Discussing how much things cost is not a "right-wing talking point".

[DanTex]

Particularly when it comes to single-payer, which failed in Vermont because they couldn't figure out how to fund it.

It's funny, Bernie supporters always insist it's about "policy", but even the most obvious policy observations (like "single payer costs a lot&quot are responded to with snark and accusations of being a right-wing troll.

The cost of single payer will run in the neighborhood of $1.5 trillion per year, and that estimate is from a pro-single-payer economist.

To put that number in perspective, $1.5 trillion is approximately equal to the total income tax revenue collected in a year by the Federal Government (the total tax collected including payroll and corporate taxes is about $3.1T). So basically, single payer would require doubling the total amount of income tax in some form. Can we get it all from the 1%? No. The 1% pay about 25% of income taxes, so even if we double the rate for 1%ers, it would still only raise one quarter of the additional funds we need. Can we get it from corporate taxes? No. Those are about $300B per year so even doubling them doesn't get us very far.

It's not enough to say "we're already spending that money", if it was, then Vermont would have had single payer by now. And not only is how single payer would be paid for a big policy issue, adding $1.5 trillion in new taxes is (obviously) a big political issue.

Of course, on DU, none of this matters, because whatever Bernie says is gospel. But in the real world, the reason things like this don't get passed is because voters cringe when they hear about the taxes. Basically, what voters want is lots of government services but also low taxes. Yes, that's a contradiction, but it's still what they want. And even if DU decides to collectively ignore the fact that Bernie is proposing massive increases in spending and taxes, you can be sure that the GOP is not going to do that.

There's another possibility with all this. Bernie is smart, surely he knows that single payer has no chance whatsoever of passing, even with big majorities in both houses (which we won't have). Maybe the single payer thing is just lip service, red meat for the base. It's not meant as a serious proposal, just as a nice idea to talk about.

[Journeyman]

1. I'm not asking the 1%, or anyone, to pay for my Single Payer Insurance. . .

I'll gladly pay what I'm giving to corporate insurance carriers now to guarantee adequate, single payer insurance for all in the future.

If all of us who are paying for insurance now (private accounts as well as corporate) paid into funding Single Payer Insurance, and our newly-constituted Single Payer carrier (us) adequately controlled costs, I'm certain we -- as a people -- could find a way to make up any shortfalls to funding the entire system.

[Ichigo Kurosaki]

2. Ask the Veterans how they are enjoying single payer. [nt]

[Fawke Em]

7. They aren't because Congress refuses to fund it.

It works well when it's given budget priority.

Our GOP Congress would rather spend to send them to war than spend to help them once they return.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

12. But it's working better because of Bernie!

That's why he won the 2015 Congressperson of the Year award from the major veterans groups and part of why vets are working hard to get him elected.

[Ron Green]

16. Are you asking me?

My care is excellent; couldn't be better. What is your experience?

[daleanime]

59. Makes two of us....

but I am aware the stress every one at the VA is under because they are not properly funded.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

29. Yep. I'd rather pay all my healthy years dollars in to a system that will be around when I ...

.... actually need it.

Instead of the current model where all my healthy year premiums feather the nest of the for profit insurance companies and when I get old and sick I get pawned off on the government anyway.

[Human101948]

120. An actual fact: Health care costs half and gets better results in other countries!

If we just copy the best aspects of health systems in other developed countries we can actually save trillions.

Arguing over how to pay for it is a waste of time because it assumes that costs cannot be contained. Well, that certainly is true if we keep going with the profit driven system we have now. But that has no relevance if we adopt single payer and the methods that work elsewhere producing BETTER OUTCOMES!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/06/16/once-again-u-s-has-most-expensive-least-effective-health-care-system-in-survey/

A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.

"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.

[Sunlei]

3. I've always thought federal taxes could be raised and Federal subsities removed from any

Corporation that generates a profit off our public lands and exports that product.

Like fuels, mining, livestock and agriculture. Their Federal land lease prices have not been raised in decades.

[handmade34]

4. failed in Vermont

because people here are just as deluded as throughout the entire U.S. yes, people want Gov't services and not pay the taxes necessary to fund those services…

[Fumesucker]

5. Do you really want to talk about what things cost?

Because some things cost a lot more than mere money.

[DanTex]

51. Well, yes, gun violence for example.

[Capn Sunshine]

6. You're making a huge mistake in your figuring

At the moment, total health care spending in the United States runs over $3 trillion a year; according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, over the next decade (from 2015-2024), America will spend a total of $42 trillion on health care. This is money that you and I and everyone else spends. We spend it in a variety of ways: through our health-insurance premiums, through the reduced salaries we get if our employers pick up part or all of the cost of those premiums, through our co-pays and deductibles, and through our taxes that fund Medicare, Medicaid, ACA subsidies, and the VA health care system. We’re already paying about $10,000 a year per capita for health care.

Right now, public healthcare under the insurance system will cost Americans over the same time period as Sanders 18 trillion figure
42 TRILLION DOLLARS.

Which is more? 15 trillion or 42 trillion?

The reason single payer didn't pass in Vermont is because like everywhere, not all parts of the legislature voted "yes" for single payer. Not the money. The relentless lobbying by the Insurance companies and Big Pharma. It was a different time in the previous century. Before we lost complete control.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

13. +1 n/t

[DanTex]

35. Yes, but that money isn't collected in taxes. $15 trillion over 10 years is the estimated

additional amount in taxes that needs to be raised in order to fund single payer. That's in addition to what we is already paid for Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc. $15 trillion is not the total cost of the single payer program, so pretending that it's $15 trillion versus $42 trillion is a silly mistake.

Under optimistic assumptions, single payer might reduce health care costs by 20%. That's optimistic. But regardless, it will still require huge tax increases.

[pa28]

85. You've done a nice job summarizing the case Bernie will have to make.

He'll face a barrage of misinformation and distortion from the right as well as Democratic opponents. However, if anybody can state the facts in a convincing way and win the argument it's Bernie.

[Bjorn Against]

8. If Rupert Murdoch is your source on how much things cost you are using right-wing talking points

[bullwinkle428]

19. Plus One Brazillion.

[DanTex]

33. Like I said, the $1.5T number comes from a pro-single-payer economist.

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf

Out of curiosity, how much do you think it would cost to fund single payer?

[Bjorn Against]

34. Right now we are spending $3 trillion so $1.5 sounds pretty damn good

I know that in your other thread you cited the $18 trillion lie, you pulled that lie directly from Rupert Murdoch.

[DanTex]

37. $1.5T is the additional cost in taxes that is required to fund single payer.

It's not $3T versus $1.5T, and you are clearly intelligent enough to understand this. The government already spends around $1.5T on healthcare due to Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc. What single payer would do is put the other $1.5T under the government as well, which would require raising an additional $1.5T in revenues.

[Bjorn Against]

42. We pay 1.5 trillion and eliminate health insurance premiums, I will take it

Now are you going to retract the Rupert Murdoch $18 trillion lie you repeated in the other thread, or are you going to keep spreading Murdoch propaganda?

[DanTex]

48. Sorry, the $18 trillion is not a lie, it's actually an optimistic estimate of the additional

costs to the government that Bernie is proposing over the next 10 years. For example, it assumes that single payer actually only costs $1.5T and also that health care costs stop rising immediately. Both of those are probably incorrect, so the 10 year costs of what Bernie is proposing likely exceeds $18 trillion.

Like I said, you are smart enough to know this.

[Bjorn Against]

56. So you are going to keep spreading Rupert Murdoch lies

If you focus only on the costs and deliberately ignore the savings you are lying. Most of that $18 trillion is already being spent and we would just be spending it differently.

[DanTex]

57. I'm not ignoring any savings. Again, the numbers already include health care cost savings in them,

and it still amounts to $18 trillion of additional government spending over 10 years. And, also again, that 18 trillion is low, not just because it takes a very optimistic estimate of the single payer cost savings, but also because it assumes no health care cost increases over the decade.

Why is this complicated?

[Bjorn Against]

61. You sure as hell are ignoring savings

I have health insurance premiums deducted from every paycheck, I would see big savings if those premiums were to disappear as would most Americans.

Stop buying Rupert Murdoch's bullshit, you should know better than to trust his numbers.

[DanTex]

64. No I'm not. These are not Rupert Murdoch's numbers, they come from a liberal economist

who supports single payer, and builds in a close to 20% savings into his estimates. That's probably optimistic, so the true costs of single payer are higher than that. But still, even under generous assumptions, we're talking about $1.5 trillion in annual revenues that the government needs to raise.

Yes, health insurance premiums would disappear. Of course. Where did I deny that?

[Bjorn Against]

68. You pretend as if health insurance premiums disappearing are not savings

If you are going to cite Rupert Murdoch's numbers without subtracting the savings from eliminating insurance premiums you are not being honest.

[DanTex]

72. They are not savings to the government. Do you agree?

Obviously, they are savings to the companies or individuals that pay them, but that doesn't change the fact that a huge amount of new taxes are going to be required. Not to mention the fact that some people are trying to pretend that somehow the $1.5 trillion in additional spending is the entire cost of single payer and comparing it to the total cost of healthcare in the status quo, an error so fundamental that an average second grader would see through it. What kind of person do you think would be that dishonest?

[Bjorn Against]

77. Dan you keep repeating Rupert Murdoch propaganda

I know people like you who get their facts from Rupert Murdoch prefer allowing corporate predators to fleece us with their high insurance premiums, but real progressives would rather pay taxes than send our money to the insurance industry predators.

[DanTex]

79. Weird that you keep trying to slander me instead of talking about the actual issues.

Again, my numbers came from a liberal economist who is a proponent of single payer, and, if anything, is optimistic about the cost savings.

And, lest you forget, you did a few posts ago try to pretend that $1.5 trillion was the total cost of single payer as opposed to the additional amount of taxes required. I know you are intelligent enough to know that this is nonsense. So what gives?

[Bjorn Against]

82. You posted a thread tonight pushing Murdoch's $18 trillion number

The 18 trillion crap you were pushing tonight came straight from Murdoch, don't even try to pretend that you got that number from a single payer advocate. $1.5 trillion is not the only number you cited tonight.

[DanTex]

88. $18 trillion is a low estimate, do you disagree?

$15 trillion is from single payer, and like I've explained, not only is that based on an aggressive estimate on cost savings but also doesn't include any inflation over the decade. So single payer alone will probably cost $18 trillion over a decade, not to mention the rest of the stuff. I didn't read the Murdoch article, this is just basic math.

[Bjorn Against]

95. So you did not read the Murdoch published article...

You just happened to do "basic math" and came up with the same numbers as a right-wing hit piece and then just happened to post those numbers the same day the hit piece was published. You are not fooling anyone Dan, we know damn well you got your number from Murdoch.

[DanTex]

97. I read the Friedman study, a pro-single-payer economist, and took $15 trillion,

the same number he came up with. The other $3 trillion in the number comes from the rest of Sanders's domestic proposals.

Let me ask you (although I'm fairly certain you will dodge the question): how much do you think everything Sanders is proposing will cost the government in the next decade?

[Bjorn Against]

110. Bernie has already said he will give a detailed response to Murdoch's numbers

The $18 trillion figure does not come from Bernie nor does it come from Friedman, it comes from Murdoch. I am not going to make up Bernie's budget for him nor am I going to accept Rupert Murdoch's claims for what his budget is, I will get the details from Bernie once he issues his response.

If you had any integrity you would also wait for his numbers rather than accepting Murdoch's numbers at face value.

[DanTex]

113. $15T of it comes from Friedman, single payer is the bulk of it.

And it is interesting that Bernie fans can't defend this without waiting for the messiah to give his next sermon.

[Bjorn Against]

123. I have been defending it Dan, what I won't do is make numbers up

I know you like to pretend Murdoch's numbers are gospel, but the fact is the only person who can speak for Bernie is Bernie. I can't speak for him nor can Rupert Murdoch. It is interesting that you refer to him as the Messiah, that is the same word right-wing extremists used to define Obama.

[DanTex]

124. You keep calling them "Murdoch's numbers" but the numbers come from a liberal

pro-single-payer economist. I've already given you the link. I know it's easier to ignore the numbers and pretend that Rupert Murdoch made them up, but the numbers are the numbers.

And it's also very telling that people can't actually defend the numbers without first waiting to hear how Bernie spins them.

[Bjorn Against]

126. The $18 trillion number is Murdoch's number, Friedman has rejected the number you cite

I just saw that Friedman responded to the numbers you have been pushing and he calls the Wall Street Journal article that your $18 trillion figure comes from a hit piece.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html

And for your info Bernie's numbers have not been released yet, I am not waiting for him to spin the numbers I am waiting for him to present the numbers. It is up to him to create a budget, it is not up to anyone else to tell us his numbers for him.

[DanTex]

127. Friedman did not reject the number, he called it "correct".

The Journal correctly puts the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years.

[Bjorn Against]

130. Nice selective quoting, you missed the part where he talks about the cost savings they ignored

I can't respond any more after this because I have to go to work, but anyone who reads the link will be able to see that you are focusing only on the cost of one program and ignoring how that one program would save us money elsewhere.

[DanTex]

133. Yes, there are cost savings, but that doesn't change the fact that there is also $1.5T in new taxes.

[MoveIt]

136. You are doing the Lords work my friend!

Lets join forces to keep the forces of red china and russia at bay! No Single Payer! #conservadems

[Fawke Em]

137. That economist just blasted the WSJ for

misrepresenting what he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html

Gerald Friedman's research was cited in a Wall Street Journal story about Bernie Sanders's proposals for government spending. Friedman responds to that story below.

It is said of economists that they know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. In the case of the article "Price Tag of Bernie Sanders's Proposals: $18 Trillion," this accusation is a better fit for the Wall Street Journal that published it.

The Journal correctly puts the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.

[HooptieWagon]

9. Parroting Murdoch misinformation is a RW talking point.

The WSJ article ignored the savings of Single Payer in the numbers they claimed. And you repeated the lie.

[DanTex]

50. No, that does not ignore cost savings. That is a lie. The number comes from a liberal

pro-single-payer economist who builds cost savings into his estimate. If anything, the number is too optimistic.
http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf

[TheKentuckian]

10. Because only right wingers believe it costs too much money to spend less whether

they cannot fathom systematic cost or do and are too shady to be honest about it because they prefer the current system even if they are inclined to "curb the worst excesses" in exchange for too big (and getting too DAMN bigger) to fail status, a key to the treasury, and a piece of every working age citizen.

[morningfog]

11. It is when you use bullshit RW "math" and framing. Own it.

[restorefreedom]

14. when your sources are wsj and fox news,

then yeah, it is.

i disagree with you about sp. it is possible, and the direction we will have to go to join the rest of the civilized countries.

[DanTex]

47. My source is a pro-single-payer liberal economist.

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf

Other estimates would place the cost higher, but this is under optimistic assumptions.

[restorefreedom]

55. i will wait to see bernie's response

to the wsj hit piece.

my guess is when you subtract the obscene cost of current health care and add in the tax revenue that the corporate tax cheats have been screwing us out of all these years, there will probably be change due.

but bernie is coming out with some more details soon. i'll look at them

[DanTex]

58. Well, he is the messiah after all, so I understand that.

[restorefreedom]

119. if you say so.

i never called him that, and i have not seen another bernie supporter call him that either.

[redstateblues]

15. Damn it DanTex! Stop making sense!

I hate it when you post opinions that make Feel The Berners call you a right winger when they can't come up with anything that refutes your argument. It's maddening!

[Ron Green]

18. Have you not read this thread?

The US now spends 18% of GDP on health care, and could reduce this with the right reforms including a single pay source.

Bernie is right about health care, as well as about many other issues.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

21. Let me know when you're ready to have a mature conversation about what's been posted here.

I'm not going to take the time to deal with sophistry or bumper sticker "logic", but if you ever get in the mood for real talk, you just say so.

[whatchamacallit]

17. Unfortunate that your support for Hillary has you carrying water for the 1%

There must be a more dignified way to win...

[redstateblues]

23. Sorry- Bernie is unelectable in the GE.

America is not going to elect a self avowed Socialist- especially in light of his recent unrealistic spending proposal. Call me what you will. I'm a proud lifelong Democrat and I will vote for the Democratic nominee. I've voted for the winners and losers as well- Bernie would be in the second category in the GE.

[whatchamacallit]

25. You're welcome to your opinion

I'm sticking with Bernie until he wins or quits.

[padfun]

94. yeah, right.

"America is not going to elect a self avowed Socialist" especially a black one.

Oh wait. They did, twice..

I know that Obama isn't a real socialist but he one despite the right wing yelling that from the rooftops. So I don't think the "socialist" label is going to stop anything.

[dsc]

134. since when did Obama call himself a socialist

[DisgustipatedinCA]

20. When it come from the WSJ and its a lie, it certainly is a right wing talking point.

Did you ever dream you'd get to a point in your life where you found yourself defending right wing smears? You have arrived.

[DanTex]

38. No, it came from a liberal economist who is a proponent of single payer.

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf

[cheapdate]

83. 'Fer cripe's sake.

If I stop paying $1,100 a month in premiums and pay it as a tax instead -- it makes no friggin' difference. The only difference is 'tax bad...private business good.'

The difficulty in making the switch is due to politics and not math.

[greatlaurel]

22. Great post, as always DanTex. You are a gem.

Thank you for taking the time to write and post this. One of the things I respect and appreciate about HRC is how smart and effective she is getting things done to help ordinary people.

Have a lovely evening. Thanks, again.

[DanTex]

60. Thank you. As far as where the numbers come from (probably should have posted it in the OP),

it's from a pro-single-payer economist.
http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf
Various saving are already built into the estimate, and if anything this is an optimistic assessment of the actual costs to the government of implementing single payer. Like I said, if this were a slam dunk, then Vermont would have passed it by now.

[greatlaurel]

80. Thanks for the link and the information. Really interesting information.

Thanks!

[passiveporcupine]

24. The numbers you were working from were a hit peice from Hillary's super Pac

check out this link and maybe you will contain your glee until you have a chance to vet your info.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/15/1421400/-It-begins-Hillary-Clinton-smears-Bernie-Sanders-over-Single-Payer

So how did the WSJ get $15 trillion from a report that headlines the savings of Medicare for All? Simple. It took the costs of the current healthcare system, detailed in a chart on page 2, subtracted the total savings brought by Medicare for All, taken from a chart on page 3, and got the total cost of insurance under Medicare for All. This is $1.7 trillion - $.2 trillion = $1.5 trillion. Then, to inflate this number as much as possible, they extended it out over 10 years.

In order to do this, they ignored the entire rest of the report. Just from reading the preceding paragraph, you probably noticed that this plan is going to save 200 billion dollars a year. At the same time, it would extend coverage out to the millions of people who remain uninsured.

This WSJ article came out at the exact same time David Brock tried to get the Huffington Post to pick up a negative article about Sanders's link to Jeremy Corbin.

Will Single payer cost a lot? You bet it will, but it will be a hell of a lot cheaper than "for profit" insurance health care. And it will cover everyone. Not just those who can afford it.

[DanTex]

39. The numbers came from a liberal economist who advocates for single payer.

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf

[passiveporcupine]

54. you didn't read the link I provided, did you

there was nothing wrong with the numbers, except that they were cherry picked and other important numbers from the very same source, that offset some of those numbers, were left out.

Oh well...as long as they make your point.

[Scootaloo]

26. Looking at the rest of the information provided here shows me that you're wrong. Again.

It must be frustrating. I'm sorry, DanTex. I'm sure someday you'll stop being wrong about stuff.

[DanTex]

41. Actually, there is no additional information here. The numbers I cited came from a liberal economist

who advocates for single payer. And it's telling that Bernie supporters need to pretend that single payer would could health care spending by 50%, something that nobody believes is true, in order to defend their case. So much for the theory that they care about "policy".

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf

[Scootaloo]

44. I would suggest you look at the information provided by other posters in this thread

[DanTex]

46. They don't provide information. That's the problem.

This is not very complicated. Single payer would require an additional $1.5 trillion in government spending. And that's a low estimate, under generous assumptions about cost savings. This isn't really a controversial point, and like I said it's pretty surprising that Bernie fans are trying to pretend that $1.5 trillion is the total cost of single payer as opposed to the additional cost. Honestly, I thought they were smarter than that.

[Scootaloo]

49. They provide plenty of information. You choose to ignore it.

[DanTex]

52. No they don't. I'm the only one linking to an actual study of the costs of single payer.

[passiveporcupine]

63. how you can link to a study that shows how we can pay for single payer

And then insist it proves we can't...kinda has me baffled.

[DanTex]

65. The study proposes a whole bunch of new taxes. Does Bernie support those same taxes?

And by the way, the financial transaction tax that is included in that study is already used up in Bernie's platform to pay for free college. So that leaves another $400 billion or so that he needs to raise some other way. How is he going to do that? More importantly, do Bernie fans even care about any of the policy details?

[Cheese Sandwich]

27. How much did the Iraq war cost? Always money for war. Never for people.

[jeff47]

28. It is a right-wing talking point when you don't include the savings when talking about cost.

Which, as usual, you do here.

To put that number in perspective, $1.5 trillion is approximately equal to the total income tax revenue collected in a year by the Federal Government

To really put that number in perspective, it is half of what we already spend on healthcare. We spend $3T a year on healthcare right now. Single-payer means we stop spending that $3T.

You are arguing that a 50% savings is a bad thing. Because it helps your chosen candidate.

Did it hurt when you shredded your dignity for a mediocre politician?

[redstateblues]

30. Always the nasty little personal jab after the point is made. Nice

[jeff47]

32. Because there are zero jabs in the OP.

Nor in DanTex's long posting history.

[DanTex]

43. The $1.5 trillion is in additional government spending. It's not $1.5 trillion total for single

payer. It's $1.5 trillion more, in addition to the approximately $1.5 trillion that the government already spends on Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc. Nobody serious believes that single payer would cut health care costs by 50%, and it's telling that Bernie fans need to delude themselves into believing that in order to stand by their man. The numbers I'm citing come from a liberal economist who supports single payer.

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf

[Ron Green]

109. You are misusing Gerald Friedman's study.

Extra revenues required to bring the whole system under a single payer would be less than what is now paid in insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses.
There are reasons why we pay TWICE per capita what people in other countries do, for worse outcomes. And the reason is our hidebound, patchwork, free-market system.

[DanTex]

112. I'm simply quoting it. $1.5T per year in additional taxes. It's right there.

If only a single Bernie fan could acknowledge this.

[Ron Green]

114. I'm a Bernie "fan," and I'll acknowledge it for you.

But the fact it's called "taxes" makes it a right-wing talking point, while the truth is this is money that we are now paying in all the aforementioned ways.

People invested in the current system and making big money from it don't want to talk about it like I am, they want to talk about it like you are.

[LeftOfWest]

122. KICK.

[Persondem]

31. ANother nice post. Notice that the folks on this thread claiming that the numbers you used

are RW lies have no numbers of their own with which to really counter your OP.

[DanTex]

45. Thanks. The numbers actually come from an economist that is pro-single payer.

$1.5 trillion is actually an optimistic estimate of the additional government costs of funding single payer. Why this is so confusing to Bernie fans is beyond me. Roughly, we're talking about 3 trillion in health care costs, about half from the government (Medicare etc.) and half private. Single payer means making the private half public, which means about $1.5T in new government health care spending. Give or take, but that's basically it.

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf

[passiveporcupine]

67. Again, I try to get you to read the link I gave you above

The problem is that the WSJ took one figure from Friedman's report without actually reading it:

Under the single-payer system created by HR 676, the U.S. could save an estimated $592 billion annually by slashing the administrative waste associated with the private insurance industry ($476 billion) and reducing pharmaceutical prices to European levels ($116 billion). In 2014, the savings would be enough to cover all 44 million uninsured and upgrade benefits for everyone else. No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care.

Specifically, the savings from a single-payer plan would be more than enough to fund $343 billion in improvements to the health system such as expanded coverage, improved benefits, enhanced reimbursement of providers serving indigent patients, and the elimination of co-payments and deductibles in 2014. The savings would also fund $51 billion in transition costs such as retraining displaced workers and phasing out investorowned, for-profit delivery systems.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/15/1421400/-It-begins-Hillary-Clinton-smears-Bernie-Sanders-over-Single-Payer

Have you actually read the entire study you keep referring to?

[DanTex]

69. I don't care about the WSJ, I've read the actual Friedman study.

And Friedman finds that even under very generous cost-savings assumptions (namely $592 billion annually), the additional taxes required are still $1.5 trillion per year.

[GeorgeGist]

138. Plenty of numbers for those who read.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. you mean like the drug war that Hillary still refuses to call a failure?

That shit's expensive, yo.

[Bonobo]

40. It is when you willfully ignore that it is ALREADY being paid for. nt

[DanTex]

53. No, I don't. The government already pays for a lot of healthcare, but the $1.5 trillion is

an estimate of the additional costs for the government to cover everyone else. Why is this so confusing?

[Bonobo]

74. Are you not discounting what people are ALREADY paying for? nt

[DanTex]

76. I'm saying taxes will go up by $1.5 trillion annually. Do you disagree?

[Bonobo]

78. And I'm saying if people are not paying the hidden taxes of more than that, it is a wash. nt

[DanTex]

81. That's a fair argument, although insurance premiums are not "hidden taxes" because they don't

go to the government. So the honest way to make the argument is to say, yes, takes will be higher (by a lot), but you don't have to pay for insurance, so a lot of people will actually end up with more money. Why is that so complicated? What's with all the pretending that this isn't actually going to cost $1.5 trillion (or more) in new taxes? What's with all the people insisting that single payer will cut health care expenditures by 50%?

Bernie-mania.

[Bonobo]

87. It is clear that single payer would cut health care expenditures.

Have a look at countries with universal health care. There is no question but that it is more efficient.

Bernie Derangement Syndrome. Sigh.

[DanTex]

89. Single payer and universal health care are not the same thing.

Plenty of European countries have universal coverage without single payer, some kind of public private hybrid. And it's far from clear that single payer is the best alternative in the US.

But regardless, there is no doubt that single payer would entail an enormous tax hike. And it's been quite enlightening to watch Bernie fans spew utter absurdities on this topic. My own favorite is people who pretend that $1.5T per year is the total cost of single payer rather than the additional cost to the government. I mean, let's be honest, you have to be a total moron to believe that. Agreed?

[Bonobo]

90. Honestly, it's ALMOST like you must be joking.

If you have any brain at all, it is self-evident that a for-profit system cobbled together with private insurance companies and benefits that are so complex that they require doctors to hire people simply to fill out the insurance paper work is horribly inefficient.

That is not even to MENTION the additional middleman built in that bleeds away efficiency.

The only thing amusing her is the tenacity you are showing in the face of the common sense that a child should have.

[DanTex]

91. Personal insults aside, no, single payer and universal healthcare are not the same thing.

Do you disagree?

[Bonobo]

96. Personal insults like "I mean, let's be honest, you have to be a total moron to believe that. "?

Anyway, you have gotten too silly for me if you cannot even admit the inefficiencies in the current system.

They are as apparent to anyone who runs a business or even follows a household budget.

You do not deserve a conversation if you cannot admit that.

[DanTex]

98. Dodge number one. Do you agree that single payer and universal coverage are not the same?

[Bonobo]

99. You didn't answer my questions either. nt

[DanTex]

100. This is what I'm saying. When it comes to policy, Bernie fans bob and weave.

There's no substance there.

[Bonobo]

101. No dodging is necessary. Use your common sense.

If a man sells an apple for $1.00 directly to a customer, it costs $1.00.

If a man sells the same apple for $1.00 to a reseller of apples who has to hire a person to do the paperwork and then he resells it, it will cost $2.00.

Do you agree that this is a reasonable, albeit oversimplified, reflection of the complications involved with having for-profit middlemen involved in the health care business?

This isn't rocket science. It's about efficiency and it is about whether or not health care should be a "for-profit" industry.

[DanTex]

103. But somehow you can't come out and say Bernie wants $1.5T more per year in taxes.

It's kind of weird. I thought Bernie fans weren't part of the whole "taxes evil government bad" tea party thing. Why is it so hard for them to simply admit this?

[Bonobo]

104. Dude, are you being INTENTIONALLY obtuse?

People are forced to buy the fucking apple for $2.00!

Everywhere, people are buying $2 apples already!

100 people buy a $2 apple. That costs $200.

Bernie plan: "Give me $1 each and I will buy the apple at $1 and give it to you. Each of you will have an apple for $1."

DanTex: "But that's an increase of $100 in TAXES!!! Blarrrble!!!"

[DanTex]

105. Is that a "yes, Bernie does want to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion per year".

This would be easier if you just spoke plainly. I guess that's difficult for you.

Also, are you implying that single payer would reduce healthcare costs by 50%? Because if so, that's crazy talk.

[Bonobo]

108. You have lost spectacularly and are trying to save some small measure of face.

I understand.

But I hope YOU will understand that I do not have the time to waste on someone who cannot even admit or understand some of the most basic business and economic realities.

[DanTex]

111. Obviously, you can't answer the question.

[Bonobo]

115. What a sad sub-thread that was for you.

I almost feel bad.

[eridani]

128. So what? If health care premiums to private insurers disappear, that is a ne savings n/t

[DanTex]

129. Exactly. Why this is hard for people to admit is beyond me.

[daleanime]

62. When you look at only one part of the issue....

and refuse to deal with it in it's entirety? That's the very definition of a RW talking point.

[DanTex]

66. You mean like when people look at the benefit of single payer and ignore the costs?

Yes, that does sound vaguely RW-ish.

[passiveporcupine]

70. Are you honestly trying to imply

that for profit insurance and health care is actually less expensive than single payer? Of course government costs will go up if all insurance becomes government issued health care. But employers and employees will no longer have to pay for "for profit" insurance...there is a write off there. And you are just ignoring that. Plus a single payer system will allow negotiated prices for medical care and pharam to bring it back down to a more reasonable level.

We will pay more in taxes to cover our medical, but we won't be paying health insurance or high medical costs on our own.

Yet you keep taking this stand? Are you just pretending that what we spend on health insurance and medical care now just stays the same under single payer? Seriously?

[DanTex]

73. No. When did I say that? I'm simply saying that single payer will require, optimistically,

$1.5 trillion per year in additional taxes. And strangely enough, people here are trying to deny that.

As far as cost savings, an aggressive estimate is 20%, but I think that is probably high.

[passiveporcupine]

84. You are implying that there will be no write off...no balance of savings to offset new costs

by saying that the Hillary hit piece has it right by saying it will cost so much more for single payer.

It depends on who is paying the "more"...now doesn't it. If your taxes go up, but your income also goes way up because you no longer have to pay for private health insurance, then who is complaining?

In the long run it will cost everyone less (except maybe the wealthy who have not been paying a fair share). But you don't want to look at it from that direction because that doesn't help Hillary.

Oh, and one more thing. Taxing wall street on transactions is just one of many things we can do differently to raise money for our domestic issues. We can stop corporate welfare. We can try to control off shore losses of tax money. We can lower the estate tax limits. We can do a lot of things that are not being discussed here, because why? I don't know really, except it doesn't fit in Hillary's agenda.

[daleanime]

71. And savings?

Saving more then you spent is usually counted as a plus. But I'm sure that not the case in your book so have a lovely evening.

Oh, and save the part where you say it would cost more then it saves for people who would believe it, you know republicans.

[eridani]

131. We are already paying for universal health care

We just aren't GETTING it

[DonCoquixote]

75. Gee, wasnt it right wing talking points

when Hillary tried to reform the system at all, you know, when she FAILED.

If you want to win, you are going to have to come up with something than "the other guy stinks." Not that Hillary cannot come up with something actually positive that would make wall street angry, but she won't.

[DanTex]

93. Yes she did. Fighting the GOP is not a 100% proposition.

As far as coming up with something other than "the other guy (gal) stinks", I couldn't agree more.

[DonCoquixote]

139. fighting the gop not a "100% proposition

Funny, they sure fight US with 100 percent. Maybe the reason we lose is because we conceded 50 percent of the battle before we step onto the field, and then wander why we get our heads handed to us. It is one thing to be a good sport, but once that bell rings, you had better fight with all your power, not make agreements with your opponent knowing they will never keep ONE promise.

And yes, supporting TPP and Keystone is indeed conceding at least half the battle before the fight. Supporting syrian war tips the scales.

And fear not, I do not care if the Dems nominate a ham sandwich just to keep the GOP out. Do not expect me to eat it, nor to demand something more appetizing one tenth of a second after the GOP concedes the election. Many who claim to be Hillary people sure never gave Obama a honeymoon, so Hillary better not expect one herself, especially since we know damned well she is already palling around with former GOP like Mr. Brock, which means her tab of favors owed to conservatives is already running.

[Gothmog]

86. Facts are not right wing talking points

[bobbobbins01]

92. I don't get it...

You keep linking to a document that shows the US saving money and you claim its costing the US money. Please show your work.

[slipslidingaway]

102. "Conclusion: Single payer covers more, costs less than current system for 95% of Americans...

This analysis shows that it is possible to reform the U.S. health financing system to make it more efficient and equitable. Universal health care with comprehensive benefits could be achieved under a single-payer system as embodied in HR 676. Improved Medicare for All would cost less for 95% of households and reduce the deficit by $154 billion in the first year.

Progressive financing of HR 676 is possible using a Tobin or “Robin Hood” tax as one of the funding sources. Although the Tobin tax is desirable for a number of reasons, HR 676 single payer may be financed without the Tobin tax if necessary. See Appendix 1.

This analysis is done for one point in time, 2014. Over time, the health care system in the United States has become more expensive both relative to the cost of providing equivalent services in the past and relative to other countries.18

Under the federal reform law of 2010, it is projected that health care costs will continue to grow, creating growing pressure to cut costs by reducing access and quality of care. In contrast, HR 676 would establish a system for future cost control using proven-effective methods such as negotiated fees, global budgets, and capital planning. Over the next decade, savings from reduced health inflation (“bending the cost curve”) would equal $1.8 trillion. On top of the enormous administrative savings of single payer, the savings from effective cost-control would make it possible to provide universal coverage and comprehensive benefits to future generations19 at a sustainable cost."


Gerald Friedman is professor, Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. He can be reached at [e-mail].

From your link DanTex
http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf

[slipslidingaway]

106. Gerald Friedman, the economist who wrote the study you cite has something to say ...

An Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal on Its Bernie Sanders Hit Piece

Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Posted: 09/15/2015 8:03 pm EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html


Credit to Fawke Em for posting the article.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251597752

[DanTex]

107. In which he reaffirms that single payer will require $1.5T per year in additional taxes.

[AgingAmerican]

117. Single payer would be far cheaper than what we have now

According to the CBO, etc.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost

[ellisonz]

118. I just want universal urgent care

[Fumesucker]

121. You are going to pull something stretching like that without warming up first

[mmonk]

125. Wrong. Giving projected costs over a period of time

without the context of revenue and savings is straight up dishonest. But Republicans and Third Way Democrats always talk in terms of costs if the legislation is for the people and not for corporations or the military industrial complex.

[WDIM]

132. Its paid for the same way health insurance is paid for now.

but instead of paying a greedy multinational corporation we pay the government through taxes.

the hypocrisy of right wingers always worried about the cost of everything but i never hear them complain about the cost of WAR!

[cannabis_flower]

135. If..

It doubles my income taxes and eliminates my health insurance and copays, I'm good.

[eridani]

140. Anyone who is so damned stupid as to prefer an $800/month "premium" to a

--$250/month "tax" shouldn't be allowed outside without adult supervision.

[NCTraveler]

141. For those who's goal it is to topple the economic system....

It sure is a right wing talking point. There are more of that group here than you think. Because you and I know it would become a huge humanitarian crisis, doesn't mean they do. They believe it has to crumble before being built anew. What they don't get is their argument alone shows their thoughts about well regulated capitalism aren't real.

[Vinca]

142. Discussion of cost isn't inappropriate.

What is offensive to supporters of Bernie Sanders is the implication he's a raving nutball for wanting to do all the things he believes will be good for the country. And they would be. Our biggest problem is we've given up trying to do anything other than appease Republicans by accepting far less than what the country deserves on just about everything.

[SonderWoman]

143. How about just a public option?

Which would be a great start. What many people here don't realize is that most people are very satisfied with their healthcare and would rather not be forced onto govt healthcare. Make a public option available to everyone who makes below $50k a year.