General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIm all for single payer if you can write a bill that makes sense, but this bill is an embarrassment
Oh jesus fucking christ bernie. I take back my praise of Booker, Warren, Harris et al who endorsed this new medicare for all "bill". Bernie just released the specifics and it's incredibly disappointing.
Im all for single payer if you can write a bill that makes sense, but this bill is an embarrassment. It doesn't list a funding mechanism.
No specifics on how to pay for it. Whose taxes go up? By how much? This is the same fatal flaw that killed Californias bill. The same problem that killed Vermonts system. Not even going to address it? After we spent months criticizing republicans for supporting phantom bills with no specifics in their repeal efforts? I thought we were better than this.
Its legislative malpractice, and its political malpractice. Now the GOP can frame the funding structure however they want, they can fill the void with their narratives. Already were seeing reports on how it would raise taxes by trillions each year. And now all of our presidential candidates are tied to that framework, on a bill that hasnt even been properly written yet. All for what? Even if somehow this all succeeds and we get to the stage where the bill must be finalized (with actual specifics), itll just fall apart. Its the same problem the right had by getting commitments to vague notions of repeal with no specifics, youll never know that you have the votes on anything specific when it comes down to actually legislating.
At worst this severely harms our chances in 2020.
At best we win in 2020 but then spend all our capitol trying to get this done only to fall apart when we realize no one actually agreed on how to fund universal health care.
We had a policy wonk and the left flipped their shit. Now we've become the Bernie party, the party of vague ideas but no idea on how to legislate. We now have two stupid parties in american politics.
According to Bernie (in the WaPo) Americans dont mind paying more taxes....
All the repubs hsve to do in 2018 and 2020 to win= connect the Dem party to Bernie and then show people how much their taxes would go up.
Bernie just handed trump his victory in 2020.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,131 posts)show how to pay for it?
It is very very troubling.
Do we now have a "position" others must adopt, even if there is NOTHING in there about paying for it, that if they dont adopt it their path forward will be in doubt?
I cant say what I think this is, not here.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,131 posts)HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,131 posts)of exactly how it is paid for.
ismnotwasm
(42,020 posts)ALL of it is based on a a shitload of legislation and tax code revision. Which will have to pass congress.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)still_one
(92,454 posts)assumptions being made, and a big unknown is how the distribution of services will occur, and how much will the healthcare providers be reimbursed for those services. If the reimbursement is too low, a lot of healthcare providers I suspect will not take Medicare assignments. If the reimbursement is too high then they will have to generate more revenue
You are correct, a whole lot tax legislation would need to be passed, which under republican control is definitely not going to happen in this environment.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,131 posts)is getting people to agree, then that is one thing, not having the details is another.
We are too stupid as a people to agree, we cant have nice things and we wont. I am all for trying however, but the main emphasis has to be improving ACA (removing the unconstitutional decision made by Roberts and the poison Rubio pill legislation)
Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #122)
Name removed Message auto-removed
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)It took forever to copy and paste this over from a PDF and correct all the formatting, but here it is:
OPTIONS TO FINANCE MEDICARE FOR ALL
Introduction
Today, the United States spends more than $3.2 trillion a year on health care. About sixty-five percent of this funding, over $2 trillion, is spent on publicly financed health care programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs. At $10,000 per person, the United States spends far more on health care per capita and as a percentage of GDP than any other country on earth in both the public and private sectors while still leaving 28 million Americans uninsured and millions more under-insured.
Today, health care spending in the U.S. accounts for nearly 18 percent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and is on track to total over 20 percent of GDP over the next decade. It is projected that if we do nothing and maintain our current dysfunctional system that we will spend $49 trillion over the next decade on health care. That would be an incredible burden on businesses, working families, and the entire economy.
The most cost-effective and popular solution to this health care crisis is to guarantee health care as a right through a Medicare-for-all single-payer health care system.
Today, the traditional Medicare program only spends two percent of its costs on administration. Thats less than one-sixth the administrative costs of private health insurance companies.
Studies have found that our federal government could save up to $500 billion per year on administrative costs by moving to a Medicare for All, single-payer health care system.
Moreover, the United States pays, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs because Congress has done nothing to regulate the price of medicine. If the U.S. joined the rest of the industrialized world and negotiated with the pharmaceutical companies to lower prices, our country could save up to $113 billion per year.
As the wealthiest country in the world, we have a variety of options available to support a Medicare for All single-payer health care system that guarantees high quality, affordable health care as a right, not a privilege, to every man, woman, and child in this country. This paper explains just some of the policies that could provide revenue to finance Medicare for All. Under every single one of these options the average American family will save thousands of dollars a year because they will no longer be writing large checks to private health insurance companies.
If every major industrialized nation on Earth can make health care a right, provide universal coverage to all, achieve far better health outcomes in terms of life expectancy and infant mortality, while spending far less per capita than we do, it is absurd to suggest the United States of America, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, cannot do the same.
In my view, there needs to be vigorous debate as to the best way to finance our Medicare for All legislation. Unlike the Republican leadership in Congress which held no hearings on their disastrous bill which would have thrown 32 million off of health insurance and dealt with one-sixth of the American economy, it is our intention to get the best ideas we can from economists, doctors, nurses, and ordinary Americans. Below are a number of options to begin that discussion. Under each and every one of these options the average American family will end up in a better financial position than they are under the current system.
Options to Save Families and Businesses on Health Care Expenses
7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers
Revenue raised: $3.9 trillion over ten years.
Businesses would save over $9,000 in health care costs for the average employee under this option
In 2016, employers paid an average of $12,865 in private health insurance premiums for a worker with a family of four who makes $50,000 a year. Under this option, employers would pay a 7.5 percent payroll tax to help finance Medicare for All just $3,750 a savings of more than $9,000 a year for that employee.
During the four-year transition period to guarantee health care as a right, millions of workers will have the option to transfer from their employer-provided health care to the new Medicare for All system. As workers shift into the new system, employers will be required to pay either 75 percent of what they are currently paying for health care costs for each of their employees who enroll in Medicare for All, or the 7.5 percent payroll tax, whichever is higher.
An employers first $2 million in payroll would be exempt from this premium protecting small businesses throughout the country.
4 percent income-based premium paid by households
Revenue raised: $3.5 trillion over ten years.
The typical middle class family would save over $4,400 under this plan.
Last year the typical working family paid an average of $5,277 in premiums to private health insurance companies. Under this option, a typical family of four earning $50,000, after taking the standard deduction, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All just $844 a year saving that family over $4,400 a year. Because of the standard deduction, families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium.
Savings from Health Tax Expenditures
Revenue raised: $4.2 trillion over ten years.
Several tax breaks that subsidize health care would become obsolete and disappear under Medicare for All. The biggest health expenditure is the preference that excludes employer-paid premiums from payroll and income taxes. This is a significant tax break that would be eliminated under this plan because all Americans would receive health care through the new
Medicare for All program instead of employer-based health care. The exclusion for contributions to cafeteria plans and the medical expense deduction will also be eliminated.
Options to Make the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share
Make the Personal Income Tax More Progressive
Revenue raised: $1.8 trillion over ten years.
Another option is to reform the personal income tax system by strengthening progressive income tax rates, taxing capital gains and dividends the same as work income, limiting deductions for the wealthy, taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and requiring derivatives to be marked to market.
o Progressive income tax rates.
Under this plan the marginal income tax rate would be:
§ 40 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000.
§ 45 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million.
§ 50 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. (In 2014, only 136,000 households, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers, had income between $2 million and $10 million.)
§ 52 percent on income above $10 million. (In 2014, only 16,700 households, just 0.02 percent of taxpayers, had income exceeding $10 million.)
o Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work. Warren Buffett, the second-wealthiest American in the country, has said that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. This is because he receives most of his income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a much lower rate than income from work. This option would end the special tax break for capital gains and dividends on household income above $250,000, treating this income the same as income earned from working.
Taxing all income received by the rich at the same rates would simplify the tax code and eliminate the opportunities to game the system by making other types of income appear to be capital gains or dividends. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 68 percent of the benefits of the special income tax rates for capital gains and dividends went to the richest one percent of Americans in 2013.
o Limit tax deductions for the wealthy. Wealthier households are able to take advantage of various itemized deductions that generally do not provide any benefit to lower income workers. Under this proposal, itemized deductions would be capped at 28 percent for households making over $250,000. In other words, for every dollar in tax deduction a high-income household could save at most 28 cents. This limit would replace more complicated and less effective limits on tax breaks for the rich.
Make the Estate Tax More Progressive
Revenue raised: $249 billion over ten years.
Currently the estate tax only applies to the wealthiest 0.2 percent of Americans. In other words, 99.8 percent are not impacted by this tax. Under this option, the estate tax would return to the exemptions that were in effect in 2009 and rates would be made more progressive. Specifically, the plan would exempt the first $3.5 million of a single persons estate and the first $7 million of a married couples estate.
The existing flat 40 percent estate tax rate would be replaced with the following progressive rates:
o 45 percent for the value of an estate between $3.5 million and $10 million.
o 50 percent for the value of an estate between $10 million and $50 million.
o 55 percent for the value of an estate in excess of $50 million.
o An additional 10 percent surtax would apply to estate value in excess of $500 million ($1 billion for married couples). Further, the proposal:
o Closes loopholes for grantor retained annuity trusts (GRATs) and other types of trusts and valuation techniques that have allowed the Walton family of Wal-Mart and other billionaires to save over $100 billion in taxes since 2000; and
o Increases existing protections for farmland and conservation.
Establish a Wealth Tax on the Top 0.1 percent
Revenue raised: $1.3 trillion over ten years.
Over the past several decades America has experienced an explosion of wealth concentration. Today the wealthiest 0.1 percent just 160,000 households own nearly the same amount of wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Meanwhile, a report from the Institute on Policy Studies concludes that Americas 20 richest individuals now own more wealth than the entire bottom half of the American population.
This severe inequality threatens to warp our democracy by concentrating too much power in the hands of a tiny elite. It also holds back our economy, funneling resources to a few families rather than creating the broad base of middle-class consumers that can drive economic growth.
This option would establish an annual 1 percent federal wealth tax on the net worth of the wealthiest 0.1 percent of U.S. households. The tax would apply to net worth exceeding $21 million for a household. That means a household with $21.5 million would pay 1 percent of $500,000, or $5,000.
Close the Gingrich-Edwards Loophole and Create Parity for Wealthy Business Owners
Revenue raised: $247 billion over ten years.
This option closes the Gingrich-Edwards loophole which allows individuals who own and run an S-Corporation to game the system and avoid paying payroll taxes by claiming some income as business profits. Under current law, these business owners are required to report a reasonable amount of salary income and pay the appropriate amount of payroll tax. However, many times these individuals deliberately under-report a reasonable salary in order to avoid these taxes.
Additionally, this option would ensure that all business income of high-income people would be subject to the existing 3.8 percent tax to fund Medicare, either through the net investment income tax or the additional Medicare tax on earned income. These taxes were designed to ensure that high-income people pay the 3.8 percent Medicare tax on all income, regardless of the source. However, some business income slips through the crack and is not subject to either tax. This proposal would close that loophole.
Options to Make Wall Street and Large, Profitable Corporation Pay Their Fair Share
Impose a one-time tax on currently held offshore profits
Revenue raised: $767 billion over ten years.
For years corporations have been avoiding paying their fair share of taxes by stashing their cash in the Cayman Islands and other offshore tax havens where there is no corporate income tax rate. This situation has become so absurd that one five-story office building in the Cayman Islands is the home to close to 20,000 companies.
Today corporations hold a staggering $2.6 trillion offshore in order to avoid paying taxes in the U.S. Under current law, a corporation does not pay corporate taxes on these profits until it sends, or repatriates, the money back to the U.S. This option would require these companies to pay a one-time tax now, based on what they owe under current law.
Impose a Fee on Large Financial Institutions
Revenue raised: $117 billion over ten years.
Today, the six major financial institutions in this country have over $10 trillion in assets, equivalent to 56 percent of our entire GDP. The largest financial institution, JP Morgan Chase, has received more than $22.2 billion in tax breaks since 2008. Meanwhile, during the financial crisis, JP Morgan Chase received a $391 billion bailout from the Federal Reserve. It is time that Wall Street start paying its fair share in taxes. One option would be to impose a fee of seven basis points (.07 percent) on covered liabilities of financial institutions with $50 billion or more in total assets, as proposed by President Obama.
Repeal Corporate Accounting Gimmicks
Revenue raised: $112 billion ten years.
This option would eliminate the last-in, first-out (LIFO) accounting method that allows corporations to manipulate their inventory and make it appear like they have lower profits. They do this by deducting the higher cost of newer inventory, rather than the lower cost of older inventory, resulting in lower profits and lower taxes. Democrats and Republicans have both supported repealing LIFO in various budget and tax reform proposals.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,131 posts)a. Democrats control the government, we are a decade from that possibly
Putting this forward now, without full support of the party, when the OTHER party has control, will just highlight the costs, not the benefits.
I am all for this, by the way, when the time is right.
George II
(67,782 posts)...was mentioned in the 59 minute press conference.
Are we expecting the Senate to pass a sweeping bill like this without a single word about how to pay for it?
PS - that document lists "options for funding", which accomplishes nothing.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)Demsrule86
(68,715 posts)Medicare pays 80%...it is a bad idea and the GOP are already using it against us.
greeny2323
(590 posts)Shouldn't be taken more seriously than that.
It is interesting that so many Democrats are willing to line up for the concept, though.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Why isn't he advancing proposals that actually stand a chance to make a difference I people's' lives, like a public option for the ACA?
Sanders seems to spend most of his effort in grand gestures that ultimately mean nothing.
SunSeeker
(51,745 posts)You, doing crucial stuff that actually stands a chance of passage.
BannonsLiver
(16,508 posts)I believe Harris and the like will make it clear they support the idea of universal care in 2020 but they will all want to put their own stamp on it, as any candidate would.
And they won't have any problem with that because by then this bill and its defeat (assuming it ever comes up for a vote) will have been long forgotten, while the idea behind it will endure.
George II
(67,782 posts)forgotmylogin
(7,539 posts)Nor a funding mechanism. (He thinks he's supposed to issue edicts and let other people work out the details.)
And it's not like there aren't examples (Canada, Australia) we can look at for guidance.
peggysue2
(10,844 posts)"Aspirational Symbolism."
Yup, that's exactly what this is in the moment. The problem is that symbolism will not take care of the sick or the uninsured.
We can strategize about how we eventually get to single-payer but in the now this bill is going nowhere fast. Sanders knows this himself. Without a Democratic majority (and we would really need a super-majority in both houses) there's not a shot in hell that a bill even remotely as broad as this one would stand a chance. It takes more than hefting the banner and shaking pom-poms to get the job done. Restructuring nearly 20% of the US economy will never be easy or fast. We're deluding ourselves to think otherwise.
I think the vast majority of Dems, particularly liberals support the idea of a single payer system, something like 65% But there's an entire country out there. According to the Pew poll in June of this year only 33% of the American public supports single-payer, another 25% think there should be a public/private structure. Those numbers can change, of course, and have changed. But they're not going to radically change overnight. If a program like this hasn't nailed down every detail (including specifics, not suggestions on how we pay for it) the Democrats will be slaughtered. And rightly so. Because healthcare is deeply, deeply personal. You'll recall how President Obama was torn to pieces with the "you can keep your doctor" promise, followed by an awful roll-out. With healthcare, you can't afford mistakes or wobbly details or make promises you cannot keep, regardless of how well-meaning the program might be.
Our most realistic way to address healthcare is winning in 2018 & 2020. Until then, we need to protect (and where we can improve) what exists in the here and now, the ACA. Too many lives are at risk with the GOP's full intent to dismantle the program that is to shift massive energy/attention to a program that isn't. Yes, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. But walking comes first unless we want to end up on our knees.
delisen
(6,046 posts)for single payer. He's been working on this for years. There is bipartisan interest.
I think Sanders bill is aspirational, sort of marketing for presidential politics.
I think Conyers bill is a serious attempt to build on the ACA and move to single payer.
JI7
(89,279 posts)factfinder_77
(841 posts)HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)Are you endorsing these right wing talking points?
It should be noted that we spend more than that on healthcare currently. A Medicare for all would actually save us 500 billion per year. And it could be paid for through progressive taxation.
Also, check out polling on Medicare for all. It polls pretty well. Way more popular than repealing the ACA. Democrats should absolutely run on it.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,131 posts)about this bill.
Give the bastards at the GOP time and they will have more than that believing it soon.'
The ticket, you see, is to provide detailed explanations of HOW to pay for it so the GOP cant do this.
Now the harsh reality is even when you do show how to pay for it, because it surely can be done, half the country or more will still be scared into not believing it is possible.
I am still all for trying though, just have to be smart about it.
Demit
(11,238 posts)The ticket is keeping it slogan-simple, at first...something that fits on a bumper sticker, the way the GOP has done so brilliantly & effectively. Sell people on the concept, get down in the weeds later. It's not going to get anywhere near being brought to a vote in Congress right now. But it gives the people a reason to vote for Democrats in the coming elections.
scipan
(2,361 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Promises all the goodies, but doesn't include how to get them.
Any honest effort must include the funding mechanism as an integral part of the proposal.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)He needs to step and propose an actual mechanism, numbers and all.
Until then, it's empty rhetoric.
But these kinds of grand gestures are Bernie's bread and butter. He can claim to "fight for the people" while never having to take actual responsibility for it. It's the main thing that frustrates me about him.
George II
(67,782 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,053 posts)Gore1FL
(21,158 posts)He didn't give any specifics or anything. It's like he thought it needed to go through a process or something.
These damned progressive visionaries are always dreaming things up and ruining it for everyone...
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)PONIES! They all want PONIES!
ProfessorGAC
(65,248 posts)The haters gonna hate!
All of a sudden everybody's a policy wonk and doesn't care about politics and PR
Must have every detail worked out to the nth degree
Your JFK comparison is perfect
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)so this dream has been done before. There was no one that had traveled to the moon before, so it's not even a close comparison. If your going to dream about something that has already been done you should be prepared for providing specifics.
Gore1FL
(21,158 posts)The link is in this very thread.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Link to tweet
Twitter doesn't suffer GOP fools and their canned talking points gladly.
Waiting for the FREE STUFF! SOCIALISM! DEATH PANELS! tweets from conservatives, you know they're coming. It'll be called an entitlement and they'll try to terrorize people with boogeymen about HUGE tax increases and horror stories about how Nigel had to wait for an operation because NHS sucks and Pierre had to travel to the US for cancer treatments because Canada is a third world country.
Wait for it.
Gore1FL
(21,158 posts)HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)Donkees
(31,481 posts)factfinder_77
(841 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)factfinder_77
(841 posts)Subtitle BFunding
SEC. 211. OVERVIEW: FUNDING THE MEDICARE FOR ALL PROGRAM.
(a) In General.The Medicare For All Program is to be funded as provided in subsection (c)(1).
(b) Medicare For All Trust Fund.There shall be established a Medicare For All Trust Fund in which funds provided under this section are deposited and from which expenditures under this Act are made.
(c) Funding.
(1) IN GENERAL.There are appropriated to the Medicare For All Trust Fund amounts sufficient to carry out this Act from the following sources:
(A) Existing sources of Federal Government revenues for health care.
(B) Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners.
(C) Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income.
(D) Instituting a modest tax on unearned income.
(E) Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.
(2) SYSTEM SAVINGS AS A SOURCE OF FINANCING.Funding otherwise required for the Program is reduced as a result of
(A) vastly reducing paperwork;
(B) requiring a rational bulk procurement of medications under section 205(a); and
(C) improved access to preventive health care.
(3) ADDITIONAL ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS TO MEDICARE FOR ALL PROGRAM.Additional sums are authorized to be appropriated annually as needed to maintain maximum quality, efficiency, and access under the Program.
SEC. 212. APPROPRIATIONS FOR EXISTING PROGRAMS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there are hereby transferred and appropriated to carry out this Act, amounts from the Treasury equivalent to the amounts the Secretary estimates would have been appropriated and expended for Federal public health care programs, including funds that would have been appropriated under the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act, under the Medicaid program under title XIX of such Act, and under the Childrens Health Insurance Program under title XXI of such Act.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)Of course this can be paid for.
SunSeeker
(51,745 posts)It does not specify the amount nor who will be taxed and how. It is just a list of suggested funding mechanisms. The amount of the tax and the actual collection mechanism is all left up to potential future tax bills.
THIS is why the Vermont single payer law failed. Bernie was all over radio and TV pushing the Vermont single-payer law and it easily passed. But the Vermont single-payer law that he pushed was just an aspirational law that called for future legislation to be passed to pay for it. When it came to actually passing a tax bill to pay for Vermont's single-payer law, and they found out how much taxation they would actually need, everyone ran for the hills. No one wanted to defend the 12% tax increase on the middle class that it was calculated to take to pay for Vermont single-payer. The tax bill was never even brought to the floor. This, despite the fact that a 12% tax increase would still be cheaper than everyone paying for health insurance and co-pays. And mind you, this was in Vermont, the bluest of blue States. National single payer will involve similar numbers. What Dem, let alone Republican, will push for a 12% tax increase on the middle class?
dogman
(6,073 posts)The Democrats who support the status quo are the embarrassment.
Demsrule86
(68,715 posts)dogman
(6,073 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)OH NOES!
All the more reason to stand with Kamala, Cory, Kirsten and Bernie against the GOP.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Bernie Sanders's name attached to it.
One wonders what the discussion looks like, there.
R B Garr
(16,994 posts)called grandstanding.
Of course, anyone questioning the costs will be maligned.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)Quite soon.
R B Garr
(16,994 posts)about costs or other practicalities and good Democrats are accused. So tiresome and predictable.
LexVegas
(6,114 posts)Lee Adama
(90 posts)HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Let the Republicans do their damnedest, Cory isn't running from a fight.
R B Garr
(16,994 posts)tymorial
(3,433 posts)I asked similar questions in other posts concerning medicare for all, universal healthcare, single payer etc .
I have considered writing my own post about this subject but I just don't want the argument. Specifics matter, especially when it comes to legislation that would far-reaching impact Health Care, the economy, employment and taxes. Much must be done in order for single payer to succeed and funding is a big part of it. How healthcare is delivered, paid for, employment opportunity and retraining programs for the millions of displaced worker, economic fall out all must be considered.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)Look at all of the Democrats under attack on this board. Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris. And they all just happen to be considered 2020 contenders too. Yet they are being attacked by a certain group on posters.
It is... interesting.
factfinder_77
(841 posts)Booker and other no-voters have claimed that their votes stemmed from concerns about the safety and quality of imported drugs which is also an argument frequently made by the drugmakers.
But its safe for the Canadians...
dogman
(6,073 posts)Maybe the reaction to that vote is dawning on him.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)He helped introduce it along with Sanders and Casey.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/469/cosponsors?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Affordable+and+Safe+5+Prescription+Drug+Importation+Act%22%5D%7D&r=3
lapucelle
(18,361 posts)Exported drugs are not.
Booker signed on to a different drug importation amendment.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/18/other-98/viral-image-about-democratic-senators-and-big-phar/
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Or just repeating anti-Dem talking points without checking out the whole story you're spreading to smear him with?
chowder66
(9,087 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But that money is called premiums instead of taxes.
Yes, it is that simple. And it works in every country where it exists, unlike the dysfunctional and very expensive US system.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)For some it seems to be ONLY more tax..
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Single payer works, the US system does not.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Friends in Norway, Denmark, for example, always complain about taxes, the electronic tolls on the highways, VAT( I think), etc.... Its the thing to do. Blah blah...but when push comes to shove, they LOVE the great roads, the health care, the school system, the family care, child care, They, for the most part, understand the concept of 'the commons.' And the great value of caring for it.
here.... I WANNA DO WHAT I WANNA DO. Its MY money.. FREEDOM..
They wouldn't move to this soon to be shit hole for anything..
Shit, I'm retired and have an offer of a place to live in Finland. It IS on my mind. freakin cold in winter, though. LOL. But, the ALLEGRO goes directly from Helsinki Station to St Petersburg and THERIN lies the Mariinsky Theater...
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I could move back home to New Brunswick and be closer to cousins, but farther from the children. So "here" wins. And yes, taxes are an admission price of sorts to live in a civilized country.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)We checkmate the Republicans. Who can oppose more choice ?
R B Garr
(16,994 posts)up their plans. A public option makes the most sense in these times.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...why stop at simply "more" choice?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Are we really going to go through if you like your doctor you can keep him or her, no you can't brouhaha again?
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)If there's only one insurer, your doctor has to accept it, or lose all their patients and quit I suppose.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)As you said he or she can quit. He or she could also limit the amount of patients he or she sees, or he or she could accept patients who pay out of their own pockets.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Doctors don't have to do anything. They do not have to take Medicare patients and they do not have to accept any type of insurance. Our doctor is the only one out of 14 doctors in our county who takes Medicare. All the others have thriving practices. Our doctor does well but he is not taking any new Medicare patients.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Jonathan Chait has a good write up about this:
That is not a detail to be worked out. It is the entire problem. The impossibility of this barrier is why Lyndon Johnson gave up on trying to pass a universal health-care bill and instead confined his legislation to the elderly (who mostly did not get insurance through employers), and why Barack Obama left the employer-based system intact and created alternate coverage for non-elderly people outside it.
In theory, the transition could be done without hurting anybody. The money workers and their employers pay to insurance companies would be converted into taxes. But this means solving two enormous political obstacles. First, most people who have employer-based coverage like it and dont want to change. Second, higher taxes are unpopular. Yes, in an imaginary, rational world, people could be reassured that Medicare will be as good as what they have, and the taxes will merely replace the premiums theyre already paying. In reality, people are deeply loss-averse and distrustful of politicians.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/sanderss-bill-gets-u-s-zero-percent-closer-to-single-payer.html
brer cat
(24,625 posts)Adding this:
Sanders is not a details person, though. He prefers to act as though the important barrier is the abstract notion of government-run insurance, turning every question about specifics into a question about values. But the concept of a government-financed insurance program has never been the controversial part. (This is why single-payer Medicare is a beloved institution Republicans swear up and down never to change, while privatized Obamacare is a detested socialist monstrosity.) The controversial part has always been the mechanics of change.
Sanders can't dream away the opposition as being simply evil corporations.
JHan
(10,173 posts)On that score Pelosi is bang on,
"Sanders can't dream away the opposition as being simply evil corporations." - well, it's a very "populist" approach.
crosinski
(413 posts)This is really similar to Bernie's 2016 Medicare for all plan. I'm sure you've all read that, and you all knew this would be similar. So what's this big upset really about?
You knew darned well that Healthcare for All was never going to be pretty. A bill can change substantially before it's done. We can still go forward with the ACA. We might end up with a hybrid of the ACA and Medicare for all. Every other developed country has already figured out how to provide it citizens with healthcare, and we can do it to.
Pick a damned side and stick!
lostnfound
(16,193 posts)JoeOtterbein
(7,702 posts)Chimichurri
(2,911 posts)Somewhere. I'm sick and tired of both the Bernie bashing and the Hillary bashing. This is why we lose despite having common goals.
We must unify. It's the Republicans that our ire should be aimed at
George II
(67,782 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)I realize that people would no longer have to pay for insurance but we will get killed if we ask for a twenty percent combined tax increase.
dogman
(6,073 posts)We always have money for what the rich want.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)If we ask people to pay a 26.3% payroll tax and nine percent more in income tax they are going to kill us.
I don't believe there is any way in Hell Chump can get re-elected but if we run on raising taxes to such an extent I might revisit my opinion.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)and the real numbers actually represent a savings for most people currently paying for insurance under their employer.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)We all opposed Trump Care and rightfully so because the CBO said it would be a disaster.
If the CBO's numbers are anything like those I initially cited we will never be able to sell it to the American people. Our political opponents/adversaries/enemies will weaponize it and use it like a club against us.
We have Trump and the GOP on the ropes. God, I hope we don't snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)didn't stop you a minute ago.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)dogman
(6,073 posts)It was a plan that covered my wife and I with limited dental and optical. It was 10-20% co-pay with $100 deductible each.While working, my employer paid that and more if I worked overtime. That was in addition to payroll taxes. The point is that people rarely know what they pay now. I think the key is education about reality. Until ACA there was also a $1 million cap.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers
Revenue raised: $3.9 trillion over ten years.
Businesses would save over $9,000 in health care costs for the average employee under this
option
4 percent income-based premium paid by households
Revenue raised: $3.5 trillion over ten years.
The typical middle class family would save over $4,400 under this plan.
And both parties would save money not pay more. Don't see how saving people money would kill us.
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Too many numbers being bandied about.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Pretty much what I expected.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)comradebillyboy
(10,178 posts)before I could receive benefits. And bare bones medicare has huge coverage gaps that I pay for via part B coverage drug coverage and supplemental insurance. So why shouldn't my medicare be covered?
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)He mist be on the right track.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Some things never change..
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)you know, under extreme circumstances, like here- where they're associated with something having to do with that man.
lapucelle
(18,361 posts)Does anyone have a link to the text of the bill?
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)BayouBengal07
(1,486 posts)Even if this didn't make sense, that hardly seems to matter. Vague ideas and no way to implement them got Republicans elected...
INdemo
(6,994 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Gothmog
(145,666 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)would completely offset the raise in taxes.
samnsara
(17,650 posts)anyone explaining it. I guess cuz I'm not that much of a Bernie fan so I didn't get too excited about it right away.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)If it can be done with tax increases we can sell to the American people I will support it. If it can't I won't.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Well, me for one. But does anyone ever listen? Nooooooooooooooo . . .
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Love your posts btw!
comradebillyboy
(10,178 posts)Docreed2003
(16,883 posts)And frankly all other public services, the question will come down to this:
Are we willing to continue obscene spending in defense, which has had no honest oversite since the 70's, or are we willing to trim defense to cover the costs of healthcare, welfare, "food stamps" and other government services.
That's where we are now, because I can assure you that the GOP has no qualms about cutting every single government program that benefits the least in order to continue funding taxcuts for the wealthiest and defense funding.
Kleveland
(1,257 posts)Could there just not be a redirection of the funds currently being spent by employers who offer health insurance, and the percentage that employees also contribute?
It is a sizable amount of money.
Call those redirected funds taxes if you wish, it is still a cash flow and system that currently exists.
That, and removing the greedy middleman of healthcare providers who overpay their administrators, who essentially do nothing, and place controls on big pharma, who obviously is gouging all US citizen for medications and essential health products.
The solutions are not that difficult.
What is difficult is dealing with the rampant bad side of capitalism, which is lining the pockets of those who really do not give two shits about the average person. Excessive unearned income is not the solution to the worlds ills.
They hide behind false complications and details.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)But you can't just say "send government money". Taxes have to be codified into law and set with rates and rules. You either have to create new taxes and set the rates to match what you say or you have to increases rates on existing taxes to equal that amount.
panader0
(25,816 posts)C'mon-- are you saying give up? Why can't it be done?
Many other things were seen as un-doable in the past.
It needs to happen somehow, and this could be another
part of that start.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 14, 2017, 12:30 AM - Edit history (1)
Many nations provide medical insurance to everybody using a hybrid system of public and private plans. Australia, France, Japan, and Italy come immediately to mind. I'm sure there are others.
MichMan
(11,999 posts)That is one way to pay for some of it. Everyone pays a 15% sales tax on everything they buy. Works for Canada
relayerbob
(6,559 posts)Putting up a straw man that you know will never pass and really can't work as proposed isn't much better than the GOP repeal and replace with nothing to replace it with.
Response to factfinder_77 (Original post)
Post removed
BainsBane
(53,083 posts)You can't have legislation without specific numbers on funding. . I suppose after the problems with his last single payer bill, he figured it was best to leave off numbers altogether.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)As I read it the trust fund sends a monthly tab to the Treasury and the Treasury simply covers it. Easy eh?
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/medicare-for-all-act?id=6CA2351C-6EAE-4A11-BBE4-CE07984813C8&download=1&inline=file
heaven05
(18,124 posts)of a politician. Big on quantity of words, very little of substance when it comes to really providing help for struggling americans....and those political hopefuls signing on to this crock of shit? SHAME!!!!! Political expediency, that's all. What I've come to expect from the american political system....NOTHING!!!!!!!! In this case more than likely higher taxes which the author claims I don't mind paying. He can afford them, I can't.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)and paid for by corporations as a benefit. At some point, the GOP is going to say that your middle class tax bracket is going from 28% to 56% for something they basically already have. That's when every Democrat either walks away from the plan, or loses their job to some anti-tax Republican.
Right now the GOP is saying it's going to "hike taxes", but as soon as they put numbers behind it, the debate is over.
Nanjeanne
(5,003 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)It is only in the junior high lunchroom that DU has become that they are imagined to be enemies.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)It's no surprise.
I still like the other names getting out there with it. The legislation will not pass. This is strictly political and each is doing their thing for different reasons. It is still helping to normalize the concept, overall. Sanders is one off the biggest career politicians out there. This is a personal(He's cashing out) and political(He's working to weaken and divide a party he doesn't represent) move for him.
KPN
(15,665 posts)Hyperbolic. Please demonstrate how all Congressional bills include specific details about how they will be paid for.
Here are options Bernie has already proposed:
[link:https://berniesanders.com/medicareforall/|
Skittles
(153,222 posts)I dislike his stance on free college for all too - people want to pay reasonable rates, they weren't even asking for "free college"
this kind of bullshit feeds right into the socialist stance that will not win elections