Just Heard The End Of A Discussion On MSNBC Of Talking Heads Discussing Bernie's Medicare For All...

[global1]

proposal. Again - we have people that like to hear themselves talk and approach everything negatively.

What they fail to address - is that we already have a template for Bernie's plan. It is the current Medicare system - that if you talk to Seniors - they love. It works.

Note that Medicare is not a free system. I am on Medicare and I have to pay into it every month. It covers 80% of the costs of healthcare and I also have to have a supplemental plan to pick up the other 20%. That is managed by the current health insurance industry.

I think Bernie's plan will be rolled out much the same way. Also - in reading about Bernie's plan - it doesn't happen overnight - it is phased in over a series of years.

One of the things that a Medicare for All system will do is simplify things for the providers. They will in fact not have to deal with multiple insurers and fill out multiple forms - that make the current system - overbearing for them. They will have to fill out one form that is common for everyone. It takes a lot of the administrative costs out of the system.

The other thing that Americans need to take into account is that the current health insurance premiums that they are paying - will be reduced. That's another area where they will benefit.

With respect to employers that currently have to deal - most of the time on a yearly basis - with having to fine and affordable plan to cover their employees - all that will go away. Some of the costs that they now incur can either be saved as money in their pockets or could be pass along to their employees in pay raises. These pay raises - will be a stimulus to the economy - as people that have more money will now be more apt to spend it for the necessities.

All in all - a Medicare for All system is an idea whose time has come. We as Dems need to support this and help make it happen. It is ACA on steroids. It is what President Obama envisioned when he moved on ACA - that it be used as a stepping stone to Medicare for All.

I also like the fact that it is called - "Medicare For All" instead of 'single payer' or 'universal health insurance'. Those two monikers make it sound like the Repugs want to portray it - as 'socialized medicine'. Medicare For All - because of the current successful Medicare program - makes more sense.

Also - part of Bernie's plan is to also work on Big Pharma and make our meds more affordable - by letting the government negotiate prices with Big Pharma - much like the VA System already does. Savings that will be gained by doing this will also go a long way in reducing our healthcare costs.

Also building on ACA - preventive medicine - as it becomes for ubiquitous for all Americans - is another way of keeping our current healthcare costs down.

Yes - Medicare for All - is an idea whose time had come and all Dems should get behind it as it is a good common sense way of dealing with the provision of healthcare which should be a right for all Americans.

[alarimer]

1. I really like the fact that they are framing health care as a RIGHT.

It is about time we started doing that. Whether it is Medicare/Medicaid or some other way, universal health care begins with the idea that everyone should have access to affordable health care. It improves outcomes (the US has some of the worst of developed countries in various measures), and it will save money.

[Wellstone ruled]

2. Comcast is all in with anti

Single Payer,it would kill their bottom line. Heard that segment and the under lying tone was,My Boss Hates this and we will drive this into the ground.

[delisen]

3. Wouldn't it help to refer to Democratic Rep. Conyers plan also?

Conyers has been laying groundwork for years and has well over 100 representatives signed on.

I think it helps build the Democratic Party if people know what Democrats in the House have been doing.

[comradebillyboy]

4. The sun only shines on Bernie...

[delisen]

5. Is it the sun or stage lights that have been mysteriously stuck

on Sanders, leaving the rest of the cast in the shadows?

[comradebillyboy]

6. I'll get in trouble if I say anything else...

[Autumn]

10. If Rep Conyers could intruduce his bill in the Senate the light would be shining on him too.

[JCanete]

11. No, he is simply the most visible, and the popularity of his campaign, not the man alone,

is what has pushed these issues to the fore. His brand is finally hot and he's using that popularity to push forward progressive ideology. What should he use it for instead?

[yallerdawg]

7. It was approved in Vermont and sent to the governor.

He rejected it when he realized it would require the state to double its revenue to pay for it.

Over 90% of Americans have health care today.

When we have providers going belly up nationally, and providers rejecting Medicaid pay scale as unaffordable, and employers offering health care benefits as baked-in-the-cake incentives, and when 60% of present Medicare is subsidized by General Revenue at the federal level - also known as debt (and a damn good reason Sanders remains vague on what it will cost!) - I don't see this being implemented in a four year window.

And when "the opposition" points out taxation would have to be doubled - and the entire system would have to be under government cost management - "everyone wants it" will quickly fade.

[leftstreet]

13. The governor made it fail

he EXEMPTED large businesses operating in multiple states

[stopbush]

8. There is no guarantee that people will pay less per month for Medicare for All

than they currently pay for their health insurance. None.

Until we see Sanders' plan for how to pay for it, and until that plan is scored by the CBO, we cannot and will not know the costs and how they compare to the current system.

You currently pay 2.5% in Medicare taxes. You will probably pay at least 18% in Medicare taxes to fund Medicare for All. Think about it.

[global1]

9. Oh Come On Now - Are You A Dem Or A Bot......

Get positive for god's sake.

[stopbush]

12. I'm a lifelong D who believes in REALITY, and the costs are a reality.

100% of working Americans currently pay into the Medicare system. Those tax dollars are barely enough to cover seniors on Medicare, who account for roughly 19% of the population. So the question is: how much would payroll taxes need to increase to cover 100% of the population as opposed to the current 19%?

The current tax rate is 1.45% for the employee and 1.45% for the employer, or a 2.9% total. 19% divides into 100% 5 times, so one assumes that one would need to raise the payroll tax five-fold to cover 100% of the population. That would mean that the employee would pay a tax of 7.25% as would the employer, equaling a tax of 14.5%.

Add into this the fact that current Medicare recipients pay monthly premiums of $109 on average, or $1308 a year.

So do the math: if you earn $50,000 a year, your Medicare tax would be $3625 at 7.25%. Add in your premiums of $1308, and you're paying just under $5,000 a year per person for Medicare for All. Sounds good.

But what if you are a family with a spouse who doesn't work and two young children who don't work? How are they covered in the Medicare for All scenario? Surely, there would be additional premium cost involved. They can't be covered free of charge. That $5000 per year mentioned above covers ONE working person, not their family members. Even if you waive the payroll tax deduction and charge only the average monthly premium per person (as Medicare currently does), you are looking at an additional $3900 per year to cover a non-working spouse and two children. That makes your cost around $9000 per year, and that is equal to 18% of that $50,000 income you are earning.

And, to cover all bases, let's not forget that you are currently paying 6.2% of your income in Social Security taxes. Add that into the mix, and your combined Medicare for All and SS expenses for that family of 4 with one bread winner described above would be over 25% of your income.

That's still a bargain when compared to the taxes paid in European nations, and it's the true cost of having a truly socialistic approach to things. It is what it is. Let's not downplay the realities involved.

I don't have the answers. I do know that while Medicare for All might well be the best and fairest approach we could take toward universal healthcare, it comes with real expenses and real costs to real people.

[yallerdawg]

14. On top of that...

Medicare tax, deductibles and copays cover about 40% of the cost.

60% is paid for from General Revenue sources, also known as federal debt.

If we actually covered this "unfunded mandate," we could easily get to European tax rates!!!!

While you and I may see the benefit of all this to a number of fellow Americans, I also see a phenomenally large number of them (historically around 70%) rejecting this idea - period!

Our best bet is an incremental approach - the approach that won the most support in the last Democratic presidential primary and the most votes in the presidential election.

[stopbush]

15. It will come down to the number of Americans who currently have health insurance

through their jobs - and who are generally happy with the same - that will see an INCREASE in their monthly premiums under any Medicare for All plan.

My last job paid my entire premium every month, over $1200 (not a Cadillac plan, I'm just old, so I cost more). There's no way a MfA plan is going to do better than ZERO dollars paid out a month by an employee.

Once that fact is turned into a talking point that (falsely) includes "the vast majority" of people on their employer-provided plan, it will impossible to build the support needed to pass Medicare for All.

[yallerdawg]

16. Pragmatism vs 'wishful thinking.'

Older Americans have seen this all before.

It's not that we're jaded and cynical. We are just realistic.

Where I live, we have a 10% tax on every item we purchase - food included!

This is after the feds and the state take their cut out of the pay check, payroll and income taxes.

While I appreciate the services we receive for these taxes, I also understand the theory of 'Taxed Enough Already' and the votes that follow.

As you say, when someone has insurance and health care, increasing taxes is a trigger! Period!