Medicare for All

Sorry, but this bill is crap like most of the GOP alternatives of the past. He doesn't even attempt to figure out cost or how to pay for it. Without that, it's not a bill - just a generic vision with no real plan on how to implement it. Like the previous GOP "repeal Obamacare" bills, it's an easy thing to vote for because there's no substance and no chance of it passing. If Dems actually got control to pass it, they'd run into the same realities the GOP has run into this year.

 

hows this different from the plan he released during the election that he incorrectly claimed would cost $1.5 trillion a year? I don't think this is a new plan, its the same absurd plan hes always pushed for which simply isn't affordable. If you thought the working class hated the Democrats now, wait until you see what happens when you raise the middle class's taxes by 15K-20K a year.

 

Free market healthcare for all

 

So much this.

These politicians use being the minority party as a shield VERY effectively. I know she is getting panned for her book by the right (who won't read it but think she's making excuses) and by the left (who want her to just go away) but Hillary Clinton's book is probably the most honest assessment of all of this and her take on single payer is the most realistic. She didn't get on board with it because it won't pass and can't be paid for, even if Democrats have a majority.

The Liberal wing is about to take the Republican approach to Obamacare: Refuse to negotiate on fixing it unless they get their hardline policy stance granted. For Republicans it was "no fix, only repeal" for the left it will become "No fix, only single payer"

 

If this ever happens it wont be as Medicare expansion. It'll be another Medicaid expansion that serves as a full public option within the exchanges. And if we're getting really bold, that same legislation will create the state association model from the 1993 health care plan (so no more individual insurance markets, everyone shares the same set of plans). Honestly, I know state associations will forever be tainted by the failed Clinton plan but if we're sticking with private insurance then we need to kill the idea of employer and individual markets and move to larger common risk pools. Medicaid could be a public option within that model with private insurers competing side by side.

But this useless bill is like Vermont's attempt at single payer. They passed a bill mandating single payer and punted on funding. Then when they finally got around to looking at how to pay for it, the whole thing fell apart.

 

What do you think is a good plan? Do you think obamacare is a good plan? I mean as it is we don't pay for everything the government does. We just let the debt grow. I think single payer system should be the number 1 priority of the democrats. Maybe it needs to be tweaked, but if you don't believe in a single payer system what do you suggest?

Here is a simple system just add a 500 dollar/month tax on everyone. That is basically the same as the premiums we are paying. Cut the cap on the SS/Medicare limit for the rich to pay for the people who can't afford the tax.

 

If you increase taxes and cut premiums the net effect is the same.

 

Depends what your premiums are and the tax plan to pay for it.

Neither Bernie or any state legislature has come up with a plan to pay for single payer

 

How to pay for something that might cost a few trillion a year is not a "tweak". This is like the GOP saying we'll win the war on ISIS by passing a bill that says "beat ISIS".

EDIT: Sorry, I misread this. So you want to just add $6,000/yr of taxes to everyone? The welfare dad, the fast food employee, and Donald Trump all just pay an extra $6,000. I'm sure that would work brilliantly. To your credit, your proposal is about as helpful in how to finance this as Bernie's.

I didn't say single payer was bad - I said this plan is crap. That said, I would probably start with something like geeimsobored suggested and build from there.

 

That may be the same as what you are paying, but that's not what everyone is paying. People who get their insurance through their employer or who are subsidized on the exchanges would absolutely be pissed at a $500 A MONTH tax on them, even if it eliminated premiums. It isn't like employers would turn around and give everyone a raise to make up for it.

I can't even believe you are proposing that. A $500 per month tax on EVERYONE would be the death of the Democrats.

 

I agree I think they need to add things like co pays back.

However here is data:

http://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-population/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51130

Roughly 85% of the nation is covered by group coverage. 49% are covered by employer insurance. On average people with employer coverage pay about 17,000 a year in premiums for a family.

So if we take all the premiums we already have the trillion dollars to cover the entire program + whatever deficit spending we currently have. So your first assertion about the trillion dollar thing is wrong.

We simply take the current premiums put into a national pool. The infrastructure to run the plan is already there with medicare and their admin costs are much lower than private insurer. Medicare gets the best rates due to their bargaining power.

 

I am talking about what my employer pays. I am probably paying like $50 bucks. The average price a company pays for a single person is 500/person and 1400 for a family. So it wouldn't really be changing the take home pay of a person just reallocating where payment would be going.

 

I am finding this topic disgusting. Everyone wants premium healthcare but nobody wants to pay for it. Those who have healthcare plans through their employers do not want their healthcare touched. They still expect the pre-existing coverage and expect the government, their employers and those who do not have insurance through employment to foot the bill.
There are many people out there who have fantastic coverage subsidized by employment. They will fight a government run single payer system to the end.

People are delusional if they think universal coverage through private parties/insurance is the answer. I am not against private insurance and I believe its imperative, but it should be supplemental, not primary. A $500.00 a month tax is extremely excessive, but a 5% tax is not so much. All of this would replace all government healthcare services such as Medicaid, VA, ect...

 

He's referring to TPC and urban institute saying the plan will cost 32 trillion over 10 years.

 

If suddenly you had no insurance but instead had a 500 a month tax on everyone you are crazy if you think employees would just get a 500 a month raise.

I don't think some of you have any idea what you're talking about on these issues.

 

This is not that complicated. Your compensation right = salary + bonus + benefits. Currently your employed pays about 500 dollars in premiums for you. Instead of paying 500 dollars in premiums to x insurance company they send that 500 dollars to Medicare which provides you with coverage. Therefore there is no real difference in out of pocket charge for a vast majority of Americans.

Insurance works better with a larger populations, unless you allow insurance companies to deny people with illness. It lowers overall variance which is a desirable characteristic in trying to price risk. Are you going to argue with me on basic probability and statistics?

We are getting a single payer system. I would guess in less than 10 years.

 

The tax would be on employers now?

If it is a tax on employees then the money would be coming out of your paycheck. Some employers might get raises but most wouldn't.

If is a tax on employers it would be even worse as not all employers offer insurance.

There is no way that substituting employer health insurance for a 500 a month tax works out for employees.

 

Look I'm pretty practical. Like a lot of people I know....For the crap insurance I'm getting now from my employer, if the tax increase is less than the outrageous amount I pay now, I'd likely be in favor of Medicare for all option to take instead... as long as most doctors took Medicare. The fact that most industrialized country's have single payer tells you all you need to know. There is a reason people opt for the sure thing instead of entrusting something as important as their health and the finincial structure of your healthcare to blood sucking corporations.

However .... let's be straight here... please.... this "bill" from Bernie today was nothing but a litmus test for Democrats running for office in the future to put their butts on the line. Bernie wants the Democratic Party to be remade in his image which will drive a wedge further down in this county.

I agree with Bernie on ALOT and part of me thinks he would be a better president than Hillary. However I was well aware during the primary that Bernie was blowing smoke up everyone's butt and wasn't selling reality ... at least for the next 20 years. It's where the country could go, but 40% of the county is still stuck back in 1950, and the big money in DC has more power than even Bernie will admit. For Bernies poltical theories to work, he and the Dems have to realize the push and pull that is Washington where you have to come to an agreement with people who don't agree on 100% of what you agree with.

I think Single Payer could be a reality in the future but showing up without the financial facts here will get you nowhere.

So I take today's "Bill" as a political stunt, but who knows.... it's Donald Trump so I wouldn't be that shocked if he thinks about inviting Bernie to the Oval Office before Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnel show Trump the impeachment papers.

 

This is exactly correct. There's a reason that his new plan is far *less* specific than the plan he had during the campaign with make-believe fantasy numbers. Now he just doesn't bother with numbers at all. It's the Dem version of "we must repeal Obamacare".

There's a reason that even far-left states like Vermont have backed away from single-payer. It's not that it can't be done in theory - it's just not nearly as simple to remake 18% of the US economy as the proponents want to believe.