Joe Biden's health plan looks like the winner

[Gothmog]

Link to tweet

The leading presidential contenders continue to debate Medicare for All, a sweeping new government program that would replace private insurance and require trillions of dollars in new federal spending. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are the biggest backers. Former Vice President Joe Biden favors more modest changes that would keep private insurance in place but offer more government help for people who can’t afford a private plan.

Voters seem to be siding with Biden. New polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows 51% of people favor Medicare for All, down from 59% last year. Other polling shows support for Medicare for All plummets when people realize it would mean abolishing private insurance and raising taxes.

The Kaiser survey, meanwhile, shows 73% of people favor a more limited public option that would keep private insurance in place. That’s up from 65% earlier this year. Among Democrats, 71% support Medicare for All while 85% support a more limited public program.

[Scurrilous]

1. K&R

[Hoyt]

2. Agree. We have candidates stuck on "Medicare whether you want it or not."

I think MFA is best long-term approach to restructuring our healthcare system. But it will cost us the general election if a significant number of people are skeptical, putting us years away from goals.

At least a Public Option lets one compare a government plan to private plans. Within a few years, 80% will be enrolled in the public plan. Then it's easy to cram it down the throats of the remaining holdouts.

[msongs]

3. medicare for all who want it, maybe medicare for all later nt

[LanternWaste]

5. If you can afford False Equivalencies, you can afford smaller health costs

[Cirque du So-What]

6. Or Russia's health care bills

[asiliveandbreathe]

10. Perhaps you could enlighten those of us at DU what you consider

Mexicos health care bills..I for one would like to know your thought process on the subject..

From above excerpt....

Voters seem to be siding with Biden. New polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows 51% of people favor Medicare for All, down from 59% last year. Other polling shows support for Medicare for All plummets when people realize it would mean abolishing private insurance and raising taxes.

The Kaiser survey, meanwhile, shows 73% of people favor a more limited public option that would keep private insurance in place. That’s up from 65% earlier this year. Among Democrats, 71% support Medicare for All while 85% support a more limited public program.

[George II]

8. If nothing else, it's comprehensive, detailed, and says how to pay for it.

[redqueen]

9. Is there any polling not funded by Kaiser?

Not that I'm saying... I'm just saying.

[SterlingPound]

101. 100%

Kaiser

First in profiting off the health of their workers,

and all interests in keeping things as they are

[ritapria]

11. Public Option

means taxpayers getting stuck footing the bill for sick people the private insurers don't want to cover ….Huge Red Ink from insufficient revenue ...Republicans crowing over the failure of government intervention in healthcare ….Death of MFA proposal ….. GOP takeover of Congress and Presidency ….……..

[LiberalLovinLug]

14. Exactly. "Medicare if you want it" is doomed to failure

And not only that, will doom any shot at introducing universal healthcare for decades. Because Republicans will disingenuously, after adding up the initial startup costs, plus the cost weight of those sick and preconditioned folks, whom I wouldn't blame for taking advantage, smear the whole enterprise as a total failure, and would have public support for dismantling it, and anything that looks like it, including the last provisions of Obamacare.

It has to be an all-in federal program. What they need is a good plan for communicating its benefits, and costs. Michael Moore's Sicko! was the kind of journalism that was sorely lacking in the MSM in the first Obama years. If the MSM would do its job, it would help.

It's funding structure should be communicated about that without it, its like giving people the option to not pay the portion of their taxes to support the police (Good!...no more speeding tickets!) or the public schools (I don't have any kids in the system anymore...why should I pay anything?), the armed forces (I don't see anyone attacking us, and I'm against regime change war, so why should we pay for this?, which isn't a bad argument btw) But we have to get people to equate healthcare with other necessities for a civilized nation.

What might be a good start would be to pass a motion declaring healthcare a right and not a privilege. Eventually it would be great to see that statement in an amendment to the Constitution.

[questionseverything]

28. while the young basically healthy peops pay into the private system

[Celerity]

40. one small problem, MFA will never get passed in Congress, even if we have 53+ seats in the Senate

and 250+ seats in the House. Hell, make it 60 and 300 and it still will not be passed, as those new gains will most be all moderates and centrists, due to the RW gerrymandering and voter suppression shifting any possible flips to originating from pink/purple/red seats where a prog cannot win. See 2018 for the model. Good luck getting the Manchins, Sinemas, Hickenloopers, Chris Coons, Carpers, Stephanie Murphys, Max Roses, etc etc of the Congress to vote for MFA.

TBH, I do not see the Public Option being passed either, as I have detailed multiple times in the past. The USA will spend (at current rates of increase) 115 to 120 trillion USD over the next 20 years on healthcare. Even at small margins, that is trillions in profits. The systemic structure will never give that up.

[Act_of_Reparation]

84. No one is under the illusion that M4A would be passed in the next 4-8 years.

Please stop with that strawman.

[Celerity]

85. you need to look up the definition of strawman, because I am not using one

I replied to a poster who is pro MFA, the same as I have done with numerous proponents of MFA.

Also, many think it can be passed if Sanders or Warren are POTUS, especially the Bernie supporters. The majority are NOT saying, elect Bernie or another pro MFA POTUS and it will fail.

[Act_of_Reparation]

87. Being "pro-M4A" doesn't mean you think it's an immediate possibility.

Sorry. I know what words mean.

[Celerity]

88. show me where a major candidate who supports MFA says that they know it will not pass

yet still vote for me because I support it. Show me supporters who say that. You are the first I have run into (if you even support MFA.) I have seen some say that MFA needs to be the starting point for negotiations. That is a legit stance but it begs the question of how can we even get there if MFA (and the resultant taking away over the next several years of 160 million Americans' private insurance for all but niche actions) is used as an electoral cudgel (fair or not) to beat us over the head with, not just at POTUS level, but also in the down-ballot races.

You claim that



literally you are saying NO ONE

that is simply not true

So many Sanders and Warren and other MFA supporters' voters think that if their candidate is elected POTUS, then they can get MFA passed. It is literally foundational bedrock belief for so many of them.

Also, I repeat, nothing I said was a 'strawman', nothing, regardless of your attempts to falsely frame it as such. It is completely germane to bring up the issue of MFA being extremely unlikely to pass in current paradigm that Congress operates under. As I have said so many times in the past, even the far less expansive public option is going to be incredibly hard to get enacted. The US will cumulatively spend (at current rates of increase) over 115-120 trillion USD on healthcare over the next 20 years. Good luck getting the systemic controllers to give up that level of revenues and the resultant profits, which even at small margins, are trillions upon trillions of dollars.

If you truly believe your own postings, make an OP, saying exactly what you just claimed in this colloquy with me. I will engage with it in a fair and respectful way.

[Act_of_Reparation]

89. TL;DR

This is a web forum, not a court of law. Figures of speech and colloquialisms are perfectly acceptable and in common use.

Yes, you could find an uncontrolled, biased, non-random, anecdotal, and wholly insignificant sampling of people who think if Bernie Sanders is elected he will enact M4A on Day 1. Get back to me when you have, at the very least, an N >= 30.

[Celerity]

90. non sequiturs abound there, but I am not surprised

have a great day

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

103. +1000

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[abqtommy]

12. Isn't it Joe's plan to strengthen the ACA? That's been an effective and popular program until the

reTHUGS got hold of it.

[Gothmog]

13. I will protect and build on Obamacare

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Thekaspervote]

15. Building on the ACA is the most sensible way to get to coverage for all

[myohmy2]

17. nope...

"...Joe Biden favors more modest changes that would keep private insurance in place..."

...no thanks, not good enough...we'll find the money for MFA...

...it's like pulling a bandaid off your hairy arm, just do it!

...

[Gothmog]

19. Warren Left $30 Trillion Short of Paying for Her Health Plan

I look forward to seeing Warren's plan https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-17/warren-left-30-trillion-short-of-paying-for-her-health-plan

Elizabeth Warren took a lot of flak at this week’s Democratic presidential debate for being evasive about the taxes needed to pay for the $30 trillion Medicare for All plan she champions. There’s a reason for being vague: Her team hasn’t yet figured out how to pay for it.

“Her taxes as they currently exist are not enough yet to cover fully replacing health insurance,” University of California, Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel Saez, who advised the Warren campaign when developing the wealth tax, told Bloomberg News on Wednesday....

That’s true for the rest of her plans. In total, she’s proposed an agenda that she estimates would cost nearly $6 trillion, according to her campaign. She’s offset those costs with more than $7.3 trillion in tax increases, according to Warren’s estimates and projections from the non-partisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

“She is offering a Medicare for All plan and not offering even close to enough to pay for it,” said Kyle Pomerleau, the chief economist at the conservative Tax Foundation. “One place she hasn’t gone yet is raising the existing individual income tax for top earners.”

However, he added, even that would only garner a fraction of what she’d need to fully fund a health care plan.

[myohmy2]

46. Bernie says...

"It is projected that if we do nothing and maintain our current dysfunctional system that we will spend $49 trillion over the next decade on health care."

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file
………………………………

...what we have now sucks and I don't think it can be made to unsuck…

...let's start fresh with a clean slate and make a healthcare system that works for us all...

...we can do it...

[Gothmog]

57. The NYT has a good article on how sanders failed to get a plan adopted in Vermont

A deep-blue state’s failure to enact a single-payer system shows why a national version is unlikely to succeed. www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/opinion/bernie-sanders-single-payer.html

Link to tweet

And so, at the end of 2014, Mr. Shumlin admitted defeat. “I have learned that the limitations of state-based financing, the limitations of federal law, the limitations of our tax capacity and the sensitivity of our economy” make single-payer “unwise and untenable at this time,” he said. “The risk of economic shock is too high.”

The Vermont plan was done in by high taxes, distrust of government and lack of political support. Any effort by a Sanders administration to enact a single-payer system at a national level would probably be doomed by similar problems.....

But if it couldn’t work in Vermont, with a determined governor, an accommodating legislature and progressive voters, Mr. Sanders will have a tough time explaining why it will somehow succeed on a vastly larger scale. Vermont represents a practical failure on friendly turf, and that is what makes it such a powerful counter to Mr. Sanders’s proposal.

“If Vermont can pass a strong single-payer system and show it works well, it will not only be enormously important to this state, it will be a model,” Mr. Sanders said in 2013.

As it turns out, it was a model. But instead of showing us how it would work, it showed us why it would fail.

[dpibel]

78. What was Sanders' position in Vermont at the time?

Last edited Mon Oct 28, 2019, 03:29 AM - Edit history (1)

In 2011, Bernie Sanders' position in the Vermont state government was________?

Even the op-ed you so cherish does not lay this at the feet of Sanders.

Do you have any principled explanation for why you do?

"How Sanders failed to get a plan adopted" is entirely your spin. Yet you represent it as a good article in the NYT.

How does that work?

[Buzz cook]

79. 30 trillion is less than the current system.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/heres-how-much-the-average-american-spends-on-health-care.html

Currently, Americans pay $3.4 trillion a year for medical care (and, unfortunately, don’t get impressive results).

times ten years that is 34 trillion. And that doesn't take into account that health care costs rise at a greater rate than inflation.

https://obamacare.net/obamacare-rates-2018/

Please note that these are the averages across all insurance carriers that have been approved by each state. This does not represent the final amount that your health insurance plan may or may not go up by. Some insurance carriers filed for minor Obamacare plan premium increases, in some cases 5% or less, while others filed for increased rates of 70% or more. One other important detail to note is that insurance carriers filed two rates for 2018.

https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/CurrentInflation.asp?reloaded=true

The September 2019 inflation rate was 1.71% almost one third of the lowest price increase in ACA plans.

My thumbnail calculation has the current plan at 50 trillion a year.

3.4 trillion a year adding a 5% cost increase per year and adjusting for 1.71% inflation.

I invite you to do the math.

[Celerity]

41. MFA will never pass in Congress

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287319357#post40

[myohmy2]

47. such negative vibes...

...I know one thing for certain, MFA will never happen if we don't try...

...other countries do it, why can't we?

...

[Celerity]

49. I am living atm in a country (Sweden) that has HC similar to MFA, and grew up with the NHS in the UK

I understand that a type of universal healthcare is a far better system, at most every level. But I am cynical realist, despite my young age. The US will not pass it. Too many trillions in profit at stake. The first-past-the-post majoritarian single member district American system means no proportional representation, so once the centre of political gravity has been moved to the right enough, and the system gamed and captured by the RW, then it is dead in the water, as the votes are not there from the opposing Party (us Democrats.) Too many centrists and moderates in our caucus (we have NO choice there, the Rethugs have gamed the system via gerrymandering and systemic voter suppression so only mods and centrists can get elected in the swing pink/purple/red districts), plus a large part of the population has been gaslit for decades to think they are getting the best deal in the world, when the vast majority are getting ripped off and millions die either far too early and/or completely unnecessarily, plus crushed economically by the sheer expenses/debt incurred.

The only way I see it being addressed is when true systemic collapse (across the entire economy, not just limited to HC) starts to occur. At current rates of cost increase and total outlays, that will occur, as it is unsustainable over the long term event horizon.

[Lulu KC]

50. This is what I do not understand

Look at what Barack Obama faced to implement ACA. Do they not understand that they, unlike DT, are not tyrants who can walk in and make their magic happen?
The debates spend so much time on this, when it will come down to Congress.

[Celerity]

52. I posit that IF a MFA proponent gets elected in 2020, then their presidency is already set up for

perceived failure (at least partially) as one of their main programmes is going to be DOA. The blowback on our Party as a whole could be ruinous, especially if they (the MFA POTUS) turns on the Democratic members of Congress (especially if we have a majority in both chambers) and calls them out, paints them as obstructionists. Combine that with a possible (if Rump somehow draws an inside straight and it is delayed until 2021) big recession starting when they enter office, and it is easy to see all sorts of electoral trouble ahead in 2022 and 2024.

I am fairly sure that MFA proponents will say IF we have majorities in both the Senate and the House, and MFA still fails, that we will then replace the opponents with far left progressives in 2022 and 2024. It doesn't work like that, not the way the electoral House districting map is skewed to the right, and not in many states (for Senators) either. Zero chance a far left Senator can win in Arizona, Alabama, Montana, Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, Alaska, Tennessee, Texas, Kansas, Kentucky, Indiana, Missouri, etc etc.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

66. I thought the compromise we had to take for ACA was just "step 1"

and that we would continue to get to a single payer?

So, let's get going on getting closer to a single payer.

[dansolo]

82. The money is not there

Neither Sanders nor Warren have come up with the money to cover the estimated costs for M4A. Not even close. That is assuming that the costs aren't even higher, which they almost certainly will be.

And even if they did come up with the money, that wouldn't eliminate our trillion dollar deficits. People are ignoring that little detail. The tax cuts increased the deficit, but the extra tax revenue from reversing them is already being spent. That means that the deficit remains the same.

[SterlingPound]

102. I agree

time to shit or get off the Pot, America

[oasis]

18. #JoeKnows

[Piiolo]

20. I like all plans by Democrats

Regardless.

[Cha]

21. "Voters seem to be siding with Biden

Link to tweet

Mahalo, Goth, for making this an OP~

[Gothmog]

22. Support for a public option has been increasing, and for Medicare-for-All has been decreasing

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

23. Why Elizabeth Warren won't talk about the cost of 'Medicare for All'

Link to tweet

The elephant in the waiting room remains the staggering cost of this new system. There's a reason why Warren avoids the conversation about how we're going to pay for Medicare for All. In fact, anyone with a pencil and paper and third-grade math skills would quickly figure out that this proposal simply cannot work.

Depending on whom you ask, cost estimates range from $2.5 trillion to $4.7 trillion per year. It's important to keep in mind that the entire federal budget for fiscal year 2020 is $4.7 trillion (including a $1.1 trillion-dollar deficit). Basically, we would have to double the size of the government through higher taxes on every American employee and fundamentally alter the structure of the American economy.....

Medicare for All fans propose to demolish our current health care system that certainly needs streamlining, more competition between insurance companies and plans and new and better technology. Other issues that must be addressed are drug manufacturing and distribution networks and hospital consolidation.

While we desperately need reform, any realistic policy proposal would recognize that 90 percent of Americans currently have health insurance. Instead, reasonable politicians should focus on how to cover those who are uninsured or underinsured in our current system.

[dpibel]

31. Stake my life

On this guy:


"David Grasso
"Executive Editor

"David Grasso began his career in television news. He is a journalist and specializes in creating content about startups and entrepreneurship. He regularly interviews more than a dozen entrepreneurs and change-makers weekly on several content platforms and also does media appearances to promote conversations about the power of entrepreneurship. David holds an M.A. in Public Policy from the Harvard Kennedy School."

It's possible he knows just what he's talking about. But I'm not seeing any particular indicia of expertise in that bio.

Add to that this legerdemain: "Depending on whom you ask, cost estimates range from $2.5 trillion to $4.7 trillion per year. It's important to keep in mind that the entire federal budget for fiscal year 2020 is $4.7 trillion (including a $1.1 trillion-dollar deficit)."

Well, gosh. The total cost of health care in the U.S. right now is $3.5 trillion a year.

So the cost of MFA, "depending on whom you ask," is right in the middle of what we currently spend.

So the real argument here is this: Should we cut out the insurance industry middleman and spend the same amount, give or take? Or should we pity the insurance industry and let them stay in the middle, sucking blood?

It's an inane argument: The entire federal budget is $4.7 trillion!!!! Big number, dude! How could we possibly finance $3.5 trillion????

Simple answer? We already do.

[Beartracks]

55. IKR? The cost of MFA or *any* plan is not ON TOP OF current costs.

It's not like health care is currently free in this country and these plans are going to muck that up.

========

[AncientGeezer]

60. Why don't you link to your cut and pastes? You're supposed to. I do.

[dpibel]

62. Gosh.

One of my "cut and pastes" was from the material quoted in the post to which I was responding. You could look right at Gothmog's post #23, to which I was responding, and discover it. How many times do we need to authenticate something?

If you're troubled by the information about David Grasso, seriously? I googled him. That's what came up. You are that challenged? Here. Let me help: https://genbiz.org/about/#team

Any other links you'd like?

This is not too hard.

[AncientGeezer]

64. What I'd like you to show....is that

Brooks and Douthart aren't NYT's employees....

You can't....but you should try so I can show the NYT's website proving you wrong

[Cha]

24. KICKING!

[Gothmog]

25. NYT-This Is the Strongest Argument Against Medicare for All

A deep-blue state’s failure to enact a single-payer system shows why a national version is unlikely to succeed. www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/opinion/bernie-sanders-single-payer.html

Link to tweet

The first problem for any single-payer push would be political support: Mr. Shumlin campaigned on a promise to build a single-payer system in Vermont, but the public never quite bought in. An April 2014 survey showed 40 percent support, 39 percent opposition and 21 percent undecided — a lukewarm result for such a major undertaking. That year, Mr. Shumlin barely won the popular vote against an anti-single-payer Republican. As John E. McDonough of Harvard wrote in a perceptive New England Journal of Medicine analysis of the plan’s collapse, “a clear public mandate” for Mr. Shumlin’s health care agenda “was nowhere in evidence.”

One reason the plan lacked strong support was lawmakers were cagey about how to pay for it. The 2011 proposal included no specific financing mechanism, because Mr. Shumlin’s team worried that might kill its chances.

Initial cost estimates were far too optimistic. A 2011 study led by William Hsiao of Harvard found that single-payer could reduce state health care spending by 8 percent to 12 percent immediately and more in later years, resulting in about $2 billion in savings over a decade. But by the time Mr. Shumlin ditched the plan, internal government estimates showed a five-year savings of just 1.6 percent.....

The Vermont plan was done in by high taxes, distrust of government and lack of political support. Any effort by a Sanders administration to enact a single-payer system at a national level would probably be doomed by similar problems.....

But if it couldn’t work in Vermont, with a determined governor, an accommodating legislature and progressive voters, Mr. Sanders will have a tough time explaining why it will somehow succeed on a vastly larger scale. Vermont represents a practical failure on friendly turf, and that is what makes it such a powerful counter to Mr. Sanders’s proposal.

“If Vermont can pass a strong single-payer system and show it works well, it will not only be enormously important to this state, it will be a model,” Mr. Sanders said in 2013.

As it turns out, it was a model. But instead of showing us how it would work, it showed us why it would fail.

[dpibel]

29. Really? "NYT"?

Do you actually believe that "published on the NYT op-ed pages" is the same as "NYT"?

Seems a tad naive to me.

Because, as you know, you're propagating an opinion piece by a libertarian.

[lapucelle]

32. How is an op-ed in the New York Times not the New York Times?

Do you really believe that a clearly labeled opinion piece published on the op-ed page of the New York Times is not vetted by the editor of the editorial page and not up to the standards of the New York Times?

[dpibel]

33. Really?

Do you not believe there is a difference between an editorial from the NYT editorial board and an op-ed from David Brooks.

There is, in fact, all the difference in the world.

In the the real world of journalism, there's a vast gulf between an editorial and an op-ed. You could look it up.

[lapucelle]

34. How is an op-ed in the New York Times not the New York Times?

The poster cited the publication source in the headline and the details in the body of the post. It is clear that that the piece is neither a news story nor an editorial.

The fact remains that the op-ed was vetted by the New York Times, met its standards, and was accepted for publication.

[dpibel]

35. By that logic

We must respect all op-ed pieces by David Brooks, Russ Douthat, and whomever the NYT elects to print.

I honestly do not believe you understand the meaning of "op-ed" when you speak of vetting and standards.

[lapucelle]

36. How is an op-ed in the New York Times not the New York Times?

An apocryphal obligation to “respect” someone else’s opinion because it appears in the New York Times does not follow from the fact that the op-ed was accepted for publication by and appears in the New York Times.

[dpibel]

37. But you see,

The person who linked to that op-ed is offering it as persuasive argument on the topic at hand.

And I am saying that presenting that, as the original poster did, as "NYT" indicates that the original poster wants us to accept it as the vetted, reliable opinion of the venerable New York Times.

And that is simply not the case with op-eds. The whole point of the op-ed page is to present diverse viewpoints.

Simple fact: The New York Times published an op-ed from a libertarian. Offering that op-ed as evidence for pretty much any proposition on a discussion board which is "Democratic Underground," not "Libertarian Underground," is, to me, misleading argumentation. Especially when it is presented as "NYT," not "some libertarian pundit."

[lapucelle]

39. The poster gave the publication name and article title in the headline,

and offered an excerpt and a link in the body.

There is nothing "misleading" about the post.

[TreasonousBastard]

42. It is an oped, but it is based on demonstrable facts...

It is just true that the attempt failed in Vermont. If it didn't, where is the Vermont Plan as the road map to the National Plan?

One may argue over the details on why it failed, but the simple fact is that it did fail.

And "I wrote the bill" Bernie's bill has no traction in the House or Senate.

[AncientGeezer]

54. David Brooks & Russ Douthat are NYT's employees....

Of course they are vetted and meet the standards of the NYT's

[dpibel]

56. Well, actually, no.

Last edited Sun Oct 27, 2019, 03:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Maggie Haberman, for instance, is an employee of the NYT. That's who she works for.

David Brooks is no more an employee of the NYT than Paul Krugman is.

Brooks, Douthat, Krugman are all, at best, independent contractors. The NYT pays them per column because the NYT thinks they will draw eyes, advertisers, and clicks.

The NYT may or may not fact-check the columns on the op-ed page; the fact that Brooks and Douthat periodically commit howlers calls that proposition into question.

My point is this: We are asked here to take the analysis of an avowed libertarian as meaningful evidence in a debate. We are asked to lend that analysis particular credence because it is published in the NYT.

IMHO, the fact that something appears on the NYT op-ed page makes it no more convincing than someone's opinion on Democratic Underground.

You look at their credentials and their biases and factor that into how much weight to give their argument.

Your mileage, clearly, varies.

[AncientGeezer]

59. Utter BS....look at the NYT's website it's not hard to look up.

Krugman is not employed by the NYT's....Brooks and Dothart are BOTH employed by NYT's...and it shows on the NYT's website.
Brooks IS.... https://www.nytimes.com/column/david-brooks
Douthart IS.... https://www.nytimes.com/column/ross-douthat

Both NYT's employees. You can't show me wrong.

[dpibel]

65. We're done

Both of those links prove the incontrovertible fact that Brooks and Douthart write op-eds for the NYT.

I'm coming to the realization that this is all too insider journalism stuff to register with most people. Sorry about that.

Simple fact: Not Brooks, not Douthart, not Krugman have the same institutional credibility as an Actual Editorial From The New York Times, nor do any of them have the reportorial cred of any single reporter for the NYT.

I'm sorry if you do not believe or accept this. But it is just simply true.

It's just like what gets said from time to time on Democratic Underground: The Wall Street Journal news team actually reports real news. The WSJ op-ed page is a crazy jungle.

If you do not accept this, I cannot help you any further than I have.

[AncientGeezer]

69. Paid writers for the NYT's....employees of the NYT's

You got called out and you can't back your claim....that's on you.
Deny all you want but they ARE NYT's employees.

[dpibel]

71. I'm sorry that this is sad for you

There just simply is a difference between the news side, the editorial board, and the op-ed page.

I urge you to do some research on it.

It's a meaningful difference, and you clearly don't understand it.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

67. See that word "Opinion" above his name?

That means that what he writes is NOT the NYT.

[AncientGeezer]

70. NYT's has Many Opinion writers....paid and unpaid...

IF the Times publishes it they accept it as acceptable in their paper.
Why is is that hard to comprehend?
They could chose to NOT publish it....right?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

73. Yes. But let's stop acting

like this is hard hitting investigation by the NYT reporting cold facts.

[melman]

75. You sure are working hard to defend this libertarian hit piece on M4A

Seems kind of an odd position for a Warren supporter to take.

[kcr]

72. You really don't understand the difference

Between an opinion piece in the editorial section of a newspaper and the news section? That they aren't at all the same? There is a reason they keep them separate.

[lapucelle]

81. The politician himself established the premise from which the opposing point of view is argued.

[Gothmog]

58. Read the article which is not an editorial but a history of why sanders failed to get a plan adopted

From the article

And so, at the end of 2014, Mr. Shumlin admitted defeat. “I have learned that the limitations of state-based financing, the limitations of federal law, the limitations of our tax capacity and the sensitivity of our economy” make single-payer “unwise and untenable at this time,” he said. “The risk of economic shock is too high.”

The Vermont plan was done in by high taxes, distrust of government and lack of political support. Any effort by a Sanders administration to enact a single-payer system at a national level would probably be doomed by similar problems.....

But if it couldn’t work in Vermont, with a determined governor, an accommodating legislature and progressive voters, Mr. Sanders will have a tough time explaining why it will somehow succeed on a vastly larger scale. Vermont represents a practical failure on friendly turf, and that is what makes it such a powerful counter to Mr. Sanders’s proposal.

“If Vermont can pass a strong single-payer system and show it works well, it will not only be enormously important to this state, it will be a model,” Mr. Sanders said in 2013.

As it turns out, it was a model. But instead of showing us how it would work, it showed us why it would fail.

[dpibel]

63. Please.

It is labeled "opinion" by the NYT.

It is not an article. It is an opinion column.

This may be a distinction that you missed in your debate club. But in journalism, it's a real distinction.

There is no real world way you can call an op-ed an "article."

It is this writer's analysis of what happened. It's not balanced reportage.

If you do not understand the difference, I'm really happy to stop talking to you, because we are actually speaking different languages.

[Gothmog]

68. People who ignore history are doomed to repeat it

The article explains how and why sanders' attempt to adopt single payer failed in Vermont. If sanders was unable to get a program approved in a small state like Vermont, then there is no way that this program will work nationwide

[dpibel]

77. Geez. Small state like Vermont is exactly the point.

I guess you haven't read too widely on this.

One of the points of insurance, private or public, is that the larger the sample, the better the results.

Insurance works because of averaging risks across large numbers. The larger, the better.

Vermont, as I trust you know, represents actually a small number of people.

The smaller the number of potential insureds, the higher the cost.

So pretending that Vermont = the entire U.S. is kinda problematic, for purposes of this argument.

One problem in Vermont is the same problem you are working very hard on in this discussion.

If you only talk about RAISING!!!!! TAXES!!11!!, people will be very alarmed.

Apparently, one thing that did not happen in Vermont was an effective communication of the very point that Elizabeth Warren keeps getting hammered on for making:

Why do you care if your taxes go up if your total outlay goes down?

This is only hard for those of you who, for whatever reason, want to make it hard.

In any case, pretending that the Vermont case is dispositive is simply silly.

It's a small state, with both limited resources and a limited coverage base.

It exists in a federal system that desperately wants to preserve the status quo.

Just for grins: If Vermont enacted single-payer, how much leverage do you figure it would have on drug prices? If the U.S. enacted single-payer, do you think the leverage would be different? Do you think it would change the calculus?

I think I already know your answer, sadly. But I'm willing to be wrong.

[Gothmog]

86. LOL I have read far more on this issue and I actually understand the concepts

sanders utterly failed to get a single payer plan adopted in Vermont because there is no way to raise sufficient tax revenues to pay for such a plan in the real world. I am enjoying your posts. I would love to hear how a single payor plan can be paid for without magical cost or societal savings.

I look forward to this explanation and a good explanation as to why sanders failed to get his magical plan adopted in Vermont

[AncientGeezer]

61. A person that passed the vetting of the NYT's.....

[lapucelle]

80. Facts are inconvenient things.

[Gothmog]

83. Yep

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it

[Cha]

105. Can be so

pesky!

[Cha]

97. Hmmm.. some things never

change.

[elleng]

26. Called 'compromise,' part of the business of Congress and the presidency,

and a good reason we shouldn't spend time hastling about candidate's 'plans' NOW.

[TreasonousBastard]

43. Agreed, absolutely. NONE of these plans will see the light of day as written.

[elleng]

44. Thanks.

Such a waste of everyone's time and energy, to pretend to 'debate' these. Recall how long it took 'Obamacare' finally to be complete?

'in particular, Democrats Max Baucus, Jeff Bingaman and Kent Conrad, along with Republicans Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley and Olympia Snowe—met for more than 60 hours, and the principles that they discussed, in conjunction with the other committees, became the foundation of the Senate healthcare reform bill' For some reason, I particularly recall Baucus' role.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Background

[guillaumeb]

27. If 71% of Democrats favor a public option,

and if seniors already like Medicare, why give more taxpayer money to the insurance monopolies?

[questionseverything]

30. because insurance companies write huge checks?

is only thing I can think of

[kacekwl]

51. I don't care if the health insurance industry goes belly up.

They don't care if I go belly up either. If they don't want to die possibly a little pressure from government in the way of reforms and regulation to actually provide affordable and actual coverage for their clients may delay their demise. Same with pharmaceuticals. Totally out of control industries.

[guillaumeb]

91. There is that fact.

And in a system where money=free speech, what can one expect?

[betsuni]

38. K&R

[PhoenixDem]

45. K&R n/t

[Peacetrain]

48. K & R

[Baked Potato]

53. That plan lines up pretty much with Amy Klobuchar and Mayor Pete too

Just saying.

[BlueMississippi]

74. k&r nt

[Buzz cook]

76. How much does the Biden plan cost?

How will those who can't afford a public option or private insurance get coverage in Biden's plan? How much will that cost? Who will pay for that and will taxes be raised?

Our current system, the ACA, will cost well over 30 trillion over ten years. How will the Biden plan change that system to make it more affordable?

Will a public option allow the insurance industry to reduce high risk coverage? Will this allow free riders to get cheap insurance that will fail them in times of need putting their costs on the government?

How much does the Biden plan estimate that we will subsidize the insurance industry?

https://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/why-a-public-option-wont-work/

[Gothmog]

92. A dose of reality for Medicare-for-all

Link to tweet

Now we have two more data points. The quite credible think tank, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, comes up with some options assuming a cost of $30 trillion over the next decade (a midway point in the range of estimates):

We estimate the cost could be covered with a 32 percent payroll tax, a 25 percent income surtax, a 42 percent value-added tax, or a public premium averaging $7,500 per capita or more than $12,000 per individual who wouldn’t otherwise be enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP. Medicare for All could also be paid for by more than doubling individual and corporate income tax rates, reducing federal spending by 80 percent, or increasing the national debt by 108 percent of GDP. Tax increases on high earners, corporations, and the financial sector by themselves could not cover much more than one-third of the cost of Medicare for All.

But you say, none of that is remotely feasible politically and would have all sorts of negative economic consequences.

Warren actually has an even harder task since CFRB does not exempt the middle class. Therefore, Warren cannot use “a 32 percent payroll tax, a 25 percent income surtax, a 42 percent value-added tax, or a public premium averaging $7,500 per capita” if they are going to hit the middle class to such an extent that it wipes out savings from removing insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, etc. This is the equivalent of trying to balance on elephant on the head of a pin.

[Cha]

96. WOW! Our Shower Cap!

Gracias Goth!

[Gothmog]

99. I have been following him on twitter for a while

[Cha]

100. I've noticed he's on the same

page as a lot of us are.

[crazytown]

93. Wont pass the Senate

Didn't when the Dems had 58 votes; won't this time either.

[Gothmog]

94. Choices for Financing Medicare for All: A Preliminary Analysis

This is from a non-partisan think group that is well respected http://www.crfb.org/papers/choices-financing-medicare-all-preliminary-analysis

Proposals to adopt single-payer health care in the United States have grown in popularity in recent years, as numerous lawmakers and presidential candidates have embraced Medicare for All. However, few have grappled with how to finance the new costs imposed on the federal government. By most estimates, Medicare for All would cost the federal government about $30 trillion over the next decade. How this cost is financed would have considerable distributional, economic, and policy implications.

In the coming months, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget will publish a detailed analysis describing numerous ways to finance Medicare for All and the consequences and trade-offs associated with each choice. This paper provides our preliminary estimates of the magnitude of each potential change and a brief discussion of the types of trade-offs policymakers will need to consider.

We find that Medicare for All could be financed with:

A 32 percent payroll tax
A 25 percent income surtax
A 42 percent value-added tax (VAT)
A mandatory public premium averaging $7,500 per capita – the equivalent of $12,000 per individual not otherwise on public insurance
More than doubling all individual and corporate income tax rates
An 80 percent reduction in non-health federal spending
A 108 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increase in the national debt
Impossibly high taxes on high earners, corporations, and the financial sector
A combination of approaches

Each of these choices would have consequences for the distribution of income, growth in the economy, and ability to raise new revenue. Some of these consequences could be balanced against each other by adopting a combination approach that includes smaller versions of several of the options as well as additional policies.

[Gothmog]

95. A good rule of thumb: Don't get to Pelosi's left

Link to tweet

She is openly dubious of the left’s top priority in 2020: the push to establish a single-payer health-care system that will replace private health insurance. It would be better for Democrats to “begin with where we have agreement,” she said. “Let’s not start with: ‘You have private insurance—forget about it.’” She wants to begin by bolstering the Affordable Care Act, adding a public competitor to private insurance, and restoring provisions in the law that Trump has weakened. “Maybe Medicare for All is a destination,” Pelosi said. “But it’s certainly not a starting point.”

[Gothmog]

98. Biden's health care plan will be ready to go the day he's sworn into office

Link to tweet

[Cha]

106. Thanks, Goth!

[Poeraria]

104. Biden is a veteran in the health care fight. He was around when the Clinton effort failed...

...and he played a key part in Obama's success. Go with the experienced winner, I always say.

(You got me. I don't always say that. But I did just then.)

[Gothmog]

107. From Harry Reid

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

108. Polling shows MFA is a bad idea

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

109. Medicare for All's JOBS problem

Link to tweet

Initial research from University of Massachusetts economists who have consulted with multiple 2020 campaigns has estimated that 1.8 million health care jobs nationwide would no longer be needed if Medicare for All became law, upending health insurance companies and thousands of middle class workers whose jobs largely deal with them, including insurance brokers, medical billing workers and other administrative employees. One widely cited study published in the New England Journal of Medicine estimated that administration accounted for nearly a third of the U.S.’ health care expenses.

Even if a bigger government expansion into health care left doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals’ jobs intact, it would still cause a restructuring of a sprawling system that employs millions of middle-class Americans.

University of Massachusetts researchers who analyzed the 2017 version of Sanders’ Medicare for All bill estimated that nationwide more than 800,000 people who work for private health insurance companies and a further 1 million who handle administrative work for health care providers would see their jobs evaporate.

The workers generally earn middle-class wages, according to the November 2018 study forecasting the economic ramifications of Sanders’ plan. The median annual income of a worker employed in the health insurance industry is nearly $55,000; for office and administrative jobs at health care service sites, it’s about $35,000, researchers said.

“The savings don’t come out of the sky,” said Pollin. “The main way we save money is through administrative simplicity. That means layoffs. There’s just no way around it.”

[R B Garr]

110. "Other polling shows support for Medicare for All plummets when people realize it would mean

abolishing private insurance and raising taxes."


This has been true for years about Medicare for All. Time to accept the facts about how people view it.

What's shocking is how little thought the "progressives" put into considering union benefits. It is a poorly thought out plan and would be an absolute disaster to run on.

[Jakes Progress]

111. Seems that Rick sort of sucks at math.

That last sentence is a doozy. 71 + 85 = 156%

That makes sense to those who believe that you can pay for universal healthcare, provide insurance corporations with profit, pay for insurance lobbyists, pay for advertising, support CEO lifestyles for less than you can just pay for universal healthcare. Fuzzy math is fuzzy math.

I noticed that no one is saying how much Biden's plan would cost. Explain how it will cost less to provide universal health care by adding insurance industry expenses.

[Gothmog]

112. Nancy Pelosi is "not for doing away with Obamacare" and prefers to give people choices.

Link to tweet