Where has Sanders said that his Medicare for all plan would expand Medicare

[pnwmom]

to cover 100% of expenses, both medical and hospital, versus the 80% it currently covers?

Right now, Medicare recipients who don't also qualify for Medicaid must buy private insurance to cover the remaining 20%. So Medicare-for-all wouldn't be enough for many people who couldn't afford the additional private insurance. Where has he addressed how the 20% of costs would be covered?

[riversedge]

1. I have not found any detailed health proposal on his web site and we know he has not

released HOW he would pay for his "plan"---whatever it is.
(see below)

but back to your questions--by expanding Medicare he is talking of dismantling all the health programs we now have and lumping them into one Universal program. He really has not said this publicly as far as I know but that is what will happen.




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/y

[Autumn]

2. Does private insurance cover 100% of expenses, both medical and hospital?

I wasn't aware Bernie had said that Medicare for all would cover 100% of expenses, both medical and hospital. Do you have a link to him saying that please? I'm running to the store but I will be back to check out your link. TIA

[dsc]

5. single payer systems do

that is what single payer means (the single payer being the government). If he isn't doing that, then he shouldn't be calling his system single payer and his savings per person are way off.

[Schema Thing]

7. Canadians purchase private insurance. Go sell doubt and fear elsewhere.

[dsc]

9. for the most part that is quite inaccurate

Most of what is normally considered part of a health care plan (doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, etc) are single payer in Canada. The only major part of what is covered by health insurance here that isn't public there is prescription drugs. Medicare doesn't cover nursing homes past a very short term situation (Canada does), doesn't cover hospitals completely (Canada does), doesn't cover doctors completely (Canada does). Only vision and dental are uncovered by both and of those only dental is crazy expensive.

[Recursion]

30. Here's Canadian and US healthcare spending by source

And here it is by recipient



Interestingly, Canadians pay a greater percent of their health care costs out of pocket than Americans, though because the costs are lower it's a lower absolute amount...

As it is, about 1/8th of Canadian health care spending is paid by private insurance, vs. about 1/3rd in the US:

[Autumn]

25. So I believe there is no link to Sanders saying any of that

[dsc]

38. The clear implication is that there would be no consumer spending on health care

certainly not the nearly 20% that Medicare necessitates. If he is really leaving 20% of the cost on the consumer than the savings we keep hearing about in terms of consumer spending are way less than being discussed here.

[Autumn]

45. Do you have a link to Bernie saying that? Not an implication but the actual words that

that Medicare for all would cover 100% of expenses, both medical and hospital? I would rather my tax dollars pay a subsidy into a program like Medicare rather than the 80/20 plans, or worse the bronze crap that some people are lucky enough to purchase at this time through the ACA from private companies.

[Hoyt]

3. Medicare doesn't cover dental or hearing aids either, yet people talk as if single payer would.

I'd love to see it, but this is America where right wingers say we can't afford it. Yet, we afford bombs and other worthless crud.

Sanders is right, we ought to have all that stuff. But he can't deliver it.

[notadmblnd]

10. So let's not try?

There are studies and it can be done. Including Dental. Go read the article at the link I provided down thread. At the end of the article there are quite a few citations that back up the article. Make sure you check them out too.

[Hoyt]

19. Didn't say not to try, just don't expect much from the efforts.

[Ed Suspicious]

27. Expect nothing with no effort. Get on board or get the fuck out of the way.

[Hoyt]

34. I can wave my arms around like Sanders and grouse about it. Won't change anything.

In fact, the earliest I remember pushing for universal health care was like 1982.

Cute little phrases won't get it done or get Sanders elected. Ask George McGovern.

[notadmblnd]

4. I don't think Sanders has said it yet

From a 2013 study:

a landmark study in 2013 by Gerald Friedman, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, we have a solid financial analysis of the costs and benefits of a single-payer national health plan. With NHI, $592 billion would be saved annually by cutting the administrative waste of some 1,300 private health insurers ($476 billion) and reducing pharmaceutical prices to European levels ($116 billion). These savings would be enough to cover all of the 44 million uninsured (at the time of his study) and upgrade benefits for all other Americans, even including dental and long-term care. A single-payer public financing system would be established, similar to traditional (not privatized) Medicare, coupled with a private delivery system. Instead of having to pay the increasing costs of private health insurance, so often with unaffordable deductibles and other cost-sharing, patients would present their NHI cards at the point of service without cost-sharing or other out-of-pocket costs. Care would be based on medical need, not ability to pay. (2)

The current single-payer bill in the House of Representatives, H. R. 676, The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D. MI), includes funding to absorb the costs of converting investor-owned facilities, such as hospitals, nursing homes and ambulatory surgery centers, to non-profit status over a 15-year transition period. Savings would also fund $51 billion in transition costs, such as retraining displaced workers. (3)

When we look at cost controls after NHI is enacted, the argument for it becomes even more compelling. Cost controls would include negotiated annual budgets with hospitals, nursing homes and other facilities, negotiated fees with physicians and other health care professionals, and bulk purchasing for prescription drugs, as the Veterans Administration has done for many years in getting 40 percent discounts. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/32945-calculating-the-cost-of-bernie-sanders-single-payer-health-program

[Warren Stupidity]

6. S. 1782.

Universal comprehensive health care from birth to death.

[pnwmom]

8. Medicare is considered comprehensive but it only covers 80%. CNN says that his Senate

bill, assuming that's what you posted, would require a new 9% tax on wages. Does his bill, with the wage tax, cover 100% or not?

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Google it. You should inform yourself.

Ignorance is no excuse.

[Punkingal]

17. She won't. An answer is not the point of the OP.

[pnwmom]

20. I did. If you know the answer, other than pointing to a 3 year old bill,

then please provide it.

If that bill is the basis of his new proposal, then why is Weaver saying the numbers might not be ready before Iowa? Doesn't he have the numbers for his 2013 bill and know what his 2013 bill was supposed to cover? What will be different about his 2016 plan?

[notadmblnd]

12. Well if CNN says it, it must be true right?

Never mind looking up and reading the bill or any of the links provided here yourself. The Great CNN has spoken!

[stonecutter357]

13. +1

[Fawke Em]

15. Don't forget that the average American is currently paying 15 percent of their income

to health insurance companies.

Most Americans would save 5 to 6 percent with single payer.

On edit: I found this story that says the cost would only be a 2.2 percent increase in taxes on average earners:

Simplicity of use and breadth of coverage would be big draws for consumers.

You could go to the doctor or spend two weeks in the hospital and not worry about getting a bill.

No insurance premiums, deductibles, cost-sharing or copays, even for brand-name medications. Gone would be worries about being penalized for seeing an out-of-network doctor.

Long-term care would be covered, whether in a nursing facility or one’s own home. Most dental care would be covered, too.

That’s attractive, especially for working families struggling with out-of-pocket costs for health care.

But the plan would raise taxes. Among them would be a new 2.2 percent “health care income tax,” with higher rates for upper-income earners

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/what-you-should-know-about-berniecare-sanders-proposed-health-overhaul/

[pnwmom]

18. Most full time workers have insurance paid for by their employers, so they're not

paying 15% of their income to insurance companies.

[Goblinmonger]

21. You have some actual facts

to back up that "most full time workers have insurance paid for by their employers"? Because I don't think that's true. My employer pays some but not all. Most people have out-of-pocket expenses as well as very high deductibles.

Secondly, if the amount of money my employer pays to me in benefits is decreased, it would be logical that my income should increase. They aren't out any more money; it just goes to a different place.

[pnwmom]

23. Are you saying that you pay 15% of your income to your health insurer?

And while it may be logical that an employer could raise your salary to give you back what he is saving, do you actually think that is LIKELY?

[Goblinmonger]

24. I actually checked after I posted.

I pay 3.8% of my gross income in monthly payments. When we add in what I have paid in deductible and copays, that brings it up to 11% of my gross income. And I have what, in this area anyway, is considered a good benefits package.

If we look at what my employer pays, they pay another 19% of my gross salary for monthly health insurance payments. I would get most of that money added into my gross income if they weren't paying it to insurance. I don't know if it is likely that that money would go to employees, but it should. If I have to pay a 9% income tax for single payer, I'm ahead.

[notadmblnd]

22. Quite the contrary. Most people employers withhold insurance premiums from their employees

paychecks to pay for a portion of their own insurance. My son's (who makes 13.75 an hour) employer withholds 59 dollars per week from his paycheck to pay for his health insurance. That's 236.00 per month or almost 3k per year.

I receive survivors benefits from my deceased husbands employer, but they still deduct a monthly premium for my health care insurance from a portion of his pension that I receive. The benefits from the corporation my husband worked for are considered some of the best in the country.

If you have an employer that pays all the costs of your health insurance, consider yourself among a lucky minority.

[Punkingal]

42. That is not true.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ebs2.t04.htm

Link from bureau of labor statistics.

Furthermore, what about retired people? I pay half my social security check for insurance. HALF! If I didn't have a husband with a good income, I would be totally screwed, as I imagine many people are. It's very sad, the state of our health-care system, and you and people like you mislead and plant false information, and have zero compassion for people.

[Autumn]

28. Got a link toBernie saying that Medicare for all would cover 100% of expenses

both medical and hospital? I asked earlier but you seem to be ignoring that request. However I and many others would pay less with a 9% tax on wages than I do in premiums, deductibles and co pays A lot less, sounds like a bargain to me

[dsc]

40. If it isn't paying 100% you would still have the deductibles and co pays

the fact your insurance doesn't pay 100 percent is why you have them now.

[Autumn]

43. DO you or the OP have a link to Bernie saying that Medicare for all would cover 100% of expenses,

both medical and hospital? That's my question.

[Recursion]

41. If it doesn't it won't help

Medcare part A and B is worse than a Bronze ACA plan: $1000 deductible, 20% copay after that, and no out of pocket maximum. That doesn't actually help people who need it.

[Autumn]

44. My Husband has Medicare. Here's my question. Is there a link to Bernie saying

that Medicare for all would cover 100% of expenses, both medical and hospital? I want to see where he said that since the OP has implied it. What I pay for insurance for myself now would more than pay for any additional insurance for both of us with Medicare for all with money left over. By the way, the ACA doesn't actually help people who need it either.

[Recursion]

46. Which is why people would like him to release the plan

The 2013 Senate Bill eliminates copays and deductibles, but it's never been scored by CBO so we really have no idea how much it would cost.

[Autumn]

47. And he will. It's still better than the ACA and that alloted money can go into Medicare for all

Last edited Thu Jan 14, 2016, 05:16 PM - Edit history (1)

so that will be even cheaper. I remember the republicans, over and over, How will the ACA be paid for? I'm seeing the same thing today and that's a pretty damn sad question to be asked about healthcare for the American people by democrats.

[Fawke Em]

14. Yup.

Here's S.17872: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1782/text#toc-H38709115475B46B18C3BED503FDACC77

[Armstead]

16. Bernie is not going to instantly change the system. There are options that will be hashed out

His goal is single payer. If he were to achjieve that, obviously the expanded Medicare would have to pick up the slack from private insurance.

If it is a mixed system (temporarily or permanently) that formulas would be worked out to coiver those differences.

[winter is coming]

37. I think it's ludicrous to expect Bernie to have a turnkey-from-day-one plan in his hip pocket.

Healthcare is a complex issue, and it's going to take a lot of political and mental effort to square the circle on single payer. We have seen that single payer works in other countries, though, and that the current structure in our country is falling apart. That's enough to tell me that I'd rather vote for the candidate willing to move toward a proven working model than one clinging to a broken one.

At this point, it comes down to trust. I trust that Bernie is sincere when he talks about making healthcare work for everyone. I'm not worried about hidden gotchas because that's never been Bernie's MO, in all the years he's held public office. "Trust" is a long-term benefit of playing it straight with the voters. I eagerly await the details of Bernie's healthcare proposals, but I don't need to have everything spelled out to know that Bernie's going to do his best to benefit all of us.

[randys1]

26. I like you and I like a lot of your push-back against very obnoxious stuff around here, I do

but



you could hear that coming a mile away, right!

What we dont want to do is attack Bernie's plan in a similar way that we know the right will.

I too want him to put out a detailed plan of how to pay for it, and it will be costly but it can be done.

I dont want to demean the idea, though, and I don't think you do either.

and yes, I am SICK of the endless bashing of Hillary, using words like absurd, and so on...implying she is a war criminal, and that I must be one too in that I dont like it when they use Kissinger to harm our candidate. It is become INSANE around here...yes

[Bjornsdotter]

29. Hope this helps...

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

[randys1]

31. Good info...2.2% is all? If so, count me IN

Employer tax of 6.7 is less than what most now pay in health insurance, so it is a win win

If this is doable per your link, then I dont see how any liberal or democrat could be against it, or for that matter anybody.

As to the other 20% that isnt now covered, we could cover that by increasing those tax rates ever so slightly, right!

HINT on how to sell this

STOP BASHING HILLARY

[Bjornsdotter]

32. I know it's less

...than what we pay for our employees.

I think this is one of those things everyone has to really sit down and figure out how it would effect them financially.

[randys1]

33. And like I said, if you want to sell this, a. stop bashing Hillary

b. if Hillary is the nominee, pressure her to adopt this
not accusing you

[Bjornsdotter]

36. Hillary

...was on board with this during the '90's and I would hope if she is the nominee she would revisit it.

[pnwmom]

35. Then why can't Bernie release these numbers before Iowa, if this is accurate?

He wrote the bill in 2013, so he's had enough time to put this together.

[Bjornsdotter]

39. I don't speak for Bernie

...or his campaign. As the Iowa Caucus is till 2 weeks away he still has time to release the numbers.

Bernie has said his plan will be very similar to the one posted upthread and to the link I provided. It not as if we don't have a clue how it will be.

No one's election proposals are ever written in stone...no ones.