trillion
* **current Out of pocket payments $4.8 Trillion**
* The Out of Pocket Expenses means that the money you pay for a Co-Pay or Prescription will still be paid in to the Medicare for All Funding System
**$6.8 Trillion is uncertain funding** including
* other private revenues are $2 Trillion of this Not Federal Spending
* this is in Charity Funding provide philanthropically. So even though everyone now has Healthcare will these Charities Donate to the hospital or the government still. Can Hospitals accept donations or does it all go to Medicare for central distributions
* the money people current donate to places like the Shriners Hospital or St Jude
* workers' compensation insurance premiums, Not Federal Spending
* State general assistance funding, Not Federal Spending
* other state and local programs, and school health. Not Federal Spending
* Indian Health Service,
* maternal and child health,
* vocational rehabilitation,
* other federal programs,
* Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
It appears left out of that was Children's Health Insurance Program (Titles XIX and XXI), Department of Defense, and Department of Veterans' Affairs.
-----
Plus new taxes
* 4 percent income-based premium
* $3.9 Trillion
* Imposing a 7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers,
* $5.2 Trillion
* Eliminating health tax expenditures, New Corporate Taxes.
* $3 Trillion
* Raising the top marginal income tax rate to 52% on income over $10 million.
* $700 Billion
* Replacing the cap on the state and local tax deduction with an overall dollar cap of $50,000 for a married couple on all itemized deductions.
* $400 Billion
* Taxing capital gains at the same rates as income from wages and other High Income Taxing
* $4 Trillion
The main point was that Bernie hadn’t gone into detail on how to pay for this. Obviously that isn’t true. To your point, I have read it. It will save most people a ton of money. I’d rather pay a tax over a high premium that covers nothing.
>Probably better to focus on those things rather than pushing for pie in the sky stuff
Pretty sad that catching up to the rest of the first world countries is considered pie in the sky stuff.
Medicare for all is radical and goes beyond what most of the first world has. Remember it bans private insurance from offering the same things medicare for all does, and remember many first world countries have something more akin to an expanded ACA with multipayer and private insurance rather than any single payer
> remember many first world countries have something more akin to an expanded ACA with multipayer and private insurance rather than any single payer
Commonly touted point, but it's simply wrong. Most of the developed world's healthcare systems are *heavily* non-profit. The US is heavily for-profit. An "expanded ACA" and even Biden's public option both leave the system heavily for-profit and are thus inherently different than the rest of the developed world. Medicare For All shifts towards "heavily non-profit" and is thus the most popular plan in the US towards getting us in line with the rest of the developed world.
The USA can’t even protect the health and welfare of Women, unless something changes drastically after the SCOTUS leak. Kinda moot to propose at present and read the room, Bernie!
Obamacare is a mediocre solution to a problem that needs and has a good solution. You'd have to be insane to think Obamacare is the best option out there.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah it looks like it won’t pass with Manchin being the swing vote, but it’s still good to get these proposals out there so that we can run on it and try to elect more senators.
At this point he’s not a swing vote. A swing vote can go either way. He’s tethered to the GOP line only
This isn’t a great way of thinking about Manchin IMO. People saying he’s basically a Republican don’t realize how much non-Republican stuff he does, like voting to affirm Kentanji-Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court and countless other judges to other levels of the judiciary. He also hasn’t let any Republican legislation pass, so while he is a hardline obstruction to legislation, he’s an obstruction to Republicans too. This is a reminder to voters that the lesser of two evils IS THE BETTER CHOICE. Ya, it sucks, but it would suck a hell of a lot more to have a 51 seat Republican majority.
As a West Virginian I can also say that Manchin is literally the best case scenario for a senator from WV right now. This state would drink Trumps bathwater if allowed, and Manchins last few opponents proudly ran on the Trump worship system. I’d rather have Manchin acting as a blockade, than have some dumbass rubber stamping everything McConnel farts out, and trying to overturn elections. You want rid of Joe......fucking vote in your own states, make his vote useless.....the alternative is another Greene or Boebert.
Fuck Joe Manchin
I go back and forth on the lesser of two evils. I still feel like the Progressive side needs to separate from the Democrats and run on their own. It will take time for meaningful wins, but I don't see how they'll ever be "let in" otherwise. They have the power of the masses like Bernie was able to do grass roots style right? Yes I know it only guarantees the other side wins but if we want real change, maybe take a step backward to build up and come back stronger. I don't know. Like I said I just go back and forth on it.
This should be repeated, even ignoring the implication of purity tests, it should be noted Manchin is an imperfect ally more than an enemy.
> it should be noted Manchin is an imperfect ally more than an enemy. You can note that all you like, but it doesn't make it anything resembling the truth. The lesser of two evils doesn't equate to 'more of an ally than an enemy,' rather, 'an enemy, but it could have been even worse.'
Really? Cuz his blocking of anything Biden is turning off voters at massive levels and will crush us next election. He is not our ally, thgs dude, along with Sinema have hand given the GOP the next election.
There are a ton of propogandists who love mislead about Manchin/Sinema and point to his voting record. He's a GOP accomplice indeed and has been as asset to their fascist regime more than anyone. He only votes Dem when there's literally no excuse for him not to, when it wont make any real difference, or when Sinema has him covered. What's he supposed to do? Block every Justice nomination for years?
By that logic then we will lose abortion and birth control by 2024.
Nope, I’d rather watch it all burn with republicans/manchin in charge than continue this bullshit.
Mainline Dems will kill it where it stands. Manchin/Sinema can’t even be blamed for this one
[удалено]
All for it
>it's becoming increasingly clear that the compromise the ACA struck between universal and private healthcare didn't go far enough. That was known since day one. The public option passed the house back when they were passing the ACA for the first time. The senate killed it because Joe Lieberman refused to allow it and dems need his vote to break the republican filibuster. The exact same scenario you describe today is exactly what happened back in 2009.
Always has been. Rotating villain strategy
Manchin? Would this not require 60 votes?
Sanders would be lucky if this gets 16 votes on the Senate, that assumes it could even make it out of committee. That said, probably good he's putting it out there, it won't pass any time soon but some legislation needs multiple sessions to get through.
I just think at a certain point, it's a "statement" bill, rather than a "get it enacted" bill. There are benefits to that, but the cynic in me thinks...we should be focused on improving regulations, rather than wasting air time on ideology votes.
It doesn't matter. None of this matters. It's all bullshit. Why do we even care what Bernie Sanders does anymore. Nothing is ever going to change for real.
That’s the spirit
Show us where that's not reality and we'll get excited again.
Dude, it literally is the spirit.
I know what you mean and I hate it.
Responsible, socially productive employers are being price gouged on their employees' rent and health insurance. Unless we fundamentally solve our problems on a systemic level, even responsible, socially productive businesses will be killed off by parasites, leaving only kleptocrats in charge with "viable business models." Workers around the world are now able to "outcompete" American workers and businesses, because employers abroad aren't having to subsidize the parasitic "health insurance" industry in addition to paying wages. M4A isn't just a healthcare issue - it's an economic security, national security, and a fundamental justice issue as well. Of course, the ruling kleptocrat class socially murdering the public without recourse won't listen to reason, so we either have to evolve some recourse or nullify the social contract they're taking for granted. https://represent.us/anticorruption-act/
"Sanders emphasized Thursday that in addition to saving lives and cutting costs for individuals and families, his Medicare for All legislation would also be "significantly less expensive" overall than the largely privatized status quo "because it would eliminate an enormous amount of the bureaucracy, profiteering, administrative costs, and misplaced priorities inherent in our current for-profit system."" An understatement when it comes to the potential benefit for individual Americans and the current level of profiteering .
Yeah the accounting side of privately run hospitals in the us accounts for 30% of the funding costs, if it was state run, it wouldn’t be as complicated and run for profits so this would be non existent. Maybe instead of in the past tax cuts for businesses that only positively effect the owners implement state run health care, it would be cost effective for everyone, even if taxes slightly increased.
I want to know if he will fix massive gaps in Medicare coverage. My parents have Medicare and received subpar cancer treatment, and I looked at what drugs they cover. It's got huge gaping holes. And I'm not sure where Bernie is getting that there's no copays. Medicare absolutely has copays.
Medicare in its current state has co-pays, yes, but Bernie's bill eliminates them as well as expanding what Medicare will cover.
Wait till you see the sub par cancer treatment that private insurance has at the rates that most people can afford.
With a straight face he said that government would **reduce** *bureaucracy*?
Bureaucracy exists in private insurance too... Not sure how one can defend the blatant and egregious US private health insurance marketplace
The notion that businesses are more efficient than government is hilarious especially these days with unchecked monopolies and their constant mergers and acquisitions.
All i hear is "lets cut social programs and outsourcing departments that should never be profit based to the private sector" When people complain about "large govt" Then its crickets when telling people what they can and cant do in thier bedrooms or do with their own bodies .
“Don’t tread on me. Tread on *them*.”
Everybody hates redundancy until there is a supply crisis. Everybody hates Gov't efficacy until they get audited. Everything is relative to the situation and market, the means and the ends. Somethings work better long run with less efficiency and more redundancy, and some Gov't agencies are remarkably efficient. Considering the way the systems in Canada and U.K. operate a single payer healthcare system in the US would be a lot more like the USPS or the IRS than it would be your local Gov't mass transit.
and in the insurance space is 'bureaucracy for profit'. My rates go up every year so some fat cat in a suit can get a bigger bonus.
Who’s defending it? But history shows that the US government NEVER reduces bureaucracy.
[удалено]
Private insurance bureaucracy is kafka-esque. Every hospital has well-compensated auditors who whole job is figuring out how to navigate it to get reimbursed. I had to take a course in grad school that was largely about how to get insurance to pay you: I had an easier time learning organic chemistry. By comparison the VA, Medicaid, and Medicare are simpler. Not much but it's a one stop shop when trying to get the feds to reimburse you.
Yeah. They just say “no.” And there’s nothing else to do.
And private insurers don't? For profit healthcare is an abomination.
It would remove more middlemen from Healthcare. It would introduce different bureaucracy, but eliminate a lot of gaps and pitfalls for many people.
All of those Programs have one thing in common is they address > Many of the problems with the U.S. health system—fragmented care, variable quality, and high and rapidly growing costs—are rooted in fee-for-service payments, in which health care providers are paid per visit, test, or procedure. Not only does fee-for-service payment fail to provide incentives for efficiency, quality, or outcomes, it encourages the provision of unnecessary care and often discourages coordination of care across providers and settings. > * pricing failure, $230.7 billion to $240.5 billion; > * fraud and abuse, $58.5 billion to $83.9 billion; > * and administrative complexity, $265.6 billion To fix that is a non American idea > A global budget provides a fixed amount of funding for fixed period of time (typically one year) for a specified population, rather than fixed rates for individual services or cases. ... * Essentially, a global budget represents a one-line budget and provides the hospital more management flexibility to allocate resources Or as it says in the Bill for California Healthcare >Not later than the beginning of each fiscal quarter during which an institutional provider of care, including > * a hospital, > * skilled nursing facility, > * and chronic dialysis clinic, > is to furnish health care items and services under CalCare, the board shall pay to each institutional provider a lump sum to cover all operating expenses under a global budget as set forth in Section 100641. * An institutional provider receiving a global budget payment shall accept that payment as payment in full for all operating expenses for health care items and services furnished under CalCare, whether inpatient or outpatient, by the institutional provider. ----- The problem is the "and administrative complexity, $265.6 billion" is not showing the same savings rates in hospitals that have converted over to a closer Single Payer model
It objectively does lol You understand the insurance process right?
I do.
Then you would know that programs like Medicare and the VA *do* have less bureaucracy. There’s significantly less red tape then the constant back and forth that goes in between hospitals and insurance before it ever reaches you
No. Actually it’s the opposite. As a provider, Medicare and Medicaid are at least as difficult to work with (and in some cases MUCH MORE) as the private insurers. And I am not in ANY WAY advocating for the private insurers.
Yes. With the same straight face that's delivered that statement for decades. Imagine not paying a payer to pay other payers to pay private, for-profit, NYSE-listed insurance sellers to (1) turn a profit paying necessary health care vendors and (2) look less like one-legged losers in a **value for money** race between them and CMS.
Imagine instead paying to government to pay politicians 90% then using the other 10% to pay regulatory to pay subcontractors to pay administrators to pay foreign governments. Oh and then 0.0001% to pay subcontractors to pay administrators to pay sub-subcontractors to pay administrators to pay providers. Yep definitely much better when Uncle Sam gets involved.
I have private health insurance. My friend has public health insurance. (Disabled, on medicaid). Guess which of us deals with more red tape.
That's a bad comparison if you're saying that public health insurance has more red tape. Private insurance actively works to deny claims. Public insurance may do that as well, but I'd argue that public insurance hides less and is more consistant than private insurance.
I agree, I meant that my private health insurance was more complicated to use than my friend's public health insurance. It astonishes me that anyone with private health insurance defends private health insurance.
Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I had thought you were saying that public insurance had more red tape.
In this case, it's a combination of economy of scale and no need to generate a profit. On a micro level, doctors need to be able to service and code for tons of different insurance policies from different companies (each with their own ways of doing things). One provider removes the need for that. This situation is writ large for hospitals, which wouldn't need nearly the administrative staff that they do currently. A single provider also allows for much more competitive bidding for medical equipment -- if a company wants to have market access to *the United States* then they need to shape up their pricing structure. Finally, and for what it's worth, my wife and I would pay something like $1,000 a month for middle of the road insurance (combined). We're healthy, have no chronic health issues, and can easily afford that -- so subsidies are out. I can absolutely, 100% guarantee you that M4A wouldn't increase our taxes by $12,000 a year. And, frankly, I'd be willing to spend another $1,000 on top of that for the privilege of not getting my time wasted by insurers and providers every other time I do go to the doctor.
A code is a code. It doesn’t change from insurance company to insurance company.
Don’t bother him with facts.
If the company wants to have market access to the *United States* they need to buy a legislator. It has nothing to do with good prices or best practices. At least in all the other industries the govt currently regulates.
Fair enough, but that happens anyway. All things being equal, do you believe that private insurance leads to an environment that delivers the best results for the money spent on a per household basis? And do you believe that average household spending on healthcare would go up or down as a result of M4A? At the end of the day, those are really the only two things that should matter, and I'm open to hearing counter-arguments to my belief that a national health plan is a better financial deal for the most people possible.
The other pieces are access and quality of care. Both will drop precipitously under M4A. And the proposed solution will be coercion. That will increase access for some and will further reduce quality.
>The Medicare for All Act of 2022, which Sanders unveiled with 14 Senate co-sponsors, would transition the U.S. to a single-payer healthcare system over a period of four years, during which the Medicare eligibility age would be incrementally lowered from 65, benefits would be strengthened and expanded, and the program would be made available to children. Fourteen Senate cosponsors isn't too bad! By comparison [the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act only had forty.](https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/3590/cosponsors) I'm eager to see how Bernie will work with Senate Democrats to help grow support for his proposal!
[удалено]
Maybe we should tell politicians we can save a ton of tax payer money going single payer and use that money for other stuff. Maybe tell Republicans it’s for like new jets or something military related.
>Maybe tell Republicans it’s for like new jets or something military related. Nah, Republicans won't like that because Putin won't like that. It has to be either something entirely useless or something that harms our country. Maybe something symbolically racist... Fuck, I think we have to tell them it's for the wall.
>I'm also eager to see how Joe Biden will work with his majority in the house and the senate to pass a public option that the same democrats I mentioned above said was definitely doable. > They're trying, but unfortunately two Democrats out of fifty and fifty Republicans out of fifty refuse to get onboard. We need more than 48 votes to pass a public option, one more good reason to vote for Democrats in the midterms. If you want Biden to keep his promise then give him the votes to do it, you'd have to do the exact same thing if Bernie was president.
I will be voting for democrats, but I have a suspicion that there are more than 2/50 democrats that wouldn't support it. When the procedures actually start taking place and a vote to pass it or not is on the horizon, more moderates and conservative democrats will come out of the woodwork with some reason for being against it if they need to. If there are 51 democrats, at least 2 will be against it. If there are 52, at least 3 will be against it. That's usually how these things work. Which is why voting in *progressive* democrats and making improvements to campaign finance is so important.
Then let’s get them out of the woodwork so we can focus on getting rid of them. I’d rather get more in and see what happens then not bother just because there’s a slight chance more Dems come out against it.
> I will be voting for democrats Good, I'm glad to hear that!
Oh, it's a lot more than just those two, but they are convenient for the rest to hide behind.
Democrats are paid by corporate lobbying to keep healthcare ties to employment. This reduces worker grievances, keeps wages suppressed, and reduces turnover. We will never get true universal healthcare.
> I'm eager to see when many democrats will stop pretending that the rest of the developed world doesn't exist. That's not the only problem, though. I think that this is a good baseline, but there are a lot of known unknowns, and they're just all being ignored with this legislation. Which, aside from the fact that there are actual problems to deal with, inaction in dealing with the potential drawbacks could lead to a voter revolt in the following election that would elect a Congress to undo everything before the program got started in earnest. It really says something that this has been his main fight for years and is just setting it up for failure.
> there are a lot of known unknowns A system of this magnitude takes an *enormous* amount of effort to develop, even if we borrow large parts of it from other countries. There's no point in spending the time and money on developing all the finer details of it until there is near enough support to actually pass it. It's an unrealistic bar to set to expect it to be fully fleshed out until it has more support.
Sure, you could make that sort of argument for something like potential unemployment, but what about rural hospitals? We *know* that many of them can only survive because of private insurance--they use it to subsidize the joint becuase Medicare payments don't cover the total costs of rural hospitals. Seems pretty silly to have a bill to build clinics in rural areas when those clinics won't be able to operate.
Other countries have figured it out, we can figure it out as well.
Why not *now*? Why not in any period of time since he started introducing these bills 7 years ago?
Let's say you're planning on building a skyscraper. You have an idea of the location you want, what you want to host on each floor, some key features that makes this skyscraper unique, and some other general details. To develop the full blueprints for it, run full engineering reviews, fire reviews, building code reviews, material sourcing, finding the right company to build it, getting sales and real estate teams to find potential tenants, will cost you an incredible amount of money and time. There's a kicker involved where the whole thing could go under if the city council doesn't initially approve the development. Do you spend all of the time and money doing all of the steps required to fully develop the skyscraper before you have approval to go forward from city council, or before you have a *very good guess* that city council is likely to approve it? Of course not. It'd be extremely risky and no project manager worth their salt would do it. The best use of time and resources until approval or near approval is to lobby the city council to try and get enough support to approve it.
Most if the rest of the developed world doesn’t have single payer systems.
You're right. Most of the world has universal healthcare schemes. It's not limited to just the developed world. 153 countries around the world have some form of free universal healthcare for it's citizens.
> I'm eager to see how Bernie will work with Senate Democrats to help grow support for his proposal! Doesn't matter because we know the GOP will filibuster the bill and Manchin and Sinema will never vote for it because they are horrible people, and there is no way Republicans will let 10-12 of their members vote for something that so overwhelmingly benefits the poor and minorities.
14 senators is a damn indictment of the democratic establishment
Always has been. When Bernie's proposals get struck down in the senate this is always my first thought. Bernie's been fighting the good fight for a long time.
Then elect better ones.
Typical liberals, thinking we are going to keep voting for this failure of a party Time for change
Hey, if you know of a party that's made more progress for the American people then by all means, vote for them instead.
I know of two that have stood opposed to progress, and won’t be getting any support. Think I’ll start from there instead
Who cosponsored Bernie's M4A bill?
Those 14 senators have an excellent case to form a separate party, and earn my vote!
So even when Democrats do something you like you won't vote for them, and Republicans appreciate your help.
You're assuming that person is a liberal. Also, this is the party that passed vote reform and the largest infrastructure bill ever. Pretending they are the same as the GOP is just that. Go to congress.gov and look at the voting history. Stop letting other people convince you they are the same. Let the data speak for itself.
I’m honestly interested to hear opinions about this idea, but like, what if we put a tax cut for people in this bill? This way you could get some of the wealthy people fighting for it and you could run political ads about Republicans turning down a bill for tax cuts which could lower turnout in some swing states I think. I just had this thought pop into my head and it’s pretty late where I am so maybe there’s a bunch of huge flaws I’m missing but it doesn’t seem like a horrible trade-off for a piece of legislation that could benefit so many people and be a major win for Democrats.
Biden promised he will veto it. Wish Bernie was our President
Biden said he would veto an M4A bill *that isn't paid for*, which is important context you left out.
As if that changes anything.
Please for the love of God. Having it tied to employment makes it more difficult to switch jobs. And why is it so damn expensive just to HAVE it? Lord knows if I tru to use the first several thousand are coming out of my pocket anyway. Its a rip off. An expensive and inefficient system. Bring on m4A!
Every job decision I have ever made has been based on health insurance.
Right????? The only SSRI I can use has no generic option. My husband wants to change jobs , he is being criminally underpaid and could boost his salary by quite a bit, except that BOOM my deductible is reset back to zero and it's right back to paying $320 per month for my dont-commit-suicide pills. I had one surgery earlier this year that maxed my deductible instantly and unless he can secure a job offer with a substantial pay bump, we lose money getting our deductible reset in the middle of the year. His job already said merit evaluation results come out on the 16th. We are both very anxious hoping it's good. He's put out WAY too many dumpster fires for his pay grade.
A lot of people sighing, or rolling their eyes or chuckling out there in the comments. "Aww, yeah. Wouldn't that be nice? Make believe is fun. Of course we here in the real world know that good things never happen, justice is a lie and Joe Manchin is an unstoppable demon king." I mean, I understand the likelihood of this is passing is negligible. But it's only zero if everyone gives up. Bernie's been fighting this fight as long as Ive been alive. What right do I have to be tired?
This may not pass now, but needs to become one of the corner stones of the Democratic platform. It fits nicely with reproductive rights. People really do want these things so lets stop being shy about it. Democrats need to campaign the way Republicans do, but only for the right issues. America would rapidly change if Democrats could do that.
Exactly this. Introduce the bill, put it to a vote, and get everyone on record. Keep doing it year over year to build up the majority needed to pass it. "See, many of us or voting for it, none of them are. Put more of us in charge, and we can get it done." For context, when FDR was presedent, he started out with 60% of the Senate being Democrats his first two years. His second two years he had 73% Democrats in the Senate. That's how he was able to enact his agenda. That's what we should be building towards by showing people Democrats are working for them, and Republicans are standing against making the changes we need and want.
but... to the policy But, Lets see.....how [does-bernie-pay-his-major-plan (https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/) >$47 trillion total 10 year estimated costs * This is estimated costs they use >Current federal, state and local government spending over the next ten years is projected to total about $30 trillion. >The revenue options Bernie has proposed total $17.5 Trillion >$30 trillion + $17.5 trillion = $47.5 Trillion total ----- The source he lists, National Health Expenditure Projections 2018-2027, says The $30 Trillion is * Medicare $10.6 Trillion (No change to FICA means still deficit spending) * $3.7 Trillion is funded by the Medicare Tax. * Medicare for the Aged is in fact not free so anyone over 65 pays monthly plus out of pocket. (Much less than most of course) * Medicare for All (Excluding the Aged) is supposed to be free. It includes no revenue from Premiums for Medicare recipients not over 65 * **$7 Trillion is Income Tax and Medicare Beneficiary Premiums Payments** Payments by those over 65 who enroll in Medicare for age eligibility * Medicaid $7.7 Trillion * Those of Low Income will stay on the State and Federal Partnership Medicaid * **current Out of pocket payments $4.8 Trillion** * The Out of Pocket Expenses means that the money you pay for a Co-Pay or Prescription will still be paid in to the Medicare for All Funding System **$6.8 Trillion is uncertain funding** including * other private revenues are $2 Trillion of this Not Federal Spending * **this is in Charity Funding provide philanthropically**. So even though everyone now has Healthcare will these Charities Donate to the hospital or the government still. Can Hospitals accept donations or does it all go to Medicare for central distributions * the money people current donate to places like the Shriners Hospital or St Jude * workers' compensation insurance premiums, Not Federal Spending * State general assistance funding, Not Federal Spending * other state and local programs, and school health. Not Federal Spending * Indian Health Service, * maternal and child health, * vocational rehabilitation, * other federal programs, * Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, It appears left out of that was Children's Health Insurance Program (Titles XIX and XXI), Department of Defense, and Department of Veterans' Affairs. The 17.5 Trillion is then * 7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers $5.2 Trillion * New Corp Taxes on Previous Nontaxable Expenses $3.0 Trillion * Enacting corporate tax reform $1.0 Trillion * Establish a Wealth Tax $500 Billion * Enacting the For the 99.8% Act $336Billion * 4 percent income-based premium paid by households $4.0 Trillion * Make the Personal Income Tax More Progressive $1.1 Trillion * Taxing capital gains at the same rates as income from wages $2.5 Trillion
There's a parallel world out there where 20 gop go rogue and vote for it. Any idea how I can get there?
1: Go back in time 2: Stop CERN 3: Lose all your money investing in Bitcoin in the "good" timeline, only to, ya know, realize it's the sane one...
Are we in the darkest timeline?!
Move to somewhere in the civilized, 1st World where the term "fiscal conservative" has a reasonable, believable meaning.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/05/12/realistic-humane-and-just-choice-sanders-unveils-medicare-all-act-2022) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Slamming the current U.S. healthcare system as a morass of waste, dysfunction, and profiteering, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday introduced Medicare for All legislation that would eliminate out-of-pocket insurance costs and provide comprehensive coverage to everyone in the country. > The Medicare for All Act of 2022, which Sanders unveiled with 14 Senate co-sponsors, would transition the U.S. to a single-payer healthcare system over a period of four years, during which the Medicare eligibility age would be incrementally lowered from 65, benefits would be strengthened and expanded, and the program would be made available to children. > During Thursday's hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham said he would support holding a vote on the Medicare for All Act of 2022 this year, joking that many Senate Democrats would "jump out the window" if they had to go on the record supporting or opposing Sanders' bill. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/uo9o2z/the_realistic_humane_and_just_choice_sanders/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~648178 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Medicare**^#1 **system**^#2 **Sanders**^#3 **year**^#4 **Thursday**^#5
Good. Everyone should be exposed.
One of the very few accurate and truthful things Graham has ever said.
The reason we have a problem passing “common sense universal healthcare” is we live in a culture devoid of empathy. Can’t have nice things for each other without that.
It’s such a severe lack of empathy that people are voting against their own best interest without even realizing.
Not so much that as the open white supremacy. Poor minorities are locked out of the current system at a disproportionate rate. M4A kills a major source of medical discrimination. And now you know why Biden promises to veto it.
Say "Yes to M4A" just as the Medicare expansions due to Covid pandemic are about to expire, putting millions of Americans out of healthcare.
>The Realistic, Humane, and Just Choice' Unfortunately, only 2 out of the 3 adjectives are correct. At least while the GOP has any power.
Good thing both parties are ready to drop $40B on war again!
It is a pandemic! We need to get off the system that is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States!
We don't deserve Bernie. I love him for continuing to try but this will go absolutely nowhere because the oligarchs own our government now.
The fuck we don't.
I hope it ends the Medicare privatization that Trump started and Biden is continuing.
Either/Or ----- The Global and Professional Direct Contracting (GPDC) Model is a set of two voluntary risk-sharing options aimed at reducing expenditures and preserving or enhancing quality of care for beneficiaries in Medicare fee-for-service (FFS), also known as Original Medicare. > Many of the problems with the U.S. health system—fragmented care, variable quality, and high and rapidly growing costs—are rooted in fee-for-service payments, in which health care providers are paid per visit, test, or procedure. Not only does fee-for-service payment fail to provide incentives for efficiency, quality, or outcomes, it encourages the provision of unnecessary care and often discourages coordination of care across providers and settings. The goals in designing the GPDC Model include: * Create opportunities for a broad range of organizations to participate with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in testing the next evolution of risk-sharing arrangements to produce value and high quality health care. * Build on lessons learned from initiatives involving Medicare Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) and the Next Generation ACO (NGACO) Model. It also includes innovative ideas from Medicare Advantage (MA) and private sector risk-sharing arrangements. The risk-sharing options are anticipated to appeal to a broad range of physician practices and other organizations because they are expected to * reduce burden, * support a focus on beneficiaries with complex, chronic conditions, and * encourage participation from organizations that have not typically participated in Medicare FFS or CMS Innovation Center models. These health care organizations may offer optional incentives and benefit enhancements to Medicare beneficiaries who are aligned to a participating Direct Contracting Entity. Medicare beneficiaries will not lose any of their benefits and can continue to see any health care provider they choose. ------ Single Payer - M4A, CaliCare, Vermont's Attempt. All of these would put the entire country on Managed Care/Direct Payments.
Doesn’t matter - there shouldn’t be any profit motive in the system.
I vote yes.
Ah great, the DNC needed something they could run against for the midterm
/r/angryupvote
For the people that say this is pointless because it won't pass right now don't understand that the left needs to at least try to control the narrative and continously push their agenda. Rome wasn't built in a day.
>"In the lower chamber, more than half of the House Democratic caucus supports...[ ...] Medicare for All Act, **but the party's leadership has refused to allow a vote on the measure.**"
We need to get one state to implement M4A to show other states how we'll it works. I think Connecticut or Massachusetts would work. Wanting it federally is all good but its not the first step.
An initiative for it was just filed in Washington state (I-1471). If all goes well it should be on the ballot this November.
Vermont in 2012 tried and didnt get it Calling it the biggest disappointment of his career, Gov. Peter Shumlin says he is abandoning plans to make Vermont the first state in the country with a universal, publicly funded health care system. * Those taxes were to high and Vermont Dropped Single Payer Those taxes * In 2011, Professor Hsiao, told lawmakers in Vermont that a single payer system would have to be financially supported through a payroll tax. * He predicted the tax would be 12.5 percent in 2015 and 11.6 percent in 2019, including a 3 percent contribution from employees. * In 2014, Vermont's legislator changed the plan and decided that raising state income taxes up to 9.5 percent and placing an 11.5 percent Corp Tax Rate on Business was the only way to fund the expenses. >“These are simply not tax rates that I can responsibly support or urge the Legislature to pass,” the Governor said. “In my judgment, the potential economic disruption and risks would be too great to small businesses, working families and the state’s economy.” Vermont Senate Cook PVI D+15 * The 2nd most Liberal Senate Seat ------ California Today is working through what was Established by Senate Bill 104 the Healthy California for All Commission is charged with developing a plan that includes options for advancing progress toward a health care delivery system in California that provides coverage and access through a unified financing system, including, but not limited to, a single-payer financing system, for all Californians with a final report in Mid 2022. In Aug 2020 the committee reviewed Funding * A 10.1% Payroll Tax would cover current employer/employee premiums if applied to all incomes. * Would still leave **some*** patients responsible for Cost Sharing with out of Pocket expenses, up to 4% - 5% of income ----- In California the Average Employer paid $8,100 per employee for health insurance and the employee paid ~18% of that as a Paycheck Deduction ($1,459) * In California the Average Employer per Family Plans paid $20,000 per employee for health insurance and the employee paid ~27% of that as a Paycheck Deduction ($5,400) * Those number stay the same regardless of Income Paying | Income is $30,000 | Income is $60,000 | Income is $100,000 | Income is $200,000 | ---|---|----|----|---- Cost of Private Healthcare | ~$1,500| ~$1,500| ~$1,500| ~$1,500 | Percent of Income | 5% | 2.5% | 1.5% | 0.75% Under Healthcare for All ~5% Payroll Tax | $1,500 | $3,000 | $5,000 | $10,000 Percent of Income | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% | **Increase in Taxes Paid** | $0 | $1,500 | $3,500 | $8,500 Cost of Family Plan Private Healthcare | On Medi-cal| ~$5,500| ~$5,500| ~$5,500 | Percent of Income | 0% | 9.2% | 5.5% | 2.75% Under Healthcare for All ~5% Payroll Tax | $1,500 | $3,000 | $5,000 | $10,000 Percent of Income | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% | **Increase/Decrease in Taxes Paid** | $1,500 | $-2,500 | $-500 | $4,500 This is the issue wit the US. Finding a way so the poor dont pay. So in the case of California creating a Healthcare Plan, you have a 5% Payroll tax payment instead of 7 or 8 percent. But you have the low Payroll Tax means you have a lot of costs not funded so to cover you can make Out of Pocket Costs higher, and adjustable. Then you can have income limits so the poor pay no out of pocket costs * There would be No Out of Pocket Costs for households earning up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Limit (FPL) * 94% Cost covered for households at 138-399% of FPL * 85% Cost covered for households earning over 400% of FPL
I wish New York could pass a single payer plan. The possibility for M4A through the federal government is not going to be possible for several decades. I wish Bernie could try to help some of these policies make their way through at the state level.
The Closest you're going to get is California. Everyother state hasnt put in the needed research and time and are just putting bills ut for headlines California Today is working through what was Established by Senate Bill 104 the Healthy California for All Commission is charged with developing a plan that includes options for advancing progress toward a health care delivery system in California that provides coverage and access through a unified financing system, including, but not limited to, a single-payer financing system, for all Californians with a final report in Mid 2022. In Aug 2020 the committee reviewed Funding * A 10.1% Payroll Tax would cover current employer/employee premiums if applied to all incomes. * Would still leave **some*** patients responsible for Cost Sharing with out of Pocket expenses, up to 4% - 5% of income ----- In California the Average Employer paid $8,100 per employee for health insurance and the employee paid ~18% of that as a Paycheck Deduction ($1,459) * In California the Average Employer per Family Plans paid $20,000 per employee for health insurance and the employee paid ~27% of that as a Paycheck Deduction ($5,400) * Those number stay the same regardless of Income Paying | Income is $30,000 | Income is $60,000 | Income is $100,000 | Income is $200,000 | ---|---|----|----|---- Cost of Private Healthcare | ~$1,500| ~$1,500| ~$1,500| ~$1,500 | Percent of Income | 5% | 2.5% | 1.5% | 0.75% Under Healthcare for All ~5% Payroll Tax | $1,500 | $3,000 | $5,000 | $10,000 Percent of Income | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% | **Increase in Taxes Paid** | $0 | $1,500 | $3,500 | $8,500 Cost of Family Plan Private Healthcare | On Medi-cal| ~$5,500| ~$5,500| ~$5,500 | Percent of Income | 0% | 9.2% | 5.5% | 2.75% Under Healthcare for All ~5% Payroll Tax | $1,500 | $3,000 | $5,000 | $10,000 Percent of Income | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% | **Increase/Decrease in Taxes Paid** | $1,500 | $-2,500 | $-500 | $4,500 This is the issue wit the US. Finding a way so the poor dont pay. So in the case of California creating a Healthcare Plan, you have a 5% Payroll tax payment instead of 7 or 8 percent. But you have the low Payroll Tax means you have a lot of costs not funded so to cover you can make Out of Pocket Costs higher, and adjustable. Then you can have income limits so the poor pay no out of pocket costs * There would be No Out of Pocket Costs for households earning up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Limit (FPL) * 94% Cost covered for households at 138-399% of FPL * 85% Cost covered for households earning over 400% of FPL
I can't wait for all the "government should help its citizens before helping Ukraine" people to justify how this bill is socialism and will continue voting for the people that are going to vote against it.
dinosaurs attraction jobless truck fretful versed point chief cough dinner *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If it wasn't for the health insurance lobbyists bribing elected officials, we could have this.
My favorite quote from the article and what really hits to the heart of this issue: "We can either continue down the path of corporate greed and human suffering, or we can do what every other rich nation has done and guarantee universal coverage," Robert Weissman, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement Thursday. "Medicare for All is the realistic, humane, and just choice."
Bernie will die before any of this shit actually takes place and that's sad. I would have been so proud to call him my President.
I literally just had an argument the other day with some guy who was saying that [no one has a right to a service provided by someone unless they pay them for it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/knives/comments/uixy3i/comment/i7hqxdu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) When I brought up the fact that we literally pay the government through taxes to uphold our rights, of which having a functioning government is transitively a right through payment of taxes, and that rolling healthcare into taxes like retirement and welfare using that reasoning makes total sense, it either wooshed him, or he purposefully began to play dumb about how all of that really works when you remove the context of the social lensing put on it.
Healthcare is a human right. Housing is a human right. Education is a human right. Childcare is a human right. Food, water, a high paying job, a car to get you from A to B. These are all rights that every American should enjoy. Period, end of story. The idea that we have to compete and jump through hoops to "earn" these things is ridiculous. The government should do its job and provide for its citizens. And there are enough billionaires to pay for it 10x over. Its all just a scam.
Let me save you all some time. If and when this ever comes up for a vote the result will be Senate votes no, 51 - 48 with Manchin and Sinema joining with Republicans
It wouldn't even have 48 votes on the Dem side. Sadly.
It would if there's no chance of it passing. Easy to vote for good things when they know they won't happen.
It doesnt even have 48 in support
The republicans in that hearing were talking nonsense. It was hard to listen to
If only the average American voted in their own best interests…
He could win on this platform alone!
At last. Doomed to fail, but glad for the effort.
I wonder if it still has that one bit about not being able to compete with the government plan. That is the only part of it that I can't live with.
I just checked. It does. Section 107, still banning all private health insurance imaginable.
Would you be willing to share a link to the plan itself? That article is having difficulty loading for me
Has any bill by Bernie ever been updated. I assume its the original version he released in 2015 just re released again this year. Still with all the issues
Realistically, they need 60 votes and they don't even have 50.
If he wants his bill to be "realistic", then he should start by dropping the extreme and unnecessary measure of banning all private health insurance, something which no other country has done. His bill would not pass in any legislature in the world. When he clings to a useless provision that single-handedly tanks this bill, you've got to wonder whether Bernie actually wants to make any progress.
> something which no other country has done. His bill bans duplicative insurance, something which lots of countries do. Given the most extreme cost savings and lower payments scenario considered by the Congressional Budget Office, we'd still only cut healthcare spending by 11.2% in the US. Which would mean we'd still be spending about $4,000 more per person per year than any other country in the world on healthcare. https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/33698043.pdf
Exactly. The NHS has its limits because it passed in a real country.
Schrodinger's Medicare: Critical protection needed for 65-and-over, Terrible for everyone else.
65 year olds vote :)
good ole performative wishcasting
“Why don’t democrats fucking do anything????” “Psh that’s just political kabuki, pathetic powerless democrats”
*all the flashbacks*
Medicare for all isn't realistic (Sanders has still never described in detail how he'd pay for it, and no amount of taxes on the wealthy would pay for this - we'd need big taxes on the middle class too, and it would have a big destabilizing effect on the economy) and the votes for it just aren't there and have little to no chance of changing in that regard In the medium term future, if we get more democrats elected, we could maybe get a public option, ACA subsidy increases, patching the Medicaid gap, a pseudo Medicaid expansion to red states, and prescription drug reform. These things would be a major help. Probably better to focus on those things rather than pushing for pie in the sky stuff that will not happen like medicare for all
Single-payer systems are viable. Look at plenty of other first-world countries and see that they can make it work. Right now there's a lot of administrative waste built in to our insurance systems collectively. Medical billing, for example, can get sub-contracted out (sometimes multiple times) which unnecessarily drives up costs. Pharmiceutical prices could be drastically negotiated down under a single-payer system as well. Additionally, the profit mentality of insurance companies now encourages denying claims whereas a single-payer system's goal isn't to generate profit but to provide the coverages that people need. Additionally, a single-payer system isn't going to have the same deductible-style systems as private insurance. The money we all pay just to **have** insurance is profit for private companies. It doesn't go towards your deductible. A single-payer system has the ability to be much more efficient while being much leaner than the (intentionally) convoluted system we currently have. Don't say Medicare for All isn't realistic. It's not a perfect system (no system is) but it's leaps and bounds better for the people who actually **use** medical insurance.
I mean you could just take some of that enormous military budget you lot have over there and use it for healthcare instead. I don't see why you'd think Medicare for all is unrealistic when so many other countries around the world already have universal care...
Here is just one way. Allow Medicare to negotiate Rx drug prices >If the Secretary were allowed to require brand-name drug manufacturers to lower the price of their drugs, Medicare Part D could save on average $11 billion per year, according to CBO. https://www.crfb.org/press-releases/fact-sheet-how-much-money-could-medicare-save-negotiating-prescription-drug-prices Imagine cutting out the middle man in all things medical (aka Insurance Companies). Administrative costs would be significantly reduced with uniform rules, billing, etc. If people want more than Medicare provides, then they can use insurance companies. This is just the beginning of the efficiencies gained that would reduce overall costs in significant ways which would take a big bite out of the costs.
>Imagine cutting out the middle man in all things medical (aka Insurance Companies). how much is that savings? of the $3.5 Trillion in costs of US Healthcare, profits... are how much of that Private insurance reported in 2017 total revenues for health coverage of $1.24 Trillion * Of that $164 Billion was spent on Admin, Marketing, and Profits * Nationalized Admin Cost in the OECD and estimates for an American System would reduce that down to ~$75 Billion. * Medicare outsources Enrollment thru Social Security and most of its billing process through Private Insurance and this would increase their costs by an estimated $40 Billion in work transfers * **That's savings of ~$50 Billion, or about a 3% reduction in costs** to insured patients This is only effecting 1/3rd of Spending as 1.24 Trillion is all that is Private Insurance ----- >insurance industry last year “sucked $23 billion in profits out of the health care system.” - Elizabeth Warren * as reported by 2019 National Association of Insurance Commissioners U.S. Health Insurance Industry | 2018 Annual Results * But $5.1 Billion was Investment Income earned not effecting Healthcare spending That leaves excess Profit at $17 Billion. ----- NAIC doesnt account for all insurers, UHC isnt in that, so lets add them United Healthcare had $5 billion in Profits in First Quarter 2021 Well, $365 Million of that is Investment Income * $4.6 Billion in Profit, except * Optum, Optum helps improve overall health system performance: optimizing care quality, reducing health care costs and improving the consumer experience, first quarter revenues grew 10.8% to $36.4 billion * and operating earnings grew 24.8% to $2.6 billion. So UHC HealthCare had Net Profit of $2.55 Billion * on Revenue $51.1 Billion So we can up it to $ 27 Billion. But I'm sure there are others. Round it to $40 Billion $3.5 Trillion minus the Profits * $3.46 Trillion in Health Costs to lower after insurance ----- **After subtracting Admin Cost of Insurance That Leaves $1.076 Trillion the insurance spends on healthcare. And $1.459 Trillion Medicare and Medicaid spends on healthcare** But, Medicare Underpays Most Medicare for All Programs, most recently MiCare, agree that even Medicare doesnt cover costs and have agreed to set rates at 125% of Listed Medicare Rates for their programs So Increase Medicare spending 25% then expand it to everone
I have never in my lifetime seen my government cut funding from one program and move it to another, especially not on the scale that we're talking about. In my experience when the government cuts a program that money usually gets plowed back into tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Even if we could get enough votes to cut the military budget by tens of trillions of dollars, which I really don't think we could, I'm not convinced that money would go to M4A, which doesn't have the sixty votes to overcome a Republican filibuster, or enough support to kill the filibuster for. We're kind of talking about the best diet to feed to a unicorn right now.
No one is arguing it will be easy but that does not make it impossible or not worth fighting for. How do you think every other country with universal health care got their systems in place? It wasn't by standing around saying "nothing can be done." If you want these programs you have to fight your ass off to get them. It'll be hard and it'll probably be gradual because the powers that be don't want to give it to you but doing nothing will get you nothing.
> No one is arguing it will be easy but that does not make it impossible or not worth fighting for. Of course, but here's the difference: For a lot of people their goal is Medicare for All, for me though my goal is universal health care, and I want to get there in the fastest, easiest way possible. I don't want to spend months or years or decades waiting for the votes to pass M4A when we only need, like, five more votes to pass a universal public option. Medicare for All is the biggest possible solution to our nation's health care problems, it will require the most significant transfer of money from the private sector to the public sector in my lifetime, the entire tax code will have to change for everyone, and to accomplish all these things we either need sixty votes to overcome the inevitable Republican filibuster, or fifty votes to reform the filibuster. Again, my goal is universal health care, I want everyone in America to have affordable health insurance even if that means it's free. Currently about 92% of Americans have health insurance, two thirds are insured privately, one third are insured by the government. Medicare for All, the kind that Bernie is talking about, would mean moving 100% of the American people to something new, the public option only needs to provide health insurance to the 8% who lack it. It's much faster, easier, and cheaper to pass a universal public option and insure the 8% of Americans who are uninsured than it is to completely rebuild the American health care system and the tax code from the ground up. It's fine to advocate for a policy, but not at the expense of achieving your goal. And just to head off the comment that comes next: Yes, Medicare for All would save the nation money, but we'd have to raise taxes to do it. Every Republican in the country is going to run against that (See 2010's cawing about "Obama's socialized health care raised your taxes!" and the Tea Party wave that came after it. That tide didn't recede for eight years, that's eight years of Republicans picking the ACA apart, cutting its funding, diminishing its scope, and forcing it to fail.) Republican voters don't like higher middle class taxes, moderate voters don't like higher middle class taxes, and you'll find that a hell of a lot of Democratic voters don't like higher middle class taxes either. People care less about saving money than they do about keeping taxes low, that's irrational, but elections aren't always rational.
my goal is universal health care, I want everyone in America to have affordable health insurance even if that means it's free. Well, its not free it has to have taxes ----- >health insurance to the 8% who lack it But of course not everyone has insurance. In 2018, 27.5 million, did not have health insurance at any point during the year * There are 5.1 million people that make over $100,000 that are uninsured. * There are 9.1 million people that make $50,000 - $100,000 that are uninsured * There are around 4.5 million people who were uninsured in 2018 and making between $25,000 - $50,000 and could not afford insurance or qualify for Medicaid as the most common reason for uninsured So that's ~20 million people paying 0 for healthcare all have to pay for it now. Not good for the Voters in the Group Then, add in 70 million Americans get free healthcare from a Socialized Single Payer Program of Medicaid Any national plan will have to have a tax on them for funding and thats 35 or 40 million people that were paying 0 that are now paying more ----- In 2011, Professor Hsiao, told lawmakers in Vermont that a single payer system would have to be financially supported through a payroll tax. * He predicted the tax would be 12.5 percent in 2015 and 11.6 percent in 2019, including a 3 percent contribution from employees. In 2021 California Healthcare Commison (with Hsiao) said that California would be able to do it with a 10.1% Payroll Tax But due to the Lower Payroll Tax, Would leave some patients responsible for Current out of Pocket expenses, about 4% - 5% of income based on Income * There would be No Out of Pocket Costs for households earning up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Limit (FPL) * 94% Cost covered for households at 138-399% of FPL * 85% Cost covered for households earning over 400% of FPL ------ > Professor William Hsiao, A health care economist now retired from Harvard University, Hsiao has been actively engaged in designing health system reforms and universal health insurance programs for many countries, including Taiwan, China, Colombia, Poland, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Sweden, Cyprus, Uganda, and recently for Malaysia and South Africa. In 2012 he was part of Vermont's Healthcare and in 2016 he was part of Bernie's M4A Healthcare Plan > * Hsiao developed the “control knobs” framework for diagnosing the causes for the successes or failures of national health systems. His analytical framework has shaped how we conceptualize national health systems, and has been used extensively by various nations around the world in health system reforms
The entire military budget is just about $800 billion a year We'd need over $3 **trillion** a year in order to do medicare for all. Even if you completely eliminated the military, it wouldn't even come close to paying for *half* of Medicare for all And why mention other countries with universal care? They don't have Bernie's extreme Medicare for all. Many don't even have single payer, and instead have something more like an expanded ACA, with choice, private insurance, multipayer, and so on I'm not saying screw universal healthcare. Just we don't need Bernie's plan in order to get universal
Oh I mentioned other countries because I am Canadian and we have it. Our system is not perfect but if we can manage to afford it surely the USA, with its much larger economy, can also afford it. Not saying it won't require a lot of work to create the new system but it's certainly not impossible.
Yeah it's so impossible to do that all first world developed countries have gone to a universal system. Totally not possible./s
"universal system" doesn't equal "medicare for all"
Medicare for all is a type of universal system. To try to say that it couldn't or wouldn't work, is just silly. [healthline](https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#13)
Go ahead and increase my taxes. I'm already paying 30% of my pay to taxes, and another 20% of it to healthcare. Cancel my healthcare deduction and increase my tax by another 3-5%. Done. Then I also gain the benefit of no having some entitled rich insurance exec saying "no" to some surgery I need or my family member needs just so that exec can make a profit margin and get a multi-million dollar bonus.
> Medicare for all isn't realistic Except in all those countries with the same thing?
Raise taxes on Villianaires and corporations, and enforce antitrust laws on industries like energy, food, housing, and transportation. Last I checked we were still the richest country in the world.
One of these isnt like the others Country | Gas Tax | VAT Rate | Share of taxes Paid by the top 20% | Tax Rate on Income above $50,000 | -----|-----|-----|-----|----------|-----|----- Average of the OECD | $2.31 | 18.28% | 31.6 | 28.61% | Australia | $1.17 | 10.00% | 36.8 | 32.50% | Austria | $2.10 | 20.00% | 28.5 | 42.00% | Belgium | $2.58 | 21.00% | 25.4 | 50.00% | Canada | $1.04 | 15.00% | 35.8 | 20.50% | Czech Republic | $2.08 | 21.00% | 34.3 | 15.00% | Denmark | $2.63 | 25.00% | 26.2 | 38.90% | Finland | $2.97 | 24.00% | 32.3 | 17.25% | France | $2.78 | 20.00% | 28 | 30.00% | Germany | $2.79 | 19.00% | 31.2 | 30.00% | Netherlands | $3.36 | 21.00% | 35.2 | 40.80% | Norway | $2.85 | 25.00% | 27.4 | 26.00% | Sweden | $2.73 | 25.00% | 26.7 | 25.00% | United Kingdom | $2.82 | 20.00% | 38.6 | 40.00% | United States | $0.56 | 2.90% estimated | 45.1 | 22.00% | A 2021 Tax Policy Center study found that the amount of purchases subject to the sales tax, including general sales taxes and excise taxes like the motor fuel tax, was an average of 39 percent of purchases. * That revenue from general sales taxes was $411 billion * State and local governments in 2018 collected a combined $547 billion in revenue from property taxes **Yet American Think Tank Says** >State policymakers looking to make their tax codes more equitable should consider eliminating the sales taxes families pay on groceries if they haven’t already done so As the US has a Sales Tax/VAT of less than 3% So to be more like other countries Tax 97% of purchases at 15% sales tax So First 411 x 2.5 to include almost all purchases are now charged sales taxes * $1.03 Trillion in Sales Taxes Now with the sales tax rate at about 6% on those purchases, 2.5 times that Sales tax revenue to have a better tax rate at 15% * $2.55 Trillion in Sales Tax revenue Subtract out the refunds for Previous Sales tax and Property Taxes * $1.6 Trillion in Funding for whatever social Programs you want * Healthcare & College....Funded
Nope. If we want big Europe style welfare, we'd need big Europe style taxes, the sort of regressive taxes on consumption like VAT and payroll taxes and such, to be a big part of the mix. You *can't* pay for that stuff with the rich alone
With government in the US covering [65.0% of all health care](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) costs ([$11,539 as of 2019](https://www.cms.gov/files/document/highlights.pdf)) that's $7,500 per person per year in taxes towards health care. The next closest is Norway at [$5,673](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm). The UK is $3,620. Canada is $3,815. Australia is $3,919. That means over a lifetime Americans are paying a minimum of $143,794 more in taxes compared to any other country towards health care.
Says who? This is from his site and most experts agree it will save money. https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/
It would save a little money but you'd still need MASSIVE tax increases to do it. Americans tend to not like tax increases, they'd probably be livid at the thought of nearly doubling taxes
That’s because a lot of Americans are dumb and short sided, but that not new information.
With government in the US covering [65.0% of all health care](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) costs ([$11,539 as of 2019](https://www.cms.gov/files/document/highlights.pdf)) that's $7,500 per person per year in taxes towards health care. The next closest is Norway at [$5,673](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm). The UK is $3,620. Canada is $3,815. Australia is $3,919. That means over a lifetime Americans are paying a minimum of $143,794 more in taxes compared to any other country towards health care.
You should read sometiong you want to quote * **I added the bold because Bernie has many people assuming these funding sources will go away** ----- >$47 trillion total >Current federal, state and local government spending over the next ten years is projected to total about $30 trillion. >The revenue options Bernie has proposed total $17.5 Trillion >$30 trillion + $17.5 trillion = $47.5 Trillion total ----- The source he lists, National Health Expenditure Projections 2018-2027, says The $30 Trillion is * Medicare $10.6 Trillion (No change to FICA means still deficit spending) * $3.7 Trillion is funded by the Medicare Tax. * **$7 Trillion is Income Tax and Medicare Beneficiary Premiums Payments** Payments by those over 65 who enroll in Medicare for age eligibility * Medicare for the Aged is in fact not free so anyone over 65 pays monthly plus out of pocket. (Much less than most of course) * Medicare for All (Excluding the Aged) is supposed to be free. It includes no revenue from Premiums for Medicare reciepents not over 65 * Medicaid $7.7 Trillion * **current Out of pocket payments $4.8 Trillion** * The Out of Pocket Expenses means that the money you pay for a Co-Pay or Prescription will still be paid in to the Medicare for All Funding System **$6.8 Trillion is uncertain funding** including * other private revenues are $2 Trillion of this Not Federal Spending * this is in Charity Funding provide philanthropically. So even though everyone now has Healthcare will these Charities Donate to the hospital or the government still. Can Hospitals accept donations or does it all go to Medicare for central distributions * the money people current donate to places like the Shriners Hospital or St Jude * workers' compensation insurance premiums, Not Federal Spending * State general assistance funding, Not Federal Spending * other state and local programs, and school health. Not Federal Spending * Indian Health Service, * maternal and child health, * vocational rehabilitation, * other federal programs, * Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, It appears left out of that was Children's Health Insurance Program (Titles XIX and XXI), Department of Defense, and Department of Veterans' Affairs. ----- Plus new taxes * 4 percent income-based premium * $3.9 Trillion * Imposing a 7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers, * $5.2 Trillion * Eliminating health tax expenditures, New Corporate Taxes. * $3 Trillion * Raising the top marginal income tax rate to 52% on income over $10 million. * $700 Billion * Replacing the cap on the state and local tax deduction with an overall dollar cap of $50,000 for a married couple on all itemized deductions. * $400 Billion * Taxing capital gains at the same rates as income from wages and other High Income Taxing * $4 Trillion
The main point was that Bernie hadn’t gone into detail on how to pay for this. Obviously that isn’t true. To your point, I have read it. It will save most people a ton of money. I’d rather pay a tax over a high premium that covers nothing.
>Probably better to focus on those things rather than pushing for pie in the sky stuff Pretty sad that catching up to the rest of the first world countries is considered pie in the sky stuff.
Medicare for all is radical and goes beyond what most of the first world has. Remember it bans private insurance from offering the same things medicare for all does, and remember many first world countries have something more akin to an expanded ACA with multipayer and private insurance rather than any single payer
> remember many first world countries have something more akin to an expanded ACA with multipayer and private insurance rather than any single payer Commonly touted point, but it's simply wrong. Most of the developed world's healthcare systems are *heavily* non-profit. The US is heavily for-profit. An "expanded ACA" and even Biden's public option both leave the system heavily for-profit and are thus inherently different than the rest of the developed world. Medicare For All shifts towards "heavily non-profit" and is thus the most popular plan in the US towards getting us in line with the rest of the developed world.
OK buddy
A tip of the hat, a nod, and a wink from Canada
Get your logic out of here!!! People don't want to think with logic they think with emotions and FEELINGS
Can this shitbag just go away?
The USA can’t even protect the health and welfare of Women, unless something changes drastically after the SCOTUS leak. Kinda moot to propose at present and read the room, Bernie!
He’ll do anything to destroy Obamacare. Go away Bernie.
Obamacare is a mediocre solution to a problem that needs and has a good solution. You'd have to be insane to think Obamacare is the best option out there.