Bernie Sanders Proposes MEDICARE-FOR-ALL. Democrats Want This To Be Their Primary Message.

To your point on insurance... of course insurance companies are bailing out on health care. They can't afford to pay these high prices any more than you and I can... when those liabilities massively exceed revenue.

Yes... there are "villains" in this story... and insurance companies are sure not blameless. THEY should have been hammering the public and politicians with the same information I am sharing here, but they didn't because they were making a "percentage" profit on their activities. For example, if their profit is 15%, then as prices go up, so do their rates so the actuarial liabilities still work out.

The ACA was in a very real way, designed to make the health insurance industry bail out of covering health care... because then they can sell Single Payer, and make their industry buddies super wealthy... LOL

a reply to: dasman888

Bernie's proposal isn't going to be officially released until tomorrow, but it looks like he's cutting health insurance companies completely out of the equation, to keep costs lower.

Excerpted from: www.washingtonpost.com... 4035c9_story.html?utm_term=.d47be000574f

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will introduce legislation on Wednesday that would expand Medicare into a universal health insurance program with the backing of at least 15 Democratic senators — a record level of support for an idea that had been relegated to the fringes during the last Democratic presidency.

“This is where the country has got to go,” Sanders said in an interview at his Senate office. “Right now, if we want to move away from a dysfunctional, wasteful, bureaucratic system into a rational health-care system that guarantees coverage to everyone in a cost-effective way, the only way to do it is Medicare for All.”

Bernie's Medicare-For-All is one of 3 healthcare options being introduced this week.

The Senate Bi-Partisan commission is introducing a series of ObamaCare patches, to shore-up the market for 2018. It's crashing badly. (1/2 of Virginia will now have NO Obamacare health insurance available.)

And, Senator Lindsay Graham will be introducing an ObamaCare repeal that hands off the ObamaCare money to the states, so they can develop what they think is best for state residents. This begins in 2020, if it passes. (The hard deadline for this to pass the Senate is 9.30.2017)

a reply to: carewemust

Just look to Canada,and how well their system is working,it's not Canucks being taxed to the hilt,liberals have no talent other then BSing,they have no fiscal responsibility,other then making wallet fatter

a reply to: carewemust

You would not be about to say that a person should not have access to health care provision unless they can afford to pay for it, now would you?

That would be a morally unjustifiable position, holding of which makes a person walking dirt, as you probably already know.

a reply to: TrueBrit

9.13.2017

You're correct. That would be an inhumane position. But because she's so powerful and influential, Hillary Clinton's opinion may kill Medicare For All.


Hillary Clinton Doesn't Like Bernie's new plan!: www.businessinsider.com...

Offer the Federal Employee Benefit Package to all Americans as a buy-in at a subsidized rate.

Make it free to anyone under some arbitrary basic level of income.

Problem solved.

a reply to: carewemust

Hillary is walking dirt, regardless of her opinion on Bernies healthcare plan.

Of course, her opinion of that plan does not help.

September 13, 2017

Senator Sanders released his latest "Medicare For All" proposal today.

Excerpts from: www.bustle.com...

On Wednesday afternoon, Senator Bernie Sanders, along with numerous other leading Democrats, announced the details of his "Medicare-For-All" health care plan. Under Sanders' proposal, private health insurance, including both employer-based plans and the individual market, will be phased out to put everyone in America on a government plan. The policy idea is incredibly ambitious, but for now it fails to answer one key question: how much will Sanders' Medicare-For-All plan cost?

Sanders' plan leaves out the details of any tax increases that would go with it. "Rather than give a detailed proposal about how we’re going to raise $3 trillion a year, we’d rather give the American people options,” Sanders told the Washington Post.

BUT... the plan would cover all medical care, including dental, vision, prescriptions, with NO co-pays!

If you transfer the $110-$150 billion that the government spends annually on ObamaCare, to BernieCare, that would help a little. But if you take the $3 Trillion annual cost and divide it by 300 million, every man/woman/child in America would still need to pay an additional $9,600 a year in taxes to make Medicare-For-All a reality. Undoubtedly, there would need to be mandatory corporate levies as well. Perhaps that's why there isn't much media coverage of Bernie's big unveiling today.

-cwm

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Offer the Federal Employee Benefit Package to all Americans as a buy-in at a subsidized rate.

Make it free to anyone under some arbitrary basic level of income.

Problem solved.

Good idea! Even better, grant all Americans the same benefits that our elected Congress receives. Gold Class medical coverage with taxpayers picking up 75% of the monthly premium.

a reply to: carewemust

At the time, he initially estimated the plan would cost $13.8 trillion over the first 10 years. But according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Urban Institute, the single-payer system would cost the federal government more like $32 trillion over the first decade, requiring an average annual tax increase of $24,000 per household.

I've said it before, ATS really needs a middle finger emoticon for times like this.

This move by Sanders justifies every single American who voted against him. America cannot afford Bernie Sanders.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: carewemust

You would not be about to say that a person should not have access to health care provision unless they can afford to pay for it, now would you?

That would be a morally unjustifiable position, holding of which makes a person walking dirt, as you probably already know.

That's exactly the position I've long taken. Morals are subjective. I believe it is immoral to force those who are productive to take on the involuntary responsibility for those who are not... walking dirt, you say? What's more filthy, the belief that money earned should belong to the person laboring and earning it and be used by them for their own responsibilities, or the belief that society should simply be allowed to take whatever they are unwilling to work for themselves to subsidize their lives?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I believe he's following a Trump tactic, by asking for the stars and letting the public determine the desired altitude. The articles stating which Democrats are backing this plan, also pointed out that they will trim it back to an appropriate level before making Medicare-For-All their primary message for election/re-election.

I think this whole thing with Sanders is just a campaign tactic for 2018.

Not his campaign, the campaign by the DNC in general.

Big mistake if this is it.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

requiring an average annual tax increase of $24,000 per household.

We estimate that the approach would decrease the uninsured by 28.3 million people in 2017. National health expenditures would increase by $6.6 trillion between 2017 and 2026, while federal expenditures would increase by $32.0 trillion over that period.

source

So that $24,000 translates to $2,200/year per household. Did I do that right?

Nevermind. I didn't. Added a 0.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Here's the study.
Unless Bernie modifies his plan a whole lot, it's non-starter.
single payer

“Under Medicare for All, the average American family will be much better off financially than under the current system, because you will no longer be writing checks to private insurance companies,” Sanders said. “While, depending on your income, your taxes may go up to pay for this publicly funded program, that expense will be more than offset by the money you are saving by the elimination of private insurance costs.”

www.google.com...

Does the average American Family write checks to private insurance companies? I was under the impression that the majority of Americans got their insurance through their employer or where already in a government supplied program.

Who are all these people writing checks to the insurance companies and are they in sufficient numbers to instead pay into a government program that will now be for everyone?

I guess he could also mean that with the adoption of his bill privet employers will no longer have to supply insurance... and so that money can then be paid out to the employees... who than can be taxed more.

But what guaranty does Sanders have that employers will pass the savings onto their employees? Aren't these the same entities he vilefies on a daily bases for being greedy and not willing to pay even a living wage? Does he really think their going to change their mind and not be greedy anymore when his bill is passed?

a reply to: Phage

The USA is too large and, frankly, has too many sick people to ever even consider a single payer system. It can't be done without bankrupting the country.

a reply to: DanDanDat
While the majority of employed get insurance from their employers, many if not most, pay for part of their own coverage and often for all of the coverage for their dependents. They don't write checks, it comes out of their paycheck.

Just as both employees and employers now "contribute" to medicare, both still would. But at a higher rate.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DanDanDat
While the majority of employed get insurance from their employers, many if not most, pay for part of their own coverage and often for all of the coverage for their dependents. They don't write checks, it comes out of their paycheck.

Just as both employees and employers now "contribute" to medicare, both still would. But at a higher rate.

That's not what he said, so I wonder if he understands the situation fully.

Makes me question wether he's right about the offset.

a reply to: DanDanDat

What he meant, I think, is that people won't be paying insurance companies for their medical coverage. Sort of nit picky to concentrate on "writing a check."


The "offset" would depend on how much the medicare tax is raised. But, if the plan is the same as the one he offered previously, it's highly likely to result in a large increase in the budget deficit (without other revenue enhancements or spending cuts).