Politifact Confirms Bernie Sanders’ Healthcare Plan Will SAVE Every American Family $1,200/Year

[INdemo]

In this article it has Bernie's plan vs Hillary's plan. Costs,copay's annual saving and how the plan will be for.

http://usuncut.com/news/bernie-sanders-healthcare-plan-would-save-the-average-american-family-1200/

[bigdarryl]

1. I think the point Hillary was making is Single payer

Dismantles the ACA and raises taxes

[elleng]

3. Right, using the hot-button 'raises taxes'

to 'confuse' the issue and shed no light.

[R B Garr]

10. As opposed to Sanders promising that billionaires

and Wall Street are going to somehow pay for everything and then stalling on delivering his numbers before the caucuses.

[Motown_Johnny]

13. His numbers were delivered in 2013.

The plan he is talking about was introduced to the Senate in 2013 and has all the numbers you could possibly want associated with it.


There may be minor tweeks, but we have had the numbers for over 2 years.

[R B Garr]

23. He said in the debate and since that he hasn't

come up with the numbers yet. He said it again on TV yesterday. So dId Weaver, his campaign manager.

[Motown_Johnny]

25. They may be tweeked. Politifact ran the 2013 numbers and they are pretty good.

We can cover everyone in the nation and the median savings for people paying premiums now would be about a hundred bucks a month.


That really is the dream, even Hillary called it that in 2008. Universal coverage. Plus some savings would be nice.


His plan is a good one.

[R B Garr]

31. 2008 was before ACA, which is now reality, so

bashing Clinton because she is using ACA as the frame of reference is disingenuous. Maybe people could talk about Bernie's plan without distorting current reality.

[Motown_Johnny]

33. Bwahahaha! Hillary and Chelsea tell straight up lies and we are distorting reality!

It is amazing what people can talk themselves into.


Politifact ran the numbers. Your argument is not valid.

Just read the article: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/13/how-much-would-bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-cos/

[R B Garr]

54. No numbers yet per Sanders and his campaign

manager. Yesterday on MSNBC he said it was unrealistic. BWWAAHAAHAHAH yourself. I will believe Sanders own words on it over your made-up bullshit. No one is making up that ACA exists now.

From the article: "based on the most optimistic scenarios". BWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. no shit.

[Motown_Johnny]

56. Politifact showed that the 2013 plan is less expensive than what we now have

and it COVERS EVERYONE!!!


Bernie is honest about how hard the fight will be to accomplish it. I am sorry if honesty confuses you but I do understand why that might be.


Go to this link and the interview with Bernie should pop up first:

http://www.msnbc.com/all

[R B Garr]

58. Oh, I'm not confused that he hasn't released the numbers

yet, but you obviously are.

[TCJ70]

46. The last thing I heard from the Hillary campaign on new initiatives...

...was the wealthy people would pay for it. Sanders doesn't shy away from his funding proposals and has even said that his paid leave initiative is a payroll tax on everyone. Your entire post is pure projection.

[R B Garr]

49. LMAO. He hasn't released his numbers yet so bullshit

yourself. I figured the personal insults couldn't be far behind. Good Lord, at least THAT is predictable.

[TCJ70]

55. Aren't the funding mechanisms in the Politifact article?

I'm pretty sure that was the points of the OP. Also, I didn't insult you...at least, that wasn't my intention. There's also this from the Sanders website about other funding mechanisms as well.

[Dretownblues]

5. Would you rather

Have ACA then single payer?

[Recursion]

24. I think a multi payer model like Germany has is better, yes

Last edited Thu Jan 14, 2016, 12:10 PM - Edit history (1)

And I think ACA is closer to that than Sanders's plan (which may or may not be Single Payer, depending on whether or not it gets rid of Medicare's deductibles).

Single Payer would be better than the current ACA, sure, but I'd rather push for moving it towards the German model, particularly since that can be done incrementally.

In particular, my worry about single payer is that cost controls become politically impossible because they are "cutting Medicare".

[jeff47]

35. You do realize that private insurers in the US negotiate

Medicare + (some percent) when they negotiate with doctors and hospitals, right?

Private insurance does not do cost controls. Our current single-payer system does.

[Recursion]

42. Well it's not doing them very well at all

Which makes me even less enthusiastic about moving the entire system over to them

[jeff47]

44. Yet here you are claiming it is.

Again, your argument is private insurance would hold down costs. Yet in the real world, private insurance does not do that. They use Medicare's payment plus a percentage.

The incentive for private insurance is to increase costs. The limits on the medical loss ratio mean they need higher medical costs to make more money.

Your plan is to have people who get paid more if costs go up be the ones to hold costs down.

[Recursion]

45. No, you're making up an argument I'm not making.

your argument is private insurance would hold down costs

Nope. Not sure who you're thinking of.

My idea is that explicit cost controls would control costs, and nothing else will. Our providers are going to have to make a lot less money than they do now, while providing a lot more care. The financing model we choose is at best tangential to that.

[jeff47]

48. So Canada's impossible?

They've got explicit cost controls via their single-payer system. They seem to be able to navigate "You're cutting Medicare!!!" just fine.

[Recursion]

62. Their financing isn't why it works

And, yeah, given our conservative governors a federalized system like Canada's is an absolutely awful idea for the US.

[jeff47]

64. So Canada doesn't exist. Good to know.

[Recursion]

65. What a stupid thing to claim

Check the map, it's just to the north of us.

What a bizarre statement.

[boobooday]

60. Providers don't necessarily have to make less money

If we take out the blood-sucking for-profit insurance companies and negotiate drug prices.

[Recursion]

63. Canada spends more per capita on pharma than we do

Last edited Thu Jan 14, 2016, 03:26 PM - Edit history (1)

And private insurance overhead is 4% of our spending.

Where we are paying more than Canada is physicians and hospitals.

[boobooday]

66. For-profit hospitals

And physicians who must hire three or four people just to fire insurance claims.

[Recursion]

67. Yep. Single payer helps with the latter, but not the former

In fact, in many ways single payer falls into a trap set by the hospitals, in that any attempt to cut the hospitals' reimbursements gets attacked as "cutting Medicare".

Here's some charts I made a few weeks ago comparing our spending to Canada's, for the curious:













(this is the crucial one: per capita spending by recipient. Canada is on the left, US is on the right.)

[boobooday]

53. Congress has prohibited Medicare from negotiating drug prices

So there is that.

[Recursion]

61. Now you're getting it

Any system we get, we're handing the keys to Paul Ryan.

[Dretownblues]

59. I would have no problem

with a private option as long as costs are capped. Now when it comes to the ACA as it is now, there is no way we would be able to get that bill, as it stands now, anywhere near multi-payer and I don't trust Hillary to try to move in that direction.

[R B Garr]

11. Thank you, this was the context along with Chelsea's

comments, but that gets in the way of another irrational Clinton hate-fest.

[riversedge]

52. it is so hard to have a real discussion on this board about candidates proposals-or non

proposals.

[R B Garr]

57. Yes, it's impossible, really, especially when things are

taken out of context from even what the candidate himself has said as recently as yesterday. I could say lots more, but then come the alert police, which is obviously the goal of some of this.......

[riversedge]

50. and it will dismantal Chip and other programs but Sanders has never said that publicly as

far as I know.

[dsc]

2. It might save the average american family that

but it surely won't save every such family. That is just plain impossible.

[HerbChestnut]

4. Who cares

if it's $1200 or $12. If it's cheaper, do it.

[dsc]

6. It would almost certainly cost money

for those whose employers pay all or nearly all of their medical expenses. Depending upon what taxing scheme is used I would be out 5k or more.

[shawn703]

7. Not if you get cash compensation in lieu of ESI

I'd expect salaries to go up quite a bit if employers have more actual dollars to offer talent rather than having to figure in the cost of ESI into a hiring decision.

[dsc]

8. my employer would never do that

They would give tax cuts to the rich

[HerbChestnut]

9. It sounds like...

Employers would could still cover healthcare for their employees. Bernie gave a hypothetical example last night during an interview of how an employer could save a good chunk of money through his plan.

[Motown_Johnny]

12. What do you base that on?

Please show me the math where you could possibly be out $5000.00 US dollars a year if the plan mentioned in the OP was implemented?


Your assertion is not believable in the least.


P.S. This plan would cover everyone. I think that if we did nothing but break even it would be worth attempting. Actually saving a little money in the process is just gravy.

[dsc]

14. VT had a 9 percent payroll tax

9 percent of 50k is 4500. That is not counting any income tax which was also mentioned.

[Motown_Johnny]

16. It is amazing how wrong someone can be and still think he/she is right.

Since you mentioned your employer, it seems safe to assume you are an employee.

I will take you at your word that your adjusted gross income is $50,000 a year, and that is not your income before deductions. It doesn't matter much because of how terribly wrong you are.



The proposed increased tax on an employee would be 2.2%

2.2% of $50,000 = $1,100


Now keep in mind that this 1,100 will be replacing your current health care premiums. So if your current premiums are $91.67 a month (total premium, not after subsidy) then you would break even. If your premiums are more like mine at around $350.00 you would save over $250.00 a month (I will round down just because of how terribly wrong you are).

$250.00 a month X 12 months = a net savings of $3000.00 a year.

So, your estimate is off by about $8,000.00 a year. It will not cost you 5k, it will save you 3k.


Math.





The tax increases are here in bold.




http://usuncut.com/news/bernie-sanders-healthcare-plan-would-save-the-average-american-family-1200/

^snip^


NEWSPolitifact Confirms Bernie Sanders’ Healthcare Plan Will SAVE Every American Family $1,200/YearAmanda Girard | January 13, 2016
Here’s the breakdown.
7849
SHARES
Facebook
Twitter

The nation’s leading political fact-checker has debunked Hillary Clinton’s recent attacks on Bernie Sanders’ healthcare plan.

According to Politifact’s recent analysis of Bernie Sanders’ proposal to expand Medicare to all Americans under his “Medicare for All” single-payer healthcare system, Sanders’ plan would save the average household between $505 and $1,823 per year — just shy of a $1,200 average cost savings. While this figure is lower than the Sanders campaign’s estimate of $3,855 to $5,173 in savings, it still means American families will pay less under single-payer healthcare than they currently do under the Affordable Care Act.

Sanders’ plan is modeled after single-payer legislation he introduced in 2013, which outlines how the plan would be implemented and paid for on a nationwide scale. First, Sanders would impose a 6.7 percent payroll tax on employers, along with a 2.2 percent healthcare tax on those making less than $250,000 per year. Sanders includes higher percentages for incomes above $250,000 in his legislation (the richest 2 percent of the U.S. population) and a 5.4 percent surcharge on the wealthiest Americans whose modified adjusted gross income is above $1,000,000 (literally less than 1 percent of Americans). Sanders’ bill also includes a 0.02 percent financial transactions tax on Wall Street

[dsc]

15. I went back and used the numbers in politifact

There is a 6.7% payroll tax and a 2.2% income tax which they say would wind up being paid by the employee. that is 8.9% which on 50k is 4450. That is if we can cut costs by 42 to 47 percent over what they are now. I have my doubts on that.

[Motown_Johnny]

17. Where does it say it ends up being payed by the employee?

plus you need to subtract whatever premiums you are now paying

[dsc]

18. right here

The 6.7 percent payroll tax should also be counted as a worker cost, since it most likely would come out of wages rather than employers’ pockets, experts said. That’s because the sticker price of employer-based insurance isn’t what employers are actually spending.

[Motown_Johnny]

19. did you miss this part?

Foundation estimates the average business pays $12,591 in healthcare contributions for a worker making $50,000. A 6.6 percent payroll tax cuts the employer contribution down to $3,350 — a savings of over $9,000.




I still don't see what you posted. Plus you didn't subtract the premiums you are paying now.

[dsc]

20. I pay very little

about 25 a month. and the text is the 2nd paragraph under missing details.

[Motown_Johnny]

21. If your net is 50k a year how do you only pay 25 a month?

I make less than you and my subsidy is only about 250 a month.


Your math still does not add.



edit to add, I was on the page that I linked to. That is why I didn't see what you posted on the page. Sorry, I see it now.

[dsc]

22. my employer pays my insurance costs

For people in my position, those whose employers largely pay for their insurance, this is fixing to be a pretty massive tax increase and we at least deserve to know just how much of one it is.

[Motown_Johnny]

26. I will post this again since you don't seem to get it

from the link I posted earlier



Foundation estimates the average business pays $12,591 in healthcare contributions for a worker making $50,000. A 6.6 percent payroll tax cuts the employer contribution down to $3,350 — a savings of over $9,000.

[dsc]

27. which they will not share with me

yes my employer will save money, good for NC, but they will give me not one single, solitary cent of that. They have made it abundantly clear, in word and deed, that salary increases for teachers are a non starter with them.

[Motown_Johnny]

28. Then it won't cost you anything either. You will not be out $5000.00 a year as you claimed.

If you do pay 25 a month then you will save $300.00 a year.

Plus EVERONE GETS COVERED.

This is universal coverage we are talking about. If there is anyone in you life who you care about that may be without coverage, or without enough coverage then you should celebrate this.

Even if there isn't you should be able to appreciate that millions of Americans don't have coverage.



P.S. I will let you have it both ways without any real argument. You say that employer healthcare costs are passed onto the employees but you also say that lowering those costs won't help you. That argument makes no sense at all but I will not push it. That is how terribly wrong you are.

[dsc]

29. according to your own source

the one you are trumpeting, my employer will cut my salary by an amount equal to the amount of the payroll tax. Your own source says it.

[Motown_Johnny]

30. I wasn't trying to trumpet it, sorry. It came up first on my Google search

so I used it.


I still think you are missing the point. Your Employer Will Be SAVING over $9000.00 a year by only paying the 6.6% tax instead of the ~$12,000 a year now being paid for your health insurance premiums.

You need to subtract the money now being paid. You don't just add on the tax to what is already being paid. That cost goes away. No more premiums. Savings of over $9,000.00 a year. The 6.6% tax is less than the current cost.


Honestly, because your payroll tax will go up $1,100 a year and your 25 a month savings is only 300, the numbers you are giving me do have you paying $800 a year more. If this passes, you need to point out that $9000 a year savings to your boss and ask for a $1000 a year raise. He will still save $8000 a year and you will make an extra 200.

[dsc]

32. I am sure my tea bagger legislature will get right on that

right after I climb mt everest in the nude.

[Motown_Johnny]

34. Can we get back to how this will cost you 5k a year?

You now see how wrong that statement is, don't you?

[dsc]

37. it eventually, at least will, according to your own link

It should be noted that the cost of health care as paid by employers is tax deductible right now and wouldn't be under this plan so at least private employers would not be saving what you are claiming. Again, that is pointed out at the link you brought us. But the fact is my salary will go down, either now, or in the future, by the amount my employer will now be paying (with no tax write off). Again, your own link says this will happen. It should also be noted that my employer will not save all that much since it only pays the employees cost not dependents. I admit that is rather unusual so I hadn't brought that up before. My employer currently pays about 5800 an employee but is able to write that off they would now be paying about 3100 (based on an average salary of 45k) but not able to write it off.

[Motown_Johnny]

41. Edit on this post. What was I thinking?

If your employer now pays 5800 for an employee making 50k (as you said you were) we can subtract that $5800.00 from his labor cost.

We now add in the 6.6% payroll tax increase, which for 50,000 is $3,300.

5800 - 3300 = 2500


So, with those numbers you gave me your employer is SAVING $2500.00 a year on your labor cost.


So your employer is losing a deduction of 5800 but gaining 2500 through decreased costs. There is no way that the tax on 5800 is going to be 2500. I can't give you exact numbers but your employer does not have an effective tax rate of 43.1%. There has to be some direct financial benefit to your employer.


(not to mention the decreased administrative costs of dealing with employees health insurance)

[Recursion]

47. I've had lots of jobs where the monthly cost to me was either $0 or something nominal like $20.

People with jobs like that will end up worse off under this plan.

[Motown_Johnny]

51. Then your employer needs to change your compensation package.

You will need a 2.2% raise.

[seaglass]

36. Here's the actual Politifact article in case anyone prefers their info spin-free...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/13/how-much-would-bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-cos/

[INdemo]

39. So now you Hillary supporters are using Republican talking points

To try and alter the facts? You are using Jeb Bush's opinion to promote Hillary's and Chelsea's lie Can't believe you are this desperate

[seaglass]

43. How fucking ridiculous - why would someone who is interested in what Politifact says not read the

Politifact article rather than someone else's spin on it? That's a Republican talking point, to fact check?

What is with all the accusations, you sound unhinged - I have not decided who I am voting for and probably won't until Mar 1.

[Logical]

38. Kick

[TCJ70]

40. As I posted in the other thread, absolutes are tricky things...

...and they got many statements about the ACA in trouble. I'm all for single payer, but to say EVERY family will save money is a tall order until the final details are wrung out.