Did I hear Bernie mention a payroll tax?

[RandySF]

No thank you.

[applegrove]

1. Instead of healthcare spending of any kind?

[RandySF]

8. I pay a small premium and no deductible

At least during my recent therapy.

[MoonlitKnight]

33. Look at your paystub now

You already have a Medicare payroll tax.

[RandySF]

34. Will it go up or remain the same?

[thesquanderer]

43. One way or another, middle class taxes will go up (whether it's payroll or income tax)...

...and the argument is that the elimination of most other health costs (high deductibles, copays, premiums, currently non-covered items, high cost "gap" insurances for when you're out of a job, etc.) would mean that, for most people, total out of pocket would go down. It may not go down for every person in every year, but in terms of what you pay over time, you should generally come out ahead.

[HarlanPepper]

64. Bernie has said both are going up for middle income folks

To pay for M4A. He’s said it on the record more than once. That’s what the GOP is going to destroy him with.

[msongs]

2. his bogus spin - your med bills go down, your taxes go up. no net change really nt

[DURHAM D]

5. Yes. Total tripe. nt

[Blue_true]

17. What about healthy people that have no medical bills to speak of?

When I worked in corporate America, the amount that I paid into my health plan was minimal, like maybe $80 per month. My annual healthcare expenses were around $300 on top of the premiums. I would have lost money under MFA.

MFA is great for sick people, not so much for healthier people that have small premium and medical expenditures.

[TexasBushwhacker]

24. Seriously?

Your health and medical expenditures are one accident away from being catastrophic. You've been lucky. Good for you. Consider the cost to society of "sick people" who have no or inadequate health insurance.

[Blue_true]

26. Most people don't think of one accident away.

They see their reality and that drives their decisionmaking.

I always see the "one accident away" argument, when in fact it is things like lung disease, heart disease and diabetes killing people, all of which can be prevented in most people.

Will sick people cost any less under MFA than now? People's premiums reflect the fact that sick people are in the system.

Instead of MFA, we need to focus on expanding the ACA and get back to working with Americans to control their weight and known health hazards like smoking and excessive alcohol consumption. The ACA did put emphasis on preventative medicine, unlike MFA, which as best I can tell, will try to "fix" people regardless of their poor habits that help make them sick.

[dawg day]

57. Tell that to children. Hey, kid, why didn't you prevent..

That asthma? That cerebral palsy? That leukemia? That strep throat?

[Blue_true]

88. I am not interested in engaging emotional arguments.

The majority of illness is preventable and occurs in adults that made bad life choices.

This is getting off the track. The fact is any healthcare system is going to be explosively costly to maintain if people that should, don't take reasonably good care of themselves. I am not calling for sacrifice, just exercise of common sense.

[dawg day]

104. That's actually an emotional argument-- "It's your own fault!"

I think if you polled people on this list, you'd find that some are healthy because they have lived a healthy life, some are healthy through no particular effort on their own, some are unhealthy through no fault of their own, some are disabled because they were genetically unlucky, some are hurt or sick because they made a mistake at some point.

I have known several healthy young men who died while engaging in healthy activities like softball and running (not even overdoing). I had a friend (a woman) who could run a 7-minute mile at the age of 60, and died suddenly of a stroke. Life is full of perverse twists and turns.

I'm all for common sense, and common sense tells me that blaming people for getting sick is going to be right perhaps half the time-- and it's seldom productive even if it is their fault they got cancer or tripped on that sidewalk crack.

[thesquanderer]

51. re:"MFA is great for sick people, not for healthier people that have small premium and expenditures"

All insurance is based on paying for something when you don't need it so that it will be there when you do. All "healthier people" eventually become "less healthy." And while your other point about preventative measures is true, we can't just sit back and say, "you ate junk food most of your life, we'll just let you die." And even to the extent that lifestyle changes prolong life and reduce incidence of certain diseases, people will just get other ones, perhaps some years later. Changing our diets is not going to make us immortal.

Also, from something else I just posted elsewhere:

the biggest benefit of MFA is not what will happen to YOUR coverage, but the importance of having a society where the LESS FORTUNATE have coverage. Bernie does kind of make this point with his repeated mantra of health care being a human right, but I"m not sure the slogan's real meaning is actually sinking in.

Yes, MFA will be better for most people who have coverage today, even if only because they no longer have to worry about losing their coverage (or access to their current doctors) based on decisions made by their employers (who in many/most case may change your plan or even simply fire you at any time). People won't have to stay at a job for their health coverage, which dominoes to numerous other life decisions, like where they can live or where they can send their kids to school, or when they can retire.

But the biggest benefit comes when we step outside the (stereotypically more Republican) perspective of "what's in it for me, I've got mine" to "what's in it for society, and the people who are less fortunate than me." I guess it's a tougher sell, but I think that's what some of the non-MFA advocates are missing. Adding a public option to Obamacare is not sufficient.

[dawg day]

54. Yes and before Medicare, who paid for Grandma?

Her children and grandchildren had to pay for treatment of that broken hip. We have to face it... we're going to poo at one way or another.

[Blue_true]

89. Lifestyle affects both the cost of healthcare and insurance rates.

It is insane of you to basically state otherwise. People that take better care of themselves generally need less hospitalization and pharmaceuticals than their age-group peer, that directly impacts cost across the spectrum of healthcare services.

Bernie will just introduce an impossibly expensive system if he doesn't deal with people's personal choices, but the ACA already was doing that, so why completely remake the system? Bernie is selling hotseshit to gullible people, we have things in place that can better accomplish what he claims that he will accomplish.

[thesquanderer]

96. re: "It is insane of you to basically state otherwise."

I did not state otherwise.

re: "the ACA already was doing that, so why completely remake the system?"

At least in theory, the reasons are at least...

(a) for-profit private insurance adds an additional cost to the system that provides no actual health benefit

(b) ACA still leaves many uncovered

(c) a split system (e.g. ACA/private for some, versus on the other side, "public option"/MFA for "all who want it" ) will result in a public system that is disproportionately weighted with those who need more, which prevents it from maximizing its cost saving potential, thereby raising costs for everybody (its own costs increased by having a diluted pool; the non-private side's cost increased by the need for profit and return to shareholders).

I'm not an expert, so maybe someone else can do a better job here than I can, but that's a summary of my understanding.

[Blue_true]

100. You danced around my central point.

American's personal choices are contributing to our high healthcare expenses. Australia, one of the best examples for us, has a two tiered system, a government run plan that covers most things and private insurance that covers the rest. A private policy there cost around 20% of what we pay on average, but Australia has a 9% obesity rate versus our 30%+ rate. We simply have a lot more expensive illnesses like heart disease, kidney disease (big obesity component) and diabetes than Australia does, so we pay more and will pay more under MFA or any other system, until we tackle the base problems - oh, but the ACA already has mechanisms to do that, why don't we build on what exists instead of chasing some details free plan?

[thesquanderer]

101. re: "but the ACA already has mechanisms to do that, why don't we build on what exists"

I think because the underlying premise of the ACA is that it is built around primarily for-profit entities, which immediately makes it that much more expensive to try to come up with a mechanism that covers everyone. My priority would be on how to cover everyone (not most people, everyone) most cost-effectively. If someone comes up with an ACA-based system to do that, that's okay too. But it looks to be harder if you're adding a for-profit layer, and building a dual system that will likely segregate "more desirable" patients into the for-profit wing, thereby also raising the costs in the non-profit wing which will be stuck with a greater percentage of "less desirable" patients. So, it's not that I'm dancing around your central point, it's that I have a different central point. But yes, preventative care needs to be a big part of whatever system we have.

All that said, the health care plan is not much of a factor in which candidate I support. Even though I think an MFA-style approach is ultimately better, I could live with either. Hopefully for a long time.

[Blue_true]

102. Australia has a dual system, so does Canada and Britain.

Their government systems are lower cost than our existing. So your claim that a dual system inflates the government costs is proven false by their examples. What they don't have is the large number of people with unhealthy personal habits that we have, until that is dealt with no system is going to be cost effective, certainly not an MFA system.

[dawg day]

52. Your employer probably paid 3x that premium.

That comes out of the $ available to pay you. I pay $220 for my insurance each month. My employer pays $750. It's not a gift.

[sdfernando]

56. OK, so does Bernie's plan FORCE empoyers to move that $$ they pay as a healthcare

benefit to your payroll? If that isn't in there then just say bye-bye to it. Employers will keep that money for themselves.

[dawg day]

59. Just pointing out we pay a whole lot already.

And should consider the entire cost... which we'll have to pay if we leave the job.

[Blue_true]

91. Bernie HAS NOT figured out the total cost. He is selling you a dream. nt

[dawg day]

105. He hasn't sold me anything. I have similar doubts about Sanders's plan.

But just as I don't think that the Post Office has to make a profit or Social Security or the US Military or the Highway system should pay for themselves, I don't think that healthcare should be considered "too expensive". The healthier the populace is, the cheaper healthcare will be in the future.

I would -- were I tsar-- jump right over Sanders's plan and everyone else's plan and go-- as the Brits and the Canadians did -- to a true national health program where we pay higher taxes than we do now, but in return we get genuinely free healthcare. Yes, our country can afford it. The UK instituted it right after WWII, when food was still rationed and the country was financially exhausted. We just have to decide real healthcare is worth funding.

Bernie's not dreaming high enough for me.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

68. You know what the main reason behind stagnate is for the last 20 years?

You guessed it. Healthcare costs


But by all means, let’s keep feeding the insurance and pharmaceutical industry our pay raises. They need that hundreds of billions in profits.

New report shows the harmful effect rising health care costs have on wage stagnation

https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/new-report-shows-the-harmful-effect-rising-health-care-costs-have-on-wage-stagnation-2018-09-04

Rising health care costs are diminishing U.S. workers' take-home pay and putting the American Dream further out of reach, particularly for lower income earners, according to a new analysis released by the Council for Affordable Health Coverage and Willis Towers Watson. Health Care USA: A Cancer on the American Dream, co-authored by renowned health care consultant Sylvester Schieber and Steven A. Nyce, director, Willis Towers Watson's Research and Innovation Center, depicts how health care costs have eclipsed compensation growth and whittled away at Americans' disposable earnings, concentrating income among the wealthiest Americans.

[Blue_true]

92. Some people need more than emotional arguments and claims.

GIVE ME EXACT DETAILS ON WHAT BETNIE'S PLANS WILL COST, HOW HE WILL IMPLEMENT THEM AND HOW HE WILL KEEP COST FROM EXPLODING AS SICK PEOPLE FLOOD THE SYSTEM.

The things that I pointed out is what must be done to get a sustainable, effective, low cost healthcare system in this country. NOTHING that Bernie has presented in his details-free shouting convinces me that he has grappled with those issues.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

94. Yale says $450 billion less than we pay now.

Sick people flood the system? Are you serious with this?

I’ve got news for you: sick people already flood the system. Only now they do it after they are really sick. And they do it in the most expensive way - by flooding emergency rooms.

[Blue_true]

98. When does that $450 billion starts getting saved?

The Yale study doesn't say.

You personal choices matter. 30.6% of Anericans are obese, in Australia, a country which did not launch national healthcare until 1975, the obesity rate is 9.1%. That people here are making choices that result in them getting sick DOES matter on costs. The ACA deals with people's choices relative to their healthcare, Sanders so far is saying "let's put in place SOME system that fix everyone". I used "SOME" because he has provided zero details so far, so except for the name, what he is proposing is a big unknown.

Expansion of the mechanisms which the ACA put in place gets us farther down the road to where we need to be than the idea (not plan because plans have details attached to them) that Sanders has tossed out.

[Blue_true]

90. Bernie doesn't have a plan. He really hasn't looked into details like

Warren did to blow up her chances.

Bernie is just interested in selling fairy dust to people that are not analyzing what he is saying critically, and that is amazing because a lot of those people should know better.

[dawg day]

55. If you don't have kids, you still pay school taxes.

I don't like war, but I have to pay for bombers. I'd much rather help pay for health care for my fellow citizens.

It's what we do in a modern democracy... share costs and benefits.

[Blue_true]

93. Please give more than emotional justifications.

1. How much will MFA cost per year.
2. How will it be implemented.
3. How will the system sustain itself.
4. What happens to people that can't work.

Bernie has answered NOTHING so far, all he has done is what you just did, throw up an emotional strawhorse.

[dawg day]

103. I'm not justifying anything about Sanders's plan--

I don't actually like MFA. (I want single-payer at point of service like the NHS.)

It's just when we say, "That doesn't benefit me directly, so I shouldn't have to pay for it," I don't think it's compatible with a modern democracy with 320 million.

It's also short-sighted. The young person who is healthy might well have children who need health care, and will almost certainly have parents who will get sick or hurt.

That's all-- we can argue about the policies-- I would argue against MFA because I don't think it's good enough for what it will probably cost-- but I hope we wouldn't argue that we must occasionally be willing to go beyond our own particular needs to what is good for everyone.

Sorry I wasn't clear.

[dawg day]

53. But... other countries give comprehensive care

Much cheaper than we have much less care. So there is a lot of evidence that a comprehensive system would save everyone money.

[DURHAM D]

3. Yes.

I am guessing his supporters think that would mean just their employer and not them.

[George II]

4. Payroll taxes are regressive. Did he really say that (I'm not watching)?

[DURHAM D]

7. Yes

[Maru Kitteh]

11. Yes he did.

[thesquanderer]

39. re: "Payroll taxes are regressive. "

Not inherently. Like any other income tax, it can be more or less regressive by altering at what pay amount they kick in, whether rates adjust with the amount of gross pay, etc.

[madaboutharry]

6. That should be a deal breaker for everyone.

$29,000 a year and people are going to bring home less? Is he fucking kidding?

[MH1]

14. It will be a deal breaker for a lot of general election voters. nt.

[HarlanPepper]

18. Also there will be an increase in the federal income tax for middle income folks on top of that

Payroll tax and income tax. So yeah, it’ll go over like a turd in a punch bowl in a general election. It’s literally political suicide.

[krissey]

38. Exactly. Where ACA take that amount into account when calculating payment.

[lapucelle]

9. A payroll tax to pay for healthcare? N/T

[R B Garr]

12. Yes.

[lapucelle]

13. Will there be a second payrol tax to pay off student debt? N/T

[R B Garr]

19. LOL, exactly.

[TexasBushwhacker]

25. Everyone doesn't have student debt

Everyone needs health insurance.

[lapucelle]

29. So the plan is to institute a regressive tax because "everyone needs healthcare".

What's the plan for paying off the student debt that "everyone doesn't have"?

[Mosby]

62. It's not regressive.

People are just playing games with mfa. Employees and companies already pay massive health care costs, I pay 500 per month.

Watch the john Oliver piece, mfa is the way to go for now.

Personally I think we need to nationalize the hospitals. long term that will significantly lower costs.

[lapucelle]

63. Payroll taxes are by definition regressive. N/T

[Mosby]

66. Hardly, they are based on the number of employees and hours worked

You ever own a business?

[lapucelle]

67. Do you know what payroll taxes are and who pays them?

What are payroll taxes?

Payroll taxes are taxes that employees and employers must pay based on wages and tips earned and salaries paid to employees.

The employee pays part of these taxes through a payroll deduction, and the employer pays the rest directly to the IRS.

[Mosby]

77. How is paying into social security regressive?

You seem to be evading the issue, employers and employees pay into social security, and medicare. The employer also pays for unemployment insurance and a workmans comp policy. None of these taxes are regressive, because they are based on earning and other factors like number of employees.

I owned a retail business and paid these taxes.

[lapucelle]

80. It's not unusual for business owners not to understand

the impact of tax policy on workers, their wages, and their quality of life.

Payroll Taxes Have Larger Impact on Lower-Income People

Payroll taxes are regressive: low- and moderate-income taxpayers pay more of their incomes in payroll tax than do high-income people, on average. The bottom fifth of households will pay an average of 6.9 percent of their incomes in payroll tax in 2019, according to Tax Policy Center estimates, while the top fifth will pay 5.9 percent and the top 1 percent of households will pay just 2.3 percent. These figures include the employer and employee shares of the payroll tax.

The fact that you as a business owner do not personally find the payroll tax regressive does not change the fact that payroll taxes are regressive.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/policy-basics-federal-payroll-taxes

[Mosby]

83. Your link

However, if one looks at the overall impact of Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance — the benefits they provide as well as the taxes they collect — these programs are progressive. For instance, Social Security benefits represent a higher proportion of a worker’s previous earnings for workers at lower earnings levels; and while all Medicare beneficiaries are eligible for the same services, high-income beneficiaries pay more in Medicare taxes and premiums.

The reason high earners pay less is because ss caps income.

[lapucelle]

85. Yes I know.

While a program itself might be progressive, the means of funding it can, at the same time, be regressive.

Social Security, for a example, is a progressive program funded (at least in part) by a regressive tax.

It's really not complicated.

[Mosby]

97. Lower income people have a better ROI from their payments into the system.

The ROI has an inverse correlation to income, so it balances out.

This article trys to simplify the relationship:

http://content.thirdway.org/publications/718/Third_Way_Report_-_Is_Social_Security_Regressive_.pdf

[lapucelle]

99. That doesn't lessen the impact of the tax being regressive

during the course of the 40+ years that it takes before it "balance out".

There are better ways to fund a program.

[stopbush]

21. The current payroll tax of 1.5% would go up to at least 7.5%,

and that’s assuming 100% of workers would still have monthly premiums under MFA, just like current Medicare patients.

[TCJ70]

79. That would cut my current healthcare costs per month in half. I'll take it.

I currently drop about 17% of every paycheck in healthcare costs. And that's for the most basic family plan my employer offers. It's still better than what's out there on the ACA in terms of cost and benefits...so this seems like a pretty good deal to me.

[stopbush]

81. You would also need to pay a premium of $135 per month for each family member,

Ie: the current rate for Medicare patients.

[TCJ70]

86. That's still cheaper...n/t

[stopbush]

87. And of course, your employer would also need to pay that 7.5% tax on each of

their employees.

[TCJ70]

95. That's less than they currently contribute to my health insurance...

...so they’ll probably be ok with that.

[R B Garr]

10. BINGO! This is something he and his camp never mention.

I’ve wondered for years why he gets away with this. Plus he never considered union benefits, what else is left out?? What a mess.

[thesquanderer]

40. re: "Plus he never considered union benefits"

Yes he did. For union-negotiated health benefits that would be removed, the employer must provide the equivalent amount back in another form of compensation (higher wages or other benefits). Detail at:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/22/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-fact-check-1472482

[R B Garr]

45. lol, that article is a few months old and it explains that the "new" revised plan

now considered the union benefits. So union benefits were not considered initially. How can that happen, and what else has been overlooked. This portends to ongoing revisions all along the way -- so much disruption over something that has obviously not been properly thought out.

Not to mention...the 7.5% PAYROLL TAX that is being swept under the rug....

[thesquanderer]

46. You said he never considered it, but he addressed it 6 months ago.

And you know what? There will be tons MORE changes if and when anything remotely close to this starts winding its way through congress.

You don't have to have every last detail of an idea worked out before you can start garnering support for it. It comes with feedback and process.

[R B Garr]

47. He never considered it -- until it became an obvious omission, lol. That much is obvious.

It was never considered. He's been at this for five (5) years, and only a mere months ago he thought about union benefits?? Really? So much for being a champion for the working class.

[thesquanderer]

50. Probably because that was the first time he got that feedback about it.

Nobody has every detail of every complicated plan worked out before it's out of the gate. That's why feedback is so important. You hear, "what about THIS circumstance" and you say, "hmmm, yes, we should address that," and you do. No candidate's bills are complete, whether on health care or anything else. And I don't find any of this particularly LOL-worthy. Maybe there's a nitrous oxide leak where you are? That can be serious, I hope you have good health care!

[R B Garr]

69. Thanks for continuing to make my point. He never considered obvious things like union benefits,

so what else is he putting out there that needs so much "feedback." Nothing you've typed, including petty comments about nitrous oxide has refuted anything I've said. It's only confirmed it. Thanks again.


And the "lol" was for the obvious obtuseness, lol.

[thesquanderer]

70. re: "so what else is he putting out there that needs so much 'feedback.' "

I'm sure many people have pored over it looking for more such things (considering how many people are fighting it).

And I'm sure more would be changed as anything like it went through congress.

Adding the extra union protection did not negate anything that had already existed in the bill, but it improved it. I would hope for more improvements. The plan was not delivered from Moses on a tablet.

If every proposal should be entirely dismissed because there was another angle to consider and adapt into the plan, no proposal would ever get anywhere.

[R B Garr]

71. Your own article shows the correction he had to make to even have a dialogue about

union benefits. They were never considered. Nothing you are typing changes that glaring omission. He's had five (5) years to discuss costs and he refuses. Now we see why when it's finally coming out about the 7.5% PAYROLL TAX. So it's not just the union benefits -- which is the point: what other mistakes are there.

There really is no need to continue this obtuseness. Your own article shows that he never considered union benefits. You are trying to take insurance away from 150 to 160 million people and this kind of omission shows how poorly thought out much of this is.

Time to move on now.

[thesquanderer]

72. re: "You are trying to take insurance away from 150 to 160 million people"

No, MFA tries to give insurance to MORE people. Seeing a change in your insurance is not the same as taking insurance away.

As I said elsewhere...

the biggest benefit of MFA is not what will happen to YOUR coverage, but the importance of having a society where the LESS FORTUNATE have coverage. Bernie does kind of make this point with his repeated mantra of health care being a human right, but I"m not sure the slogan's real meaning is actually sinking in.

Yes, MFA will be better for most people who have coverage today, even if only because they no longer have to worry about losing their coverage (or access to their current doctors) based on decisions made by their employers (who in many/most case may change your plan or even simply fire you at any time). People won't have to stay at a job for their health coverage, which dominoes to numerous other life decisions, like where they can live or where they can send their kids to school, or when they can retire.

But the biggest benefit comes when we step outside the (stereotypically more Republican) perspective of "what's in it for me, I've got mine" to "what's in it for society, and the people who are less fortunate than me." I guess it's a tougher sell, but I think that's what some of the non-MFA advocates are missing. Adding a public option to Obamacare is not sufficient.

[R B Garr]

73. No. M4A takes away insurance from 150 to 160 million people and forces them on to

government insurance. Nothing you are saying accurately describes what happens, as it skips over that most important part. Forcing people into a big think tank where everyone is deciding why union benefits were omitted, LOL.

This is a disastrous way to go about this -- insulting people and then misrepresenting what you are forcing them into.

Time to move on now. If you want to start a thread preaching others about M4aLL, go for it, but no need to harass me with this.

In conclusion, your own article clearly showed that union benefits were not considered. He's had five (5) years, so it doesn't portend well for what else hasn't been considered.

[thesquanderer]

76. if you think every plan has to be perfect before it is presented, then ok, we'll never agree...

but I didn't insult anyone.

And saying "taking insurance away" is inaccurate (at least incomplete) because it's not that the people you're talking about will have no insurance... they will still have insurance, but it may be different insurance. Heck, it may well be better insurance. At a minimum, it will be insurance that can no longer be changed or dropped based on your employer.

[R B Garr]

78. No. You are just flat out wrong. Your article just proved my point, so thanks for that.

You are taking insurance away from 150 to 160 million people, so please let's not waste time on word games. You are forcing people on to government insurance -- that is what this is about.

Of course you were trying to be insulting with the petty nitrous gas comment. How in god's name are you going to get 150 to 160 million people to listen to you with nothing but petty insults and misinformation.

LOL

[thesquanderer]

82. re: "nothing but petty insults and misinformation."

You have not pointed out any misinformation in my posts. The only information presented, really, is about the change that was made in August, and it is accurate. We're not disagreeing about the facts, then... only about whether those facts do or do not represent a reasonable thing to have occurred.

I guess the other information that you could say is in dispute is whether people would be having insurance taken away or if they would be having it changed. I think my wording is more accurate, since they still will, in fact, have insurance. But I guess we can agree to disagree there.

As for insults, though, you're referring to a gentle ribbing about your repeated use of the LOLs? What was the insult? That I found your dismissive LOLs, umm, insulting? Ironic.

[R B Garr]

84. Your first post was an article that supported what I said about union rights. Union rights were

not considered in M4all until it was pointed out that they were omitted. This is now about the 5th or 6th repetitive post in which that is being pointed out -- so thanks for choosing that article that agreed with my statement. Time to move on now.

Of course you are taking people's insurance away from people. M4ALL eliminates private insurance and forces people onto government single payer insurance. No need to type any more posts when that is what it does. It will take away private insurance away. It eliminates the insurance that 150 to 160 million Americans have. No need to deny this and keep typing falsehoods or play word games. Time to move on.

Time to move on now. If you want to tout M4All, you could start another thread, but nothing you are typing is accurate in this particular thread and I'm not interested in your misinformation and preaching about it because I don't find it necessary to read misinformation.

Let's face it, you aren't the only one who uses insults to force M4all talking points. I'm just insisting that you move on now since the insults haven't changed my mind or informed anything further. Again, the "lol" was for the obtuseness, so time to move on, thanks, lol.

[Maru Kitteh]

15. Sanders acknowledged - you make more than 29K per year? PAYROLL TAX on you

for healthcare. That's apparently only HALF of the revenue needed for his plan. What about the other half? Who da fuk knows.

NOT IMPRESSED. I love my union healthcare.

[George II]

20. My brother would not be alive without his union health insurance....

...two major heart attacks, two heart pumps, probably a couple of million dollars in medical bills over the years.

His out of pocket? $0 - no premiums, no copays, no prescription costs, nothing. And he's been retired for thirty years.

[dware]

16. So the real Bernie is finally showing his hand?

Payroll tax? How is that saving money?
Does he really think that people are going to be ok with deducting more from their paychecks?

[George II]

22. He claims that the employers who are saving their premium costs would instead...

...give it to the employees. That's "trickle down", and we know how that works. It doesn't.

[dware]

23. Yeah, because

trickle down worked so well for the Reagan years, NOT.

[mr_lebowski]

30. You'd have to make them, by law ...

Frankly I pay a fair bit more than 7.5% (the OMG % payroll tax quoted above) of my paycheck for my health insurance, because my employer only covers 1/2 of my premium. And I think I'm somewhat lucky to get 1/2 paid for. A lot of people do not. I could give a crap if it's taxes for MFA or it goes to an Ins Co. I think I'd prefer it go to Uncle Sam actually.

A LOT of people would be ecstatic to get good insurance for only 10-15% of their check honestly. That'd be a winner with a ton of folks.

There's no reason that Unions can't negotiate with employers in a single-payer system to get them to pay 100% of the owed premium, whatever that works out to be.

There's no way anyone is going for a change where employers pay LESS and the main burden goes to taxpayers. If something like MFA is going to happen, employers need to stay on the hook (with very few loopholes) for similar amounts to what they pay now.

Anyone who puts out a 'plan' that doesn't work that way ... is nuts.

Employers are already giving that money to insurance companies for premiums, why it should matter to them who they pay that money to?

[George II]

31. If that became a law it would be struck down by the courts in a New York minute.

[mr_lebowski]

32. Why?

Employers pay I think 1/2 of of our Social Security. By Law.

Employers pay a significant portion of our Unemployment Insurance, believe it's a majority in most states. By Law.

Think Medicare is the only FICA tax that's all on 'us', ATM.

Edit: Sorry, part of Medicare is also split at around 1.4% for employer and employee ... but then there's some surtax that on the employee only, looks like .9%.

There is precedent for employers being on the hook for social benefits ... just need some good lawyers and 5-4 liberal majority at SCOTUS

[democrattotheend]

42. Same here

My employer only pays half, and I am lucky to have employer coverage at all, since the individual plans on the marketplace are very expensive and I make too much for subsidies.

[mr_lebowski]

44. Yup ... and at my office I've heard it's $1500/month to add spouse and kids ...

This argument is a typical 'haves vs have nots' argument.

Those who get the full-boat ride from the company they work for ... think it's all a horrible idea.

IMHO, to get universal coverage we will HAVE to set up a scenario where the good jobs still have the companies paying the full tally like they do now, and that they ALL pay SOMEthing into it on behalf of everyone, like we do w/medicare, SS, and UI.

[TexasTowelie]

48. If you are considered to be an "essential employee" then it definitely matters.

If an essential employee has an issue receiving treatment, then the employer can exert some influence over a private insurer to make sure that the employee receives the treatment to return that employee back to work as quickly as possible. If the health insurance company fails to deliver that treatment, then the employer can move their insurance to another health insurance company.

The employer loses all influence if the employee is moved into a single-payer model because there are no other options available. Not only is it bad for the employer who loses the productivity of that essential employee, but it is also bad for the employee since they lose a valuable advocate and negotiator.

I can guarantee that the employer would rather pay a set amount to the private insurer who is responsive to both the company and employee, than pay the same amount to a government run single payer program where nobody is held to be responsive or accountable.

[mr_lebowski]

49. What do they do that with ... like hedge fund managers and stuff?

I've never in my life heard of that happening.

Not saying it doesn't, just never heard of it.

If it is in fact commonplace, then I stipulate to your point.

I guess I'm starting with the presumption that people will be appropriately cared for in a Universal HC system. If you start with the presumption that they WON'T ... well then there's probably all manner of legit arguments against it.

[TexasTowelie]

60. My experience was in the insurance industry (property & casualty).

The upper level administrative staff and long-term IT workers with crucial business knowledge were indispensable. I would imagine that any sales associate that generates a large amount of revenue would also be considered to be indispensable.

I also don't start with the premise that all people are going to be appropriately cared for since there will be pressure to control costs under any UHC plan. People are going to be sadly mistaken if they believe that they will get platinum plan treatment instead of bronze plan treatment. It is far more likely that the people are going to receive the most minimal, inexpensive, non-invasive treatments until their conditions worsen and more expensive treatment options are used. That means that with additional rounds of treatment the cost rises and the employer suffers with an employee that is not as productive.

The last thing that HR wants to hear from their employees is that they are constantly in battle to obtain health care--particularly if the person complaining is a CEO, CFO, or CIO. Not only is it bad for productivity, but is also can affect company morale. Companies are willing to spend extra to keep their essential employees at work. Universal health care plans remove that leverage while treating those essential employees as another number in a long line. I can't think of any company that would be willing to give up the leverage they have with their health insurance companies (or the leverage they have over individual employees) if there is no significant reduction in the costs that they pay.

[SoCalNative]

58. No, employers do NOT need to stay on the hook

that's what's wrong with out healthcare system now - it's tied to employment. I would prefer a system that isn't based upon the whims of my employer and that doesn't keep me tied to said employer just because I cannot afford to lose my healthcare.

[mr_lebowski]

61. These are not mutually exclusive ideas ...

Just because employers are on the hook for funding a portion of the program does not necessitate an individual losing care when they don't have a job.

[thesquanderer]

41. For union members, it would be required by law...

...under the premise that the union members must get the value of what they negotiated for in their contracts. See:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/22/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-fact-check-1472482

But NON-union members who have employer-paid health insurance could be in a pickle.

[herding cats]

27. He did.

No breakdown as to what specifically, but he did say such.

Super Tuesday is in many states (mine included) already early voting. Uninformed voters making mistakes based on half information. I'm not impressed with this format.

[Callado119]

28. Another reason why BS would get crushed in a general...

[R B Garr]

35. Yup, totally crushed, smashed. And for good reason.

At least Biden was talking tonight about why Vermont didn’t want it. It’s amazing Bernie has gotten by for so long without being held accountable.

[ecstatic]

36. The mandatory employee ownership idea is a non-starter as well

Does Bernie understand just how many Democrats are also business owners?

Not only that, but those who want to start a business with the employee ownership model can and should do so. Personally, I think it's a winning strategy for business owners, but it should not be mandated.

[Demsrule86]

107. I don't get this at all...who the fuck is Sanders to decide how a business starts their

business...what is running for to be a King or a president? No to Sanders in the primary or we doom ourselves in the general.

[krissey]

37. I knew this plan would end up costing people that are making 11 an hour, unable to pay monthly

cost of living. I am paying $1.11 a month for bronze, I just got off silver at $148 a month. I cannot afford ANYTHING out of my paycheck unless he is saying it will amount to $1.11 a month. And I am sure that is not going to happen.

[HarlanPepper]

65. Your income taxes will also increase under Bernie's M4A plan

So really it’s a double whammy. People will get screwed every other week on their payroll check and then in April when they file their taxes.

[Demsrule86]

108. This is how it always works with some...they never consider the consequences of what they propose...

Sanders adopted this many years ago and it really is an old plan which is struggling in modern countries like the UK and even Canada...we can do better and protect low wage workers...and I object to paying for college for millionaires.

[Zolorp]

75. I am 8 years away from Medicare

I paid into it from the age of 14 when I got my first job and have paying into it every paycheck for more than 43 years.

Sanders bullying plan fucks me hard. I'll pay more in M4A than for my current insurance and I get a big FUCK YOU for 43 years of paying into a system that I expected to get in 8more years.

Fuck M4A, it fucks me and my entire generation straight to hell.

[Cha]

106. K

[ehrnst]

109. I believe that was one of the things that killed single payer in his own home state

The state that sent Sanders to the Senate didn't have the political will to tax their residents what it would take to make Green Mountain Care feasible.