His plan to raise funds for his programs only covers about 30-35% of what the cost of his programs are. That other 65-70% will have to be paid for. We are talking about 70-73% of the GDP every year going to the government as taxes.
Let's assume these numbers are realistic - they aren't, but let's give Bernie the benefit of the doubt. So his plan would save us about $1.5-$2 trillion per year over the next decade. Where does that money come from? Who's not getting paid $2 trillion each year? Doctors? Hospitals? Nurses? Pharmeutical research? And how does this affect all of those peoples' lives? How many jobs go away? There isn't $2 trillion in "insurance administration" that people like to whine about - that's well under $100B even if you just deleted all of that and magically didn't need to add government insurance administration costs for the 200 million new patients.
I would guess the savings come from the administration costs as you mentioned, cheaper drug costs, Medicaid is no longer needed at all since everyone would be covered on Medicare, so that cost transfers and possibly streamlined, no longer having to pay insurance companies for Federal employees insurance plans? That's my guess.
He should just shout that Mexico is going to pay for it. Apparently people will forget after a few years anyway.
From your list: Admin costs: miniscule savings. You're talking about maybe 1-2% of the total. Cheaper drug costs: Fair. In total, we spent $329B on drugs last year. How much do you think we'd cut there? And what that do to R&D? Medicaid: This is true, but the spending doesn't change here. They are just on Medicare instead of Medicaid. You could save a bit on administration, I guess. But it's worth noting that you could do that now too. You don't need M4A there. Federal employee insurance plans: Again, this is just a transfer. The insurance industry profits account for a very tiny portion of health care spending - that's the primary savings you'd get there.
Show me your state space representation. Are you accounting for revenue generated in your model from citizens not worrying about deductibles and premiums as now they have a significant increase in disposable income?
I bet you thought this was a real clever question. Why don't you show your numbers refuting what Major has stated. Why don't you show your or Bernies state space model to refute his numbers? And for anyone vwho like did not know what a state space model was. State space model (SSM) refers to a class of probabilistic graphical model (Koller and Friedman, 2009) that describes the probabilistic dependence between the latent state variable and the observed measurement. The state or the measurement can be either continuous or discrete How is revenue generated from citizens not worrying about deductibles? Is there a tax for that?
Every politician gets critiqued for being honest its nothing knew. Just look at deplorables and clinging to guns and religion. Being honest is not always a great way to get elected.
How can you say this initially and then go on to state how much the cost will be on 2 separate plans?
I'm glad you looked up the definition. Have any experience modeling dynamic systems? Our economic system is a dynamic system that can be modeled just like our climate or a circuit or a gear train. Obviously using different set of equations from different principles of science and economics but they all have one thing in common.... Hundreds of variables that change over time. State space modeling is used to model economic systems. Anyone who tries to pretend that there can do some basic arithmetic and say "the numbers don't make sense" is the same type of rational people use to dismiss things like climate models. "But my common sense says it doesn't make sense". My point is no one here has done any typing of economic modeling.
On Cuba, probably a tactical mistake for Sanders to say anything about it. But I think the whole exchange has missed the thing that's important to me about Castro's legacy -- which is our own sins in our containment policy in the cold war. Castro and many other socialist revolutionaries in third world countries at that time did not necessarily want to be Soviet client states, but the US was so hostile to authentic anti-colonial socialist movements that they had to become anti-American and anti-democratic for their own survival. Imagine how different Cuba would be today if the US government worked with Fidel Castro instead of selling napalm to his predecessor to protect United Fruit's exploitation of the country. Talking about Castro's literacy drive sounds lame, but insisting on the Cuban-Floridian cold warrior propaganda about Castro being a brutal dictator (and sure, he did do some hard stuff) is completely missing what is important to me. We need to reckon with the fact that we've been screwing that country over since the 19th century. I'm skeptical of that. Sure, they both have that populist je-ne-sais-quoi. But Trump is very eager and adept at using all the tools at his disposal to dominate others and bend them to his will. Sanders doesn't have his sociopathic aggression. So, I think you can attack Sanders without as much counter punching. He'll fight back and Bernie Bros might harry you, but I don't see him doing all the below-the-belt stuff Trump does in his regular course of business. I think it's worthwhile for Sanders and other politicians to address. In addition to what's been said, I'll humbly suggest if there are any savings it could come from the efficiency of not having distress costs throughout the system. Full provision of routine screening and preventative healthcare can abate health problems early and avoid costly treatments for severe problems later. Otherwise, I think it comes out of shareholder profits, particularly in insurance and pharmaceuticals. R&D likely impacted.
Here is his pay for and not a lot of it is concrete. He still needs to explain he he is going make the fossil fuel industry pay How do you generate 6.4 trillion by regional Power Marketing Administrations, is this a tax? This saving 1.3trillion by creating millions of good paying unionized job is especially pie in the sky wishing. So when does he start playing nice so he can get a House and Senate that will allow him to implement this stuff. It is fully paid for by: Raising $3.085 trillion by making the fossil fuel industry pay for their pollution, through litigation, fees, and taxes, and eliminating federal fossil fuel subsidies. Generating $6.4 trillion in revenue from the wholesale of energy produced by the regional Power Marketing Administrations. This revenue will be collected from 2023-2035, and after 2035 electricity will be virtually free, aside from operations and maintenance costs. Reducing defense spending by $1.215 trillion by scaling back military operations on protecting the global oil supply. Collecting $2.3 trillion in new income tax revenue from the 20 million new jobs created by the plan. Saving $1.31 trillion by reduced the need for federal and state safety net spending due to the creation of millions of good-paying, unionized jobs. Raising $2 trillion in revenue by making large corporations pay their fair share of taxes.
So when are you gonna use this model and your numbers to refute what Major posted? If nobody has done any type of economic modeling how do you know M4A is a net savings?
Didn't your hear? These are his plans to pay for everything. It is fully paid for by: Raising $3.085 trillion by making the fossil fuel industry pay for their pollution, through litigation, fees, and taxes, and eliminating federal fossil fuel subsidies. Generating $6.4 trillion in revenue from the wholesale of energy produced by the regional Power Marketing Administrations. This revenue will be collected from 2023-2035, and after 2035 electricity will be virtually free, aside from operations and maintenance costs. Reducing defense spending by $1.215 trillion by scaling back military operations on protecting the global oil supply. Collecting $2.3 trillion in new income tax revenue from the 20 million new jobs created by the plan. Saving $1.31 trillion by reduced the need for federal and state safety net spending due to the creation of millions of good-paying, unionized jobs. Raising $2 trillion in revenue by making large corporations pay their fair share of taxes.
Some very good poster here are falling for Bernie for some reason, I guess Trump as an example of extremist wasn't enough for them.
