Iowans deserve to know Sanders full tax and $15 trillion health care plan before the Iowa caucuses.

[Alfresco]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/264612-sanders-promises-to-release-full-tax-plan-before-iowa
Excerpt:

Sanders promises to release full tax plan before Iowa caucuses

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on Sunday he will release his full tax platform before the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1.

“We have been very specific. We have more to do, and we will be doing that in the very near future,” the Democratic presidential candidate said of his tax plan on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

When pressed about whether the full plan will be available to voters in Iowa before they cast ballots, Sanders responded: “Yep.”

Pundits have questioned how Sanders proposes to pay for his spending platform, which The Wall Street Journal estimates will cost $15 trillion over 10 years.
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/13/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-health-care-plan/index.html?eref=rss_politics
Excerpt:

Keene, New Hampshire (CNN)

Bernie Sanders could break his pledge to release details on how he would pay for his health care plan before the Iowa caucuses, according to a top aide.

His campaign released details Wednesday of how Sanders will pay his $1 trillion dollar infrastructure plan and his $75-billion-a-year plan to make public college and universities tuition-free. But noticeably absent was his plan to pay for Medicare for all, a price tag that some estimates put at $15 trillion.

Jeff Weaver, Sanders' campaign manager, isn't saying when those numbers will be released.

"I don't have a date for that," he said earlier this week. "Not necessarily before the caucuses."
-------------------------
That's a change from what Sanders first told Dana Bash on CNN's "State of the Union" earlier this month that he would release his details for paying for his health care plan before the caucuses on February 1. Bash pressed the Vermont senator again on Tuesday after President Barack Obama's final State of the Union when she asked if Sanders would make good on his pledge to release his single payer plan.

"Absolutely," Sanders said. "If I said we're going to do it that's what we're going to do."

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Meanwhile they can read about the plan he filed as a bill in the senate in 2013

Here is the bill:

113th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1782

To provide for health care for every American and to control the cost and enhance the quality of the health care system.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
December 9, 2013
Mr. Sanders introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL
To provide for health care for every American and to control the cost and enhance the quality of the health care system.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “American Health Security Act of 2013”.


SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF THE SENATE.
(a) Findings.—Congress finds as follows:

(1) While the United States of America spends on average nearly twice as much per capita on health care services as the next most costly nation, the United States ranks 32d among all nations on life expectancy, and 41st on infant mortality.

(2) The number of uninsured Americans held at an unacceptable rate of 15.7 percent in 2011, more than 48,000,000 Americans.

(3) This is the result of a continued decline in private health coverage, primarily in employer-sponsored insurance.

(4) Small businesses around the country cannot afford to reinvest in their companies and create new jobs because their health care bills are going up 10 or 15 percent every year.

(5) American businesses are at an economic disadvantage, because their health care costs are so much higher than in other countries. Notably, automobile manufacturers spend more on health care per automobile than on steel.

(b) Sense Of The Senate Concerning Urgency Of A Medicare-For-All Type Single Payer Health Care System.—It is the sense of the Senate that the 113th Congress should enact a Medicare-for-All Single Payer Health Care System to make American companies more competitive and to stimulate job creation.

(c) Sense Of The Senate Concerning The Status Of Health Care.—It is the sense of the Senate that the 113th Congress should recognize and proclaim that health care is a human right.

(d) Sense Of The Senate Concerning State Flexibility.—It is the sense of the Senate that in order to provide high quality health care coverage for all Americans while controlling costs in order to make American companies more competitive, individual States should be given maximum flexibility in designing health care programs to improve the individual experience of care and the health of populations, and to reduce the per capita costs of care for each State.

(e) Sense Of The Senate Concerning A New Health Care System.—It is the sense of the Senate that—

(1) a new single payer health care system should build on achievements and commitments in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–152), to strengthen primary care and public health, to raise the quality of patient care, to develop new models of patient care, to develop the capacity of the healthcare workforce, to increase transparency in the payment of health care system costs, and to strengthen enforcement against fraud and abuse;

(2) the possibilities of achieving efficiencies through integrated care are within reach with the spread of electronic support systems, health information exchanges, and the possibilities for virtual integration and instant communication; and

(3) policies should be put in place to ensure higher quality, better prevention, and lower per capita costs, including—

(A) global budget caps on total health care spending;

(B) measurement of and fixed accountability for the health status and health needs of designated populations;

(C) improved standardized measures of care and per capita costs across sites and through time that are transparent; and

(D) changes in professional education curricula to ensure that clinicians are enabled to change and improve their processes of care.


SEC. 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1782/text

Here's a summary:

Brief Summary of the Legislation

The American Health Security Act of 2013 (S. 1782) provides every American with affordable and comprehensive health care services through the establishment of a national American Health Security Program (the Program) that requires each participating state to set up and administer a state single payer health program. The Program provides universal health care coverage for the comprehensive services required under S. 1782 and incorporates Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and TRICARE (the Department of Defense health care program), but maintains health care programs under the Veterans Affairs Administration. Private health insurance sold by for-profit companies could only exist to provide supplemental coverage.

The cornerstones of the Program will be fixed, annual, and global budgets, public accountability, measures of quality based on outcomes data designed by providers and patients, a national data-collection system with uniform reporting by all providers, and a progressive financing system. It will provide universal coverage, benefits emphasizing primary and preventive care, and free choice of providers. Inpatient services, long term care, a broad range of services for mental illness and substance abuse, and care coordination services will also be covered.

https://www.healthcare-now.org/legislation/american-health-security-act/

'kay?

[Alfresco]

4. When will Bernie release his full tax plan as promised?

[Warren Stupidity]

10. The 2013 legislation provides details on how that bill would be funded.

The Sanders campaign is working on a new proposal. It will be similar to the 2013 bill. They really are not hiding anything, despite your repeated posts to that effect. This is a complicated and important issue that they really need to get right before they commit to the details.

[riversedge]

78. Why doesn't he put these details on his website or publically announce them?? -like Hillary does!!

[safeinOhio]

90. Why would anyone

use Rupert Murdocs $15 trillion figure on a Democratic web site?

[riversedge]

110. You did not answer my question

[floriduck]

108. Likely because he wants it right the first time.

Then he won't have to twist in the wind like Hill on Keystone and TPP.

[riversedge]

111. As of right now the only thing Sanders is doing is being unfair to Iowa voters....

From today's nytimes.....


.....Mr. Sanders has promised to release details of how he would pay for his universal health care plan before the caucuses, and Mrs. Clinton has been warning that his proposal would mean a big tax increase on the middle class.

No word on whether Mr. Sanders will offer more specifics about paying for the plan on Thursday................

www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/14/bernie-sanders-heads-to-new-hampshire-following-his-momentum-there/

[floriduck]

118. You're entitled to your opinion.

But this is only today's concerted effort to distract from the fact that Bernie is headed towards wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. And I am entitled to that opinion.

[riversedge]

119. Nate Silver has Hillary at 82% to win Iowa--Same as last everning

[Rosa Luxemburg]

106. When will Hillary's weather-vane point in the right direction

she is the supporter of privatized health care now - who would have thought?

[Alfresco]

107. So you can't answer the question either. hmm...

[riversedge]

112. You repeat the word in most of your posts. Suggest get something new. It is boring.

[Recursion]

8. The one with a 7% payroll tax?

Oy

[Warren Stupidity]

13. On employers. Oy. On individuals: 2.2% - 5.2% depending on income. Oy.

[Recursion]

17. Yeah, good luck with that

If you think that's a platform you can win on...

[Warren Stupidity]

19. reducing average healthcare costs for everyone?

yeah that is a sure loser. What has the Democratic Party been thinking for the last 70 years?

[msanthrope]

22. that is going to fuck every single down ballot Democrat. nt

[Recursion]

23. But at least somebody will have "fought", or something

I don't know.

[msanthrope]

28. we have a chance to take the Senate back.

I start to wonder when certain but not all Bernie Sanders supporters don't seem to understand that.

[EdwardBernays]

24. lol

desperate measures eh Hillary supporters...

Can you maybe get Chelsea to go say that for you?

[msanthrope]

27. you're laughing at losing Senate races?

Your post is a perfect example of why Democrats who are desperately working for those down ballot Democrats distrust the Sanders campaign.

[EdwardBernays]

30. I'm laughing at your desperate fearmongering

It's transparently false and smacks of the fear you must feel at the prospects of chocking again in Iowa.

[Agschmid]

37. Which part?

Under Sanders plan taxes will go up (mostly true, using the data posted above by Warren), taxes could go up anywhere from 2-5% (true). Historically running on a plan which raises taxes is not usually a winning GE strategy (true), we've never really seen someone run on raises taxes while offering single payer, no data on how the voters will respond (mostly true).

How a nominee performs has an effect on down ticket races (true).

So where is the fear mongering. A more productive use of our time would be asking to see all the candidates full plans so we know what they really offer.

[EdwardBernays]

47. No

Sanders is going to be lowering most people medical bills, imposing taxes much more fairly, closing corporate tax loopholes, lower the cost of education and providing universal single player Healthcare.

Voters will look at that and compare it to Trump or Cruz and flock to Sanders.

They'll also see it as being a lot more FAIR than the previous administrations which may not raise taxes directly, but bailout banks, launch wars and give tax cuts to the wealthy.

If you honestly think Sanders platform - considering he's already mentioned a tax hike on the middle class and so has the media, and considering he called himself a democratic SOCIALIST - then you've not been paying attention.

Voters have no problem paying taxes if they get universal health care and affordable schools and if the rich ALSO pay what's fair.

Considering that Hillary is part of the 1% and has so often taken money from the 1% voters will see her pandering to the middle class for what it is: politicking.

That's one of the many reasons people from both parties don't trust her.

You're surrounded by liberals and progressives that don't trust Hillary. I don't. Consider that we too want to win, but not by voting for someone we don't trust or like.

[Agschmid]

50. Hmmm...

While I understand your points, I don't agree. First we haven't (or maybe just I haven't) seen the full Sanders plan for healthcare. Again based on Warrens post in this thread it seems taxes would rise... And I can't imagine that won't be in almost every republican commercial.

The tax thing isn't really tested in a GE situation, yes it plays in a democratic primary but beyond that who knows?

And although I may be surrounded on DU by people who don't trust Hillary it's a bit different IRL and that's where I spend most of my time.

[Ed Suspicious]

54. When I think of what costs me more every year, is it taxes or is it healthcare? Far and away it is

HEALTHCARE! Not even a contest.

[EdwardBernays]

58. yeah but

In real life, if you go to see a rally by the two candidates you'll find that the PASSION and the butts in seats are primarily going to one of the two candidates. Yeah, a lot of Washington players are promoting Hillary, but the vast number of normal voters engaged in the process are out there working for Sanders. You can see that by his fundraising as well. The largest number of contributors ever to a political campaign.

That's real life.

As for Republican ads, so what? People are going to be deciding between either a crazy Evangelical Christian with ties to big banks, or Donald Trump, and Sanders. Who are people going to choose? Trump? Because of a 2% payroll tax increase? Especially if that means guaranteed universal healthcare and affordable education? People aren't stupid.

2% of someone's salary, earning less than 60,000 is less than $1200 saved in healthcare. even if those number are twice as bad as that, do you REALLY think people will trade giving their families guaranteed healthcare and guaranteed access to some college education, for a grand or two?

People just aren't that stupid.

Especially poor people, who often have ZERO access to healthcare and education. They'd die to give their kids a future with those things.

And I can't believe minorities would sit at home to let Trump win?

C'Mon.

Sanders people are passionate. They'll drive UP the voter turnout. Hillary is continually seen as dishonest or unlikeable - she'll drive it down. Look at her tiny crowds. Look how she polls worse against Trump.

Be reasonable.

[CorkySt.Clair]

97. I like Bernie's plan

Or at least, what I know of it. I'm still not completely understanding what happens to health insurance companies. I don't get the feeling they are going to ride off quietly into the night as wonderful as that would be.

But while many here understand that their small payroll tax increase would be more than offset by the elimination of healthcare premiums, this is not a country that does nuance very well. And there is a bit of nuance to what Bernie is proposing.

[Hiraeth]

88. when have we been wininng senate races?

Your post is a perfect example of why Democrats who are desperately working for those down ballot Democrats distrust the Clinton campaign.

[Dretownblues]

103. Really

Because I see Clintons inability to attract Independents and progressive democrats that will hurt down ticket democrats.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

46. That's cheaper than health insurance premiums and deductibles!

nt

[Recursion]

75. Depends. I've had jobs where it was less and jobs where it was more

There are lots of people who will take home less money than they do now if a flat payroll levy replaced insurance premiums.

[Goblinmonger]

69. You do know that your payments for insurance go away right?

[Recursion]

74. And so people whose employers pay for their insurance do worse

As do those who don't have insurance, or have catastrophic plans they don't use.

[Goblinmonger]

80. Who has an employer that pays all their insurance any more.

I'm a high school teacher. We have traditionally had the best benefits. I pay a couple hundred a month. And my deductible is $2,000. That's over $4000 I will not be paying. Plus my copays and other nonsense I have to pay beyond my deductible. I'm going to come out ahead.

[Recursion]

83. Several of mine have

I've been contracting for a few years now so I don't know what's standard. It's certainly not as rare as some people here seem to think.

[Warren Stupidity]

99. Nope. Apparently they have bought into rightwing

world views where taxes are a special bad kind of cost.

[riversedge]

79. Whow. Business will NOT like that. Now wonder he hides these figures

[Warren Stupidity]

95. Whow who cares? By the way for businesses

Last edited Thu Jan 14, 2016, 01:02 PM - Edit history (1)

currently providing health insurance this will likely be a reduction in per employee costs. Whow.

[restorefreedom]

64. thread fucking win. nt

[Human101948]

2. Top Economist Says Bernie’s Plan Will Actually SAVE the US $5 Trillion

Well it turns out that Gerald Friedman, the economist whose analysis was used for the WSJ article saw it and wrote an open letter to them explaining that Sanders’ single payer healthcare proposal would actually SAVE America $5.08 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

There is no doubt that Sanders is looking to spend to fix our stagnant economy. But that is no different than any other candidate. The only question is, how are they looking to spend it?

http://usuncut.com/politics/top-economist-says-bernies-plan-will-actually-save-the-us-5-trillion/

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

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.

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

[Alfresco]

5. When will Bernie release his full tax plan as promised?

[Human101948]

9. That horse is dead!

http://media2.picsearch.com/is?TioNIVf9RhUSOdStVpHVa3Uy3AEgKuCxmuIaGtOYlvE&height=277

[riversedge]

114. Are you saying Bernie will not keep his promise??....

From todays nytimes.....Jan 14




.....Mr. Sanders has promised to release details of how he would pay for his universal health care plan before the caucuses, and Mrs. Clinton has been warning that his proposal would mean a big tax increase on the middle class.

No word on whether Mr. Sanders will offer more specifics about paying for the plan on Thursday................

www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/14/bernie-sanders-heads-to-new-hampshire-following-his-momentum-there/

[Bohunk68]

48. Do you have any other questions besides the one that has been answered to

you repeatedly? You are not winning any converts.

[Alfresco]

73. Please show me where Bernie has released his full tax plan. You can't. He hasn't.

[riversedge]

116. You are correct--According to todays nytimes. Sanders promised to say how will pay for his

health plan--but so far sanders has been on the slow side.



.....Mr. Sanders has promised to release details of how he would pay for his universal health care plan before the caucuses, and Mrs. Clinton has been warning that his proposal would mean a big tax increase on the middle class.

No word on whether Mr. Sanders will offer more specifics about paying for the plan on Thursday................

www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/14/bernie-sanders-heads-to-new-hampshire-following-his-momentum-there/

[Recursion]

11. Good luck with that

FFS if he runs on a multi-trillion dollar tax increase we might as well hand the GOP the keys to the WH.

I mean, come on. You can't seriously think "it saves money overall" will help with that backlash, can you?

[sonofspy777]

40. The tax increase is an actual cost decrease!

You're missing the obvious

[Recursion]

44. You think voters will care?

They won't

[99Forever]

55. The ones with functional brains do.

Can't speak to the dumb asses that don't.

[Recursion]

56. But winning candidates have to (nt)

[99Forever]

60. Winning candidates?

You mean like ones that fail to even get on the ballot in critical states? Those kinds of "winning candidates?"

[tazkcmo]

65. Ouch. n/t

[Recursion]

68. Do you think I imagine my candidate is winning? (nt)

[99Forever]

72. You political preference kind of speaks to value of...

...taking your advice about how to conduct a campaign.

[tazkcmo]

66. They polls show they do.

Usually, people that support a candidate also support that candidate's general ideas and specific policies so, yes, I think the voters do and will care that under a Sanders presidency, they will benefit from access to health CARE (not insurance) while at the same time saving money. If they didn't care why is Sanders beating Clinton in both early states and closing rapidly in Nevada?

[Recursion]

76. I think that's false

Usually, people that support a candidate also support that candidate's general ideas and specific policies

I think there's very little evidence for that claim.

[tazkcmo]

77. Really?

That's a very strange statement. Why do you support O'Malley then? Because he's cute?

[Recursion]

81. It's not "strange"; it's broadly accepted among political operatives

People vote on the emotional connection a candidate makes with them.

I like O'Malley because I like his temperent and judgment. He reminds me of Obama.

[tazkcmo]

86. Only emotion?

Would you still support O'M if his policies reflected those of a more conservative politician? I do agree that emotion plays a roll and even concede that between two similar candidates in policy position, emotion (Charisma? "Presidential"?) plays an increased role. I have to go to work now but thank you for the civil discussion. I look forward to reading your reply this evening! Have a nice day!

[Autumn]

91. I have never voted based on an emotional connection to a candidate.

I choose the candidate that sides with me on specific policies. I really like Hunstman, one of the nicest people I have ever met. He's a republican so I sure as hell would never vote for him.

[newblewtoo]

89. The GOP

is salivating over writing the ad. "Obama promised $2500 savings and you could keep your doctor." Yada yada yada Fade to a red faced agitated Sanders barely audible with a overlay the proposed tax increase. "Now another Socialist promises you will save XXXX while raising taxes on the embattled middle class".

Yeah, that plan is a win/win. <sarcasm> For the GOP. It will make the Dukakis defeat look like a day at the beach. Sorry, Recursion is right. Overestimating the uninformed voters based on projection of your belief in their ability to see beyond their own nose is a real bad idea. Here on DU we study issues but this is not the norm in the independent voting world. If you don''t believe that, next time you are in a grocery store ask three or four people at random if they are willing to pay higher taxes to fund universal health care. If they say yes, ask them how much they would be willing to pay.

[Green Forest]

3. Iowans deserve to know why Hillary and Chelsea lie about Bernie's health care plan

See how That works?

[Alfresco]

6. When will Bernie release his full tax plan as promised?

[Green Forest]

35. When it's ready. When will Hillary and her campaign stop lying about Bernie?

See how That works?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

93. Do you see how having LIAR associated with your candidate can be fatal?

You will.

[Alfresco]

100. Come on now, be nice to Green Forest. :-)

[DisgustipatedinCA]

101. I am being nice, but I won't be nice to a candidate who lies about my candidate.

That one-way valve closed forever yesterday morning.

[Alfresco]

102. I'm sure Green Forest didn't mean any harm. Just let it go, you'll feel better for it. :-)

[DisgustipatedinCA]

104. I'll just keep on doing as I see fit, if that works for you. Thanks.

[EdwardBernays]

31. They know why

Because she'll say anything to get elected... and she'll convince her daughter to lie for her as well...

[beam me up scottie]

7. LOL! How many ops is this now? Beat that dead horse!

WHACK WHACK WHACK!

[Alfresco]

12. Sometimes constant refocusing is needed. :-)

[virtualobserver]

14. needed when Hillary is panicking

[Alfresco]

15. When Bernie releases his full tax plan I will stop, not until. :-)

[Goblinmonger]

70. No you won't.

Stop giving us hope through false promises.

[Alfresco]

71. When Bernie fulfills his promise to release the tax plan, I'll quit asking about it. Scouts honor.

[Duckhunter935]

20. you noticed too

He does not answer about Hillary's and Chelsea's outright lies too.

[beam me up scottie]

25. Well performance art can be entertaining.

[Alfresco]

26. Good Morning Duckhunter. :-)

[Duckhunter935]

42. good morning

Of to work and another VIP tour

[Warren DeMontague]

16. 15 TRILLION!?! holy FUCK! Wow, that sure sounds like a lot.

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/24/the_wall_street_journal_gets_whacked_how_its_bernie_sanders_hit_piece_completely_backfired_partner/

Because the simple fact is: We, as a people, are going to spend that $15 trillion on health care anyway. The difference is that under the current model, we pay that money to private insurance companies. And those private companies have much higher levels of administrative costs, fraud and general waste than Medicare does. Another difference is that the government would be negotiating drug prices, making drugs more affordable for everyone.

And who would see that $5 trillion in savings? Businesses for one. Along with state and local governments. Because they wouldn’t have to pay for their employees’ insurance — who’d be covered by Medicare for All.

By the way, there, Florida avatar? Next time you see DWS, tell her thanks from us Sanders supporters. As a public face closely associated with the Clinton campaign, when she goes to the NY Times and bashes Millennial women, or defends throwing pot users in prison with an absolutely ludicrous series of totally incoherent "reefer madness" gibberish answers, Sanders' poll numbers go up. As you can see.

So, thanks Debbie!

[Autumn]

92. That's pretty clear on the $!5 trillion . Thanks

[coyote]

18. No way will it cost 15 trillion

That´s why cost controls are important. You're not suppose to pay $20,000/visit to the ER for a broken finger. Or 15-25K for Caesarian where the rest of the developed work cost 10 to 20% of that.

Europe has health care for all and regulated costs for treatment. Why is America somehow special in that we cannot do the same thing? I call bullshit.

One thing is for sure, for-profit healthcare has to go.

[Alfresco]

21. That is why Bernie needs to release his full tax plan so we will know the costs.

[coyote]

32. Why?

I just need to know in what direction he wants to go in. He can hammer out the details later. Clinton has already told me that cannot be done, I believe otherwise and therefore will not support her.

Let´s see Clinton´s plan to reign in the banks besides "Cut it out!" Even if she has a plan, I would not believe anything she says. She has a serious credibility problem.

[virtualobserver]

41. and he will

[Recursion]

29. No. Single Payer doesn't magically make doctors make less money

Worse yet, once it's in place, any attempt to lower costs gets attacked by pharma and the AMA as "cutting Medicare".

Did yoy ever notice how much more Medicare pays for treatments compared to other countries? And most of them don't have single payer. They just have explicit price controls, and doctors that make about $70K a year.

[coyote]

36. Here are some salaries of Doctors in Germany...mind you the Euro is 10% stronger than the Dollar.

There cost of health care is 50% less than the US. These are just averages. Horrible I tell ya, horrible,

Fachrichtung Durchschnittl. Bruttoeinnahmen aus kassenärztl. Tätigkeit Durchschnittl. kassen- und prrivatärztlicher Bruttogewinn
Allgemeinmediziner 187.000 € 107.000 €
Neurologen / Psychiater 135.000 € 98.000 €
Kinderarzt 193.000 € 109.000 €
Frauenarzt 190.000 € 118.000 €
Hautarzt 169.000 € 106.000 €
Augenarzt 222.000 € 153.000 €
HNO Arzt 174.000 € 149.000 €
Internist 397.000 € 117.000 €
Chirurg 202.000 € 125.000 €
Urologe 198.000 € 169.000 €
Orthopäde 237.000 € 134.000 €
Radiologe 402.000 € 230.000 €

http://www.gehaltsreporter.de/gehaelter-von-a-bis-z/89.html

[Recursion]

38. Check your data. German doctors start under 50k and max out at 80k

except for a few hard to fill specialties (which you seem to have cherry picked)

And it's not "horrible", but we are going to need to figure out a way to convince doctors to do more work than they are now, for less money.

[coyote]

45. You´re wrong and nor am I cherry picking the data.

Check your data.

[Recursion]

85. Here's a start

http://medlines.org/2013/07/25/they-pay-less-for-a-hungarian-doctors-than-other-workers-medical-salaries-europe/

Doctors pretty much wverywhere make significantly less than American doctors.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

49. Max out at $80,000

Is that in dollars?

I can't imagine most doctors putting in 80 and 90 hour weeks on that salary. I wouldn't. Sure, it's more than the average person makes, but they also go to school for many years more than most folks.

[Elmergantry]

59. No way in hell

Would I sacrifice 10 yrs of my life for education/training and taking on 250K in debt for 80K per year return.

[Ron Green]

87. You won't take on huge debt in a changed system.

A universal system will take out of the loop lots of predatory practices that characterize our profit-driven environment now, including this one.

[Elmergantry]

98. Huh?

How is the cost of the education of a doctor going to change with SP?

Tuition is Tuition.

[Ron Green]

115. In a rational system, the "free market" (including med. school loans) doesn't control everything.

Needed doctors won't have to bear these costs in the same ways, 'cause a comprehensive system will subsidize them.

Here's an anecdote: Bend, Oregon has SEVEN MRI machines. They need two, but the "free market" has allowed this business decision to be made, while parts of Oregon have NO machines, and people must travel great distances for these images. A rational system puts resources where they're needed, at prices people can afford. This includes paying for med school for doctors who aren't going to make $3 million a year. Whether doctors NEED to make $3M a year - well, that's another discussion.

On edit: Oops, I'm sorry I kicked this shitty thread, which is mostly about ragging on Bernie and less about really trying for a better health care system in this country.

[Elmergantry]

117. cause a comprehensive system will subsidize them.

Where did you hear this?

[Ron Green]

120. Try PNHP. Or HCAO. Or MVHCA.

This stuff is not hard to understand, it's just hard to do. It takes politicians and stakeholders who are not cowards or bought off by the money interests.

[Recursion]

84. Euros. And yet it happens all over Europe

http://medlines.org/2013/07/25/they-pay-less-for-a-hungarian-doctors-than-other-workers-medical-salaries-europe/

And it happens more often than here; they have more doctors per capita than us (almost every country does).

[DFW]

109. Hope your German is up to this

From the Gehaltsreporter (Gehalt=salary):

Laut einer Hochrechnung der FAZ basierend auf Daten der Kassenärztlichen Bundesvereinigung lagen die Jahreshonorare von Allgemeinmedizinern (Vertragsärzte, ohne Privateinnahmen) im Jahr 2007 bei rund 187.000 €. Ein Internist kommt danach auf kassenärztliche Einnahmen von 397.000 € pro Jahr, ein Radiologe auf 402.000 €

In case your Deutsch is a little rusty: "In 2007, according to an overall accounting by the FAZ [major Frankfurt paper] based on data provided by the [German] federal association of 'Kassenärtzten (doctors that take general, as opposed to exclusive private, patients),' the yearly salary earned by GPs (excluding their private income) for the year 2007 was around €187000. An internist took in from the various insurance entities [Germany has no single payer, despite what some posts claim] 397000 Euros a year, and a radiologist earned 402000 Euros."

I don't know where 50000 to 80000 Euros came from, but it wasn't any time in recent history. I live in Germany, and have friends who are doctors. I promise you, there is no way your numbers are accurate.

[Protalker]

33. Freedom to move

How many people stay in unhappy jobs because of having lousy insurance with $3000 plus copay before insurance coughs up one nickel. This will be gone with singlebpayer. Pay in tax some of my insurance savings and be free. THINK about it.

[Alfresco]

82. Its not about the merits of his proposal. It's about puting the financials out for voters to decide.

[Vinca]

34. Just an observation.

My Medicare premium is 1/6 what my insurance premium was under Obamacare and 1/10 what it was the last time I could afford regular, private insurance. Which makes more sense - Medicare for all or private insurance? If it costs $15 trillion, multiply that by at least 3 times for the cost of private premiums - more like 4 or 5 times. Medicare, no matter how you try to twist it, is a bargain.

[Green Forest]

39. STOP FEEDING THIS THREAD. LET IT DIE because the OP wants it to be kicked by angry Berners.

Let's kick what deserves kicking.

[Alfresco]

43. No, I want Bernie to release his full tax plan. Simple as that.

I've got to run to the store, be back in a jiffy.

[99Forever]

63. As my dear departed Irish Mother used to say:

"People in Hell want ice water too."

[Agschmid]

52. So you kick it?

[stonecutter357]

51. K&R!

[stonecutter357]

53. K&R!

[djean111]

57. We are going to spend that money ANYWAY. This is not on top of what we are already spending.

So pfft! And I don't think I can support someone who deliberately misleads Americans about this.

[leftofcool]

61. K&R

[Trajan]

62. How clever ! ...

Repeating that question over and over again ...

Now ? ... gone ! ....

[Alfresco]

67. I'm back. Got a question about my question? :-)

[mmonk]

94. Republican tack. Show us the cost without

the savings.

[Alfresco]

96. Yeah that Bernie. He hasn't shown the cost or the savings in his tax plan like promised.

[riversedge]

113. The ball is in Bernies court--He needs to keep his promise......

From todays Nytimes.




.....Mr. Sanders has promised to release details of how he would pay for his universal health care plan before the caucuses, and Mrs. Clinton has been warning that his proposal would mean a big tax increase on the middle class.

No word on whether Mr. Sanders will offer more specifics about paying for the plan on Thursday................

www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/14/bernie-sanders-heads-to-new-hampshire-following-his-momentum-there/

[R B Garr]

105. If he keeps playing these games, it's only going to

anger people and then turn them off. I've already seen it happen.