2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat's the difference between Sander's health care plan and a unicorn? The unicorn can fly.
Seriously, how do you promise no deductibles, no co-payments, no premiums, no controls on procedures/drugs AND promise a $5k reduction per household?
The per capita health care spend in the US is $10k. That means somebody actually has to pay for this.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cali
(114,904 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Was she lying then or is she lying now?
Matariki
(18,775 posts)I'm sure crickets from the OP
ejbr
(5,856 posts)is better than paying off Wall Street...just sayin'
pinebox
(5,761 posts)who don't have health insurance.
How many more will have to die because our politicians don't give a damn about the people!?
Thanks for supporting the Republican position on health care.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)Bernie's talking about it in an engaging way. That's the first step, but next we gotta get Hillary's donors out of the way to build a real solution.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Costs over 500 billion a year.
So somewhere, someone has to pay money, and it won't work as a trust fund.
Taxes must be raised by Congress to pay for it.
How much money will I pay in taxes?
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I would pay less than I am paying write now. So, works for me.
Also, I believe the plan spelled out was 2.2% of your income, and 6.7% for your employer.
angrychair
(8,698 posts)Incorrect. Skewed.
Come back informed and try again.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... on how they've been able to do this for years without corporate corruption bullshit parasites stealing from us.
Why do corporate owned DLC Democrats and Republicans love being stolen from? Maybe it is because personally they are part of the crowd that is stealing from us (through the campaign contributions and legalized BRIBERY they get) rather than being stolen from, even if they won't admit it.
Gothmog
(145,198 posts)This plan will not be adopted nationally http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-health-plan_us_569ff110e4b076aadcc50807
That’d be an upgrade in benefits, even for seniors on Medicare. And while people would have to pay higher taxes, Sanders claims most people would come out ahead financially because they wouldn’t be paying private insurance premiums anymore. A typical middle-class family would save about $5,000 a year, according to a rough analysis commissioned by Sanders' presidential campaign, while society as a whole would end up saving something like $6 trillion over the next decade.
To help pay for his plan’s unprecedented benefits, Sanders proposes to extract unprecedented savings from the health care system. Here is where the details get fuzzy and hard to accept at face value, even beyond the usual optimistic assumptions that figure into campaign proposals. Sanders expects a large portion of the savings to come from reductions in administrative waste, because insurance billing would basically end. Another big chunk would come from squeezing the industries that produce health care services and supplies -- and squeezing those industries hard.
That last part should set off alarm bells for anybody who remembers the fight to pass the Affordable Care Act. Two particular episodes from 2009 -- one widely publicized, one barely noticed -- are a reminder of how much power those groups wield in Washington. For Sanders to realize his vision for single-payer health care, he’d have to overcome even greater resistance than Obamacare’s architects faced. And Sanders has offered no reason to think he could do that, which is something Democratic voters might want to keep in mind.
Two lessons from Obamacare
The first and better-known episode from 2009 was the battle over the “public option” -- a proposal, crafted by Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, to create a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers for customers. Hacker and others figured the public option could dictate lower payment rates to suppliers and providers of medical care, just like Medicare does, thereby keeping premiums low and forcing private insurers to match them.
Voters liked the idea, according to polls, and experts had certified that it would save the government money. But it ran into huge opposition -- not just from insurers, who didn’t want the competition, but from doctors, makers of drugs and medical devices, and hospitals, all of whom understood the proposal would cut into their revenues....
Bernie's vision vs. Hillary's
No, this grim political reality doesn’t mean Sanders or anybody else should stop advocating for single-payer. Progressive achievements like the minimum wage and civil rights began as ideas that the political establishment once dismissed as loopy. And the kind of reform that Sanders envisions would have a lot going for it. Single-payer works quite well abroad and a version of it could work here too -- even if, as Harold Pollack and Matthew Yglesias noted recently at Vox, it would ultimately require compromises and trade-offs that supporters rarely acknowledge.
But voters comparing Sanders and Hillary Clinton, who has proposed bolstering the Affordable Care Act rather than replacing it, should be clear about the choice they face. This isn’t a contest between a candidate who can deliver health care nirvana and one who is willing to settle for less. It’s a contest between a candidate imagining a world without political or policy constraints, and one grappling with them; between a candidate talking about what he hopes the health care system will look like someday, and one focused on what she can actually achieve now.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)over someone who won't any day of the week.
Absent that, I'll take the candidate that doesn't consider unindicted war criminal Henry Kissinger a friend.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Not in folklore, and not even any edition of my Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manuals.
I am guessing the rest of your suppositions about this issue are equally defective.
Just a suggestion here, I think you are looking for Pegasus in your comparison, not a unicorn.
Gothmog
(145,198 posts)Ezra Klein is not impressed http://www.vox.com/2016/1/17/10784528/bernie-sanders-single-payer-health-care
On Sunday night, mere hours before the fourth Democratic debate, Sanders tried to head off Clinton's attacks by releasing his plan. Only what he released isn't a plan. It is, to be generous, a gesture towards a future plan.
To be less generous — but perhaps more accurate — this is a document that lets Sanders say he has a plan, but doesn't answer the most important questions about how his plan would work, or what it would mean for most Americans. Sanders is detailed and specific in response to the three main attacks Clinton has launched, but is vague or unrealistic on virtually every other issue. The result is that he answers Clinton's criticisms while raising much more profound questions about his own ideas.
Sanders promises his health care system will cover pretty much everything while costing the average American almost nothing, and he relies mainly on vague "administrative" savings and massive taxes on the rich to make up the difference. It's everything critics fear a single payer plan would be, and it lacks the kind of engagement with the problems of single-payer health systems necessary to win over skeptics.....
In the absence of these kinds of specifics, Sanders has offered a puppies-and-rainbows approach to single-payer — he promises his plan will cover everything while costing the average family almost nothing. This is what Republicans fear liberals truly believe: that they can deliver expansive, unlimited benefits to the vast majority of Americans by stacking increasingly implausible, and economically harmful, taxes on the rich. Sanders is proving them right.
A few days ago, I criticized Hillary Clinton for not leveling with the American people. She seemed, I wrote, "scared to tell voters what she really thinks for fear they'll disagree." Here, Sanders shows he doesn't trust voters either. Rather than making the trade-offs of a single-payer plan clear, he's obscured them further. In answering Clinton's criticisms, he's raised real concerns about the plausibility of his own ideas.
This is Ezra's area and he is not impressed
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)that profits the few at the expense of the many.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Trending on facebook this very second from multiple news sources.
https://www.facebook.com/topic/UnitedHealth-Group/112600232084460?source=whfrt&position=2&trqid=6242335370181896711
WE NEED SINGLE PAYER!
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)that would be Pegasi . At least try to keep some facts straight .
cali
(114,904 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Technically, there are no "Pegasi" plural, since there was only one "Pegasus", the sire of Poseidon and Medusa.
Pegasus was a winged horse, but no other winged horse was Pegasus.
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)If you ever played D&D you would know this was a class . Yes the classic form has only one , but as we are talking geek I must protest your overlooking of this fundamental point 
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)and argued with Gary Gygax about it once upon a time at a con long ago. I told him that Pegasus belonged in the Gods, Demi-Gods and Heroes supplement, which only seemed fair since Hercules was in there.
Say, what's your saving throw again?
{Rattle...Rattle}
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Just a fair arrangement.
Gothmog
(145,198 posts)I trust Prof. Krugman on this http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/?_r=0
On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders “plan” isn’t just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice.
To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich — and single-payer really does save money, whereas there’s no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, it’s not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.
Again, as noted by Prof. Krugman this plan does not add up.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)or anyone that supports her lies.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Let me know if there is anything else I can help you with.
Fuck me to tears.
Gothmog
(145,198 posts)This is a great editorial from the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanderss-fiction-filled-campaign/2016/01/27/cd1b2866-c478-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html
He would be a braver truth-teller if he explained how he would go about rationing health care like European countries do. His program would be more grounded in reality if he addressed the fact of chronic slow growth in Europe and explained how he would update the 20th-century model of social democracy to accomplish its goals more efficiently. Instead, he promises large benefits and few drawbacks.
Meanwhile, when asked how Mr. Sanders would tackle future deficits, as he would already be raising taxes for health-care expansion and the rest of his program, his advisers claimed that more government spending “will result in higher growth, which will improve our fiscal situation.” This resembles Republican arguments that tax cuts will juice the economy and pay for themselves — and is equally fanciful.
The Washington Post is agreeing with Prof. Krugman's analysis
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Back to work, proles!
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Also, the current per capita health care spending is inflated. I had to go to the ER in another country with socialized medicine this year, and it wasn't as fancy as American hospitals. It looked like a municipal government. But the care was good and the whole day of testing cost me about $500. We spend way more on health care than we need to. We need some restructuring, and we need some changes to our priorities (such as that having more people have access to health care is more important than palatial hospitals.)
lapfog_1
(29,199 posts)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)She is proposing more of the same crushing burden of high insurance rates, large copays and deductibles and soaring drug prices.
Fail.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a nonpartisan organization of 20,000 doctors who support single-payer national health insurance, says that the recent debate over single payer has perpetuated a number of myths about the health insurance system.
PNHP says that most of these myths have been “decisively refuted by peer-reviewed research.”
Myth: A single-payer system would impose an unacceptable financial burden on U.S. households.
Reality: Single payer is the only health reform that pays for itself. By replacing hundreds of insurers and thousands of different private health plans, each with their own marketing, enrollment, billing, utilization review, actuary and other departments, with a single, streamlined, tax-financed nonprofit program, more than $400 billion in health spending would be freed up to guarantee coverage to all of the 30 million people who are currently uninsured and to upgrade the coverage of everyone else, including the tens of millions who are underinsured.
Vinca
(50,270 posts)
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Apparently, so can single payer, given the amount of effort being expended to tell us that we're extremely unserious people for wanting something that other industrialized nations have already accomplished.
Really, you should stop getting your facts about how the world works from My Little Pony.
