How does Medicare for all save ME money? I need a side by side break down...

[cbdo2007]

of what I'm paying now, vs what I would pay then.

Saying $x trillion over x years doesn't tell ME anything about what it will cost ME.

That's what Bernie needs. He needs 10 real world personas with a before and after column of how much they are paying now and how much they will pay on M4A. That is the only thing the average voter responds to is you have to take it down to their level and understand their problems and provide solutions for them individually. If he doesn't then M4A will continue to be dead in the water.

[krispos42]

1. It lowers your car insurance

Fully half of my premium is medical coverage. With M4A I suspect it would drop to nearly zero.

[democrattotheend]

5. Has Bernie said that?

Does his plan replace no-fault coverage for car accidents? What about personal injury tort damages?

[cannabis_flower]

20. With Medicare for All

We wouldn't need any medical insurance on our car insurance. Any medical care would be covered. It wouldn't replace any of the insurance for property damage. Now if we had a loss of income because of someone else's fault, that wou still be your car insurance.

[bucolic_frolic]

6. Sounds like you either don't have health insurance or carry too much first party benefits

I think the public is about as likely to understand M4A by Bernie or anyone else just about as much as they understand car insurance, or homeowner's policies, or the tax code. They have made life so complicated.

[krispos42]

91. I have health insurance through my job.

I also have car insurance, and half of what I pay (very slightly more than half) is $100,000/$300,000 medical coverage.

[Hoyt]

17. Bet it won't. Currently, Medicare does not pay if it's due to an auto accident, until auto insur-

ance coverage is exhausted (there are some exceptions).

Sanders and Warren will scramble to find funding for their health plans and aren't going to take on additional coverage costs.

[samnsara]

2. wont we still have to buy a supplement AND our taxes go up so we can get the 'free' M4A?

...what about dental??

[Cal Carpenter]

11. He makes it clear that dental, optical, hearing aids and home care

are included in M4A, as they are basic necessities of health care.

So no supplement. And for most people on employer-based or ACA health insurance, the 4% tax they'll have to pay on income above $29K is much lower than the amount they are paying now. Prescription costs that are higher than $200 a year would be subsidized.

For my household, for example, we get our insurance through the ACA and, despite our subsidies, we are currently paying approx 14% of our gross income for premiums (we're old enough that we have a silver plan so the deductible doesn't bankrupt us if something bad happens).

4% on the few thousand above $29K we earn is a hell of a lot lower than 14% of our total income. It is actually affordable, unlike what we have now.

I agree with the OP that an easy-to-read set of examples would be good. Part of the problem is the current system is so convoluted, there is no easy formula to explain MfA in contrast to it. MfA is simple, and our current system is not. Everyone has a different proportion of costs for premiums, deductibles, etc if they are on employer-based plans, private plans, ACA, etc.

But the bottom line is that for the majority of people, out of pocket expenses (premiums, prescriptions, deductibles and everything else) would go down. The providers we have would still be providing, and navigating the system would be easier because there'd be no issues of out-of-network providers etc.

[Big Blue Marble]

27. All current Medicare recipients woulld lose their Medicare as it is legislated.

We all would be under a type of Medicaid, which could be revoked at anytime later.

Very few understand the ramifications of this chnnge.

[Cal Carpenter]

41. I'm not sure what you mean by this

"We all would be under a type of Medicaid"

Do you have a link to an analysis or something to explain what you are claiming?

I've been reading the analyses on the KFF website, where they cover pros and cons of healthcare proposals, and they do not agree with your claims:

https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/how-will-medicare-for-all-proposals-affect-medicaid/

As for things being revoked at anytime later - that's true of the ACA and the regulations around employer-based coverage too. I get my insurance through the ACA, and every year so far with one exception, my choices are fewer and my expenses are higher.

Because MfA would benefit everyone, and the economy as a whole, I think it would be a lot harder to take it away from people than the mish-mash of things we have now.

[Big Blue Marble]

46. Your link refers to the impact on current Medicaid, not Medicare.

MFA is missed named as it is far more Medicaid for all rather than Medicare for all Medicaid is currently
structured as HMO's. And MFA will be one giant Government-run HMO. You will have to take it or leave
it giving up all choice, one size fits all on the cheap.

Traditional Medicare is an a legislated entitlement which would be traded away under so-called MFA.
Everyone would fall under the same rubric. And our legislated entitlement will be gone.

[Cal Carpenter]

49. I gave you that link because it turns your claim on its head.

And you've provided no actual analysis, or link to an analysis, to back up your claims. You haven't really made any clear case for what you are trying to convince me. I'm not sure you even read past the headline of the link I gave you.

As for choice, if I had employer-provided coverage I would, at best have a choice between 2 or 3 options, and just hope that one of them makes sense for me and my family in terms of the specialists or medications we need. As it is, I have the ACA, and every year, private health insurers pull out of the exchange leaving me with very little choice. MfA would actually *expand* choice because there would be no issues with in-network vs out-of-network providers.

Convince me that expanding Medicare to more Americans every year for 4 years is really a back-door way to trade it away. Give me a link to a credible analysis that comes to your conclusions. Otherwise I really have no way to reply to your claims.

[Big Blue Marble]

75. The headline is: "How Will Medicare-for-all Proposals Affect Medicaid?"

Where in the article is Medicare discussed? Please highlight the discussion of Medicare. You
do understand there are significant differences between Medicare and Medicaid?

Medicare as we now know it ie: Traditional Medicare will be gone as will private insurance.
Many of us would like to see that everyone is covered, but we keep our current coverage.
That is a fact; in fact that is the majority of the American public. We can do both with
ACA and the Public Option

[Big Blue Marble]

77. Medicare is an entitlement.

It is so much more difficult to destroy this entitlement, then legislation like ACA.

The article you reference refers to discusses the impact to Medicaid.

How Will Medicare-for-all Proposals Affect Medicaid

Medicare is not Medicaid. it is totally different in coverage, delivery, and choices.

[George II]

3. That's what I've been asking for a long time. I see Sanders made a flourish of pulling out...

...a couple of folded sheets of paper last night, saying "this is how we pay for it, it's going on our website tonight". But I can't find it!!

Even so, a couple of sheets of paper aren't going to explain how to pay for $50+ TRILLION in costs.

[CTyankee]

4. Warren has done this, I don't know how many times! I'll bet it's on her website, too!

[ancianita]

7. You have to 'ballpark' what your current ins. premiums/fees/drug costs, what your income tax bp is.

Then you can get a ballpark comparison.

[Cal Carpenter]

15. Also out of pocket costs for dental, optical, hearing aids and home care

which would be covered by MfA.

[ancianita]

31. Right. So the more specific one's list, the better comparison of their current costs with M4A costs.

Which, even for us non-accountants, end up way lower when more taxpayers are included.

[TCJ70]

8. Not everyone will save money...

...that’s the ultimate reality. Without knowing how much you pay now, how much you make, how many family members you’re also covering it’s impossible for me to answer your question.

For myself, I drop over $1000/month on our family insurance plan through my work. Based on the estimated 7.5% M4A tax + $135 per family member, I still come out ahead. (Those numbers came from some who doesn’t like M4A so I’m thinking they were trying to make it look bad but it backfired on them in my case).

My situation isn’t everyone’s. Some of my coworker will definitely pay more, but they’re still in favor of it for the other societal benefits. You may not be able to get there but that’s up to everyone to decide on their own.

[Cal Carpenter]

14. The employer pays the 7.5% based on their payroll expenses, not the employee

Workers would pay 4% but only on any wages beyond $29K/yr.

So your MfA tax would be even less than what you've calculated.

This is as I understand it, and I am the first to admit I could be misreading something.

I do think the OP makes a good point - that a series of examples of what people are paying now vs. what they would under MfA would be very helpful for voters. But the reason it is so complicated is because our current system is so complicated. MfA is simple and the majority of people would pay much less out of pocket than they do now, especially when you figure in dental, optical, and home care.

[TCJ70]

26. I didn't realize that. That's good to know and definitely makes my situation better than it was.

Yes, I calculator of some sort would be nice. Shouldn't be too tough to make, either.

[Big Blue Marble]

40. What you do not say is that all the care delivered will similar

will at the level of care received by current Medicaid recipients. If you want top quality care, you
wil spend your own money. It is naive to think that MFA will be simple. it will be highly disruptive
on many levels.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

106. hmmmmmmmm

do you think there is any way universal health care coverage can be administered in the US?

[Big Blue Marble]

110. I absolutely think universal health care can be implemented.

and eventually hopefully it will be, just not the way that you and Bernie envision.

You will not succeed taking away the health care insurance from over half the country who
are happy with their care. That is for sure. And finding ways to pay for it are going to
be much harder than Bernie says.

[stopbush]

45. Just another glaring hole in Sanders' funding plan for M4A

Last edited Tue Feb 25, 2020, 03:29 PM - Edit history (1)

I’ll keep it simple:

* Currently, both employer and employee pay a Medicare tax of 1.5%, for a total of 3%.

* The current contribution of 3% generates enough revenue to cover the 14% of Americans currently on Medicare

* If you expand current Medicare from covering 14% of the population to covering 100% of the population, you are increasing those covered seven fold

* A seven-fold increase in people covered most likely means a seven fold increase in the taxes collected to handle the 86% increase in people covered

* 3% tax (see above) x 7 = 21%. Based on the current model, that 21% would be split equally between employer and employee. That’s nearly TRIPLE the amount of tax Sanders says he’ll need to fund M4, and there is no way employers are going to shoulder that full 21% burden

* Which means, hello tax increase from 1.5% to 10.5% for employers AND employees.

The above was edited to reflect statistics provided by a fellow DUer.

[thesquanderer]

52. re: "expand current Medicare from covering 19% to 100%...you are increasing those covered five fold"

According to this site, 35% are currently covered by Medicare/Medicaid/military (20%, 14%, 1% respectively), so we'd be talking about under a three fold increase rather than more than five-fold in number of people covered by government programs.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-population

p.s. -- I don't know where government employees fall in this analysis, they also already have government-paid health costs. If that's part of the "employer" category, then the 35% currently getting covered by government actually moves to an even higher figure.

[stopbush]

55. Sorry, I was mistaken. FICA contributions do NOT fund Medicaid, only Medicare.

So - referring to the source you provided - my numbers above are low, as Medicare covers only 14% of the population. That’s more like a seven-fold increase, which would bring the current 3% tax to over 21%.

I have edited my post above to reflect the statistics you provided. Thank you.

[thesquanderer]

62. It's not FICA, but all those other government paid for health plans are still paid for somehow.

There's no reason to believe that FICA has to be increased to cover things that are already being covered other ways.

Moreover, AFAIK, nobody has said that the funding mechanism for MFA will be FICA. A lot more money will have to be raised, but the revenue source or combination of sources is what would ultimately be worked out in the details of the bill.

Warren's MFA plan calls for revenue to be generated primarily from a wealth tax, and also the re-routing of what employers now currently pay for employee health coverage into the MFA plan instead. Sanders hasn't release a specific revenue plan, but has listed a number of options which could be used. AFAIK, none of them rely on (or rely exclusively on) the current FICA mechanism.

[stopbush]

63. What, exactly, are "all those other government-paid health plans?"

Please be specific.

[thesquanderer]

69. Everything between the 19% for Medicare and the 35% who are actually covered by the government.

Which includes Medicaid and military.

Possibly more if you include those on the government payroll.

I covered all this in my post #52 including a link to some of the relevant figures.

The point is that the government already covers at least 35% of us. Much of it not via FICA.

What makes you think FICA will now have to cover all those people, who it is not covering today?

What even makes you think that FICA is going to be THE source to fund MFA? Has any MFA advocate suggested that? Not Sanders or Warren, at least.

[stopbush]

72. As I pointed out above - using your source - only 14% of Americans are on Medicare

and Medicaid is NOT funded through FICA deductions.

FICA deductions current fund Social Security and Medicare. It makes sense to assume that M4A would utilize the tax mechanism already in place to fund Medicare to fund M4A.

[thesquanderer]

78. Why ASSUME anything, instead of actually getting the facts?

As you said, "Medicaid is NOT funded through FICA deductions" -- yet you assume that when the 14% on Medicare is expander to 100% (therefore including all the people currently on Medicaid), Medicaid (which again is now NOT funded through FICA) will suddenly have to be funded through FICA, without even allowing for the fact that whatever mechanisms currently serve to fund Medicaid are still getting money from SOMEWHERE and channeling them into the healthcare system... does that money just disappear?

re:

It makes sense to assume that M4A would utilize the tax mechanism already in place to fund Medicare to fund M4A

It may make sense to YOU to make that ASSUMPTION, but that is not how either Sanders or Warren proposed paying for MFA. Or at least, it is not the entirety of how they pay for it.

Basically you're declaring as impossible a scheme that no one (AFAIK) has ever suggested doing. Maybe Warren and Sanders didn't suggest this in their MFA plans because they ALSO figured out that couldn't possibly work, just like you did. So they came up with other plans.

Summary of Warren's plan: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/01/775339519/heres-how-warren-finds-20-5-trillion-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all

Summary of Sanders' plan: see the Medicare For All section at https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/

[stopbush]

87. Neither Sanders nor Warren has offered a comprehensive plan for paying for MFA.

Even you are not sure how they pay for it. Their current plans are short on specifics, with glaring gaps in what should be the basic funding.

BTW - I have looked at these summaries. Again, without specifics, they are meaningless.

Money quote from the Warren summary linked above:

"This plan aggressively constrains the price of health care, paying doctors, hospitals and drug companies much less," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. "There would be a lot of adjustment required from from hospitals and doctors as their incomes go down."

[thesquanderer]

90. re: "I have looked at these summaries. Again, without specifics, they are meaningless."

Not meaningless, because for the purposes of our conversation, the most important thing is that NEITHER candidate suggests funding MFA simply by increasing FICA to cover everything, which is the premise that you put forth and then knocked down. So maybe we don't know in full detail exactly how they WILL be paying for it (as you said, the plans lack specifics), but we DO know one way they will NOT be proposing paying for it... your FICA assumption.

It is normal for candidate plans to lack more specifics. (Does Bloomberg have a more detailed healthcare financing plan?) As I said in another thread, details don't win elections. NONE of the plans get passed without extensive reworking through Congress. So all candidates' plans are starting points. Some will happen, some won't, all will change as they are worked on, some more than others. Rough outlines are really all we need, because further details wouldn't survive the process anyway. We just need to see a candidate's basic ideas and priorities, and a rough idea of how they can see paying for it. At a certain point, each new detail is more likely to lose a vote than gain one.

[luvtheGWN]

22. You're forgetting something important:

If your employer doesn't have to pay part of your insurance coverage, then your take-home pay should increase.

I haven't seen Sanders' "plan", but if he's basing it on Canada's UHC, then I can assure you that your extra tax will not even come close to what you (or your employer) are paying in insurance premiums. You will not be saddled with co-pays every time you visit the doc or the ER; you will not worry about reaching your limit, because there won't be one. Your doctor will be billing the government directly so no need for a big office staff to handle insurance claims and argue about coverage. Studies have shown that, currently, 31% of the cost of a doctor or hospital visit is going directly to pay those staff. That's not healthcare, is it?

The biggest thing is that YOU WON'T WORRY about huge medical bills if you get sick. You won't worry about losing your savings, your house, or having your neighbours hold bake sales or start go-fund-me campaigns to help you out.

You'll visit your doc at least once a year, so that any problems can be looked after immediately, instead of getting so bad that your life is threatened.

If you hate your job, you won't worry about losing your health coverage and can move on to a job that you prefer.

Your employer may offer supplemental health insurance as part of your benefits package -- covering dental, physiotherapy, optical etc.

And if you're wondering how it's all going to be paid for -- well, the initial outlay by the government may be large, but when approximately 200M are paying into what amounts to a single insurance company -- meaning your government (HHS, perhaps) --, then you will soon start to see the savings. Anyone who says the US population is to huge to handle UHC is saying it without thinking it through.

Your government will negotiate with big pharma to ensure that costs come down. And don't feel sorry for the drug companies and think that their "research and development" will break down. Less than 20% of their budgets is devoted to R and D. The rest (80%) is spent on advertising and public relations.

I agree with the poster, and have said it before: If any of the candidates would actually show the voters in dollars and cents how UHC will save them money, and heartache, and worry, then maybe that candidate would be the nominee, AND your new President.

[TCJ70]

36. I didn't forget those things. The OP just wasn't about them. n/t

[squirecam]

48. Right

Because most employers took the Trump tax cut and gave it to workers.....not.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

60. It's in the Sanders plan.

Any profit the employer gets from not having to pay health insurance have to go back to the employee.

[cbdo2007]

71. There is literally no way to enforce this...you aren't required to buy your company's plan now but

don't get more money for it

[ehrnst]

111. Where is that in Bernie's MFA proposal? I didn't see that.

Can you paste the text please?

Thanks.

[cbdo2007]

73. All of these are speculation, but this is getting down to the meat of my question...

Employers don't have to pay a part of your coverage now, they do so as a benefit and while I can imagine salaries in some competitive fields like IT may go up, I doubt most of the average worker will see most of this.

I don't see how any of this will cut down at all on office staff, as they will still have certain rules and regulations that need to be followed and approved, and an increase in medical services for people not getting treated now will lead to an increase in paperwork that needs to be followed. Fraud in these circumstances actually increases when working with the Govt directly because there is less oversight when billing due to smaller staff processing claims.

Long story short...and to your last point, this issue should be an easy game changer but it gets close to zero traction with the majority of voters. I'm just trying to figure out what that disconnect is and how we can close the gap.

[luvtheGWN]

79. I disagree.

My doctor is in a group practice (12 docs, 2 nurse practitioners and 3 (count'em, three) staff to handle the paperwork. My doctor inputs all info into his computer, prints out a prescription for me, and emails a referral to a specialist if necessary. If I have to go to the ER, he emails the ER to tell them to expect me and what my symptoms are. ALL i have to do is show my health card at the front desk -- to one of the 3 staff.

Every doctor in Ontario knows what is covered by the Ministry of Health and what is not. Same goes for the other provinces. Cosmetic surgery such as facelifts is not covered.

Fraud is less than 3% and that usually involves a dishonest doctor.

A couple more things: I have never had to wait more than a day to see my doctor; and for those 65 and older, a yearly $100 covers ALL prescriptions.

If you have any more questions, I'm happy to answer them. Personally, it's a crying shame for the wealthiest country in the world to NOT provide healthcare as a right for every one of its citizens, rich, poor or in-between.

[Laelth]

9. Why does the entire premise of this OP bug me?

Is it because my primary concern is for the best interests of the American people, and not just one individual?

Probably.

-Laelth

[Midnightwalk]

12. I'm always torn

I have the same kind of wariness but then I think that these are questions that will get asked in the general.

For better or worse Bernie’s framing is that private insurance must he eliminated and everyone has to move to the government plan. This type question will be asked.

It’s the answer in the general that matters so I don’t worry about the question here.

I can’t claim any special altruism. I think I can deal with the tax/premium difference whatever it turns out to be. If I couldn’t I hope I’d take a broader view but can’t honestly say I know where I’d stand.

[Laelth]

21. That's fair enough.

From what I have seen recently, the American people (the ones who are likely to vote for us, in any event), don’t care whether or not Bernie (or anyone else, for that matter) can actually make M4A happen. It looks like they’re just happy to hear a politician say that the people deserve M4A and that the politician in question is willing to fight for it. The UK has it. Canada has it. Australia has it, and we’re richer than all of those countries. Why can’t we have it too?

The answer is obvious. The Senate won’t let the American people have it, but Sanders’ success can be traced directly to his willingness to fight for what the people feel they deserve, without regard to whether or not a particular policy position is reasonably achievable.

For what that’s worth.



-Laelth

[frazzled]

54. Only Americans aren't saying that they want M4A

You can keep repeating it, but that doesn't make it true. From a recent polling:

A new poll finds that about only one in 10 registered voters want the equivalent of Medicare for all if it means abolishing private health insurance plans.

In a Hill-HarrisX survey released Thursday, 13 percent of respondents said they would prefer a health care system that covers all citizens and doesn't allow for private plans, an approach that is sometimes referred to as "single-payer."

The most popular option, at 32 percent, consisted of a universal, government-operated system that also would allow people to buy private, supplemental insurance.

Twenty-six percent of respondents said they wanted a government insurance plan offered to all citizens, but one that doesn't compel people with private plans to use it, a system sometimes called a "public option."

A small minority of 15 percent of voters said they wanted the government to completely remove itself from paying for health care, while another 14 percent said they want to keep the existing health care system intact

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/428958-poll-voters-want-the-government-to-provide-healthcare-for

Other polling confirms this. Frankly, people don't know what they want, and/or different people want different things. One thing is for sure though, people don't want to be told what they want.

[Midnightwalk]

61. That's the central disagreement and danger

An aspiration of single payer no out of pocket cost healthcare sounds great.

A plan makes people get more grounded and worry about costs and what benefits look like. I argue at that point too many people won’t care about future benefits and will mostly care about negatives.

I don’t agree with that type thinking but I see it too many times. It’s very hard to counter that with detailed explanations in the context of a general election.

Single payer will be more popular in the democratic primary than the general election both because of the different mix of voters but also as the attacks are amplified

I know that the whole thing won’t pass, but that isn’t that useful as an answer in the general election.

[HarlanPepper]

19. Yes

It’s outrageous anyone would ask a question about how a presidential candidate’s policies might impact their family!

[Laelth]

30. I take it that this response is ironic.

Everyone knows (and numerous studies have shown) that M4A would be more efficient as a health care delivery system. Some people will pay more. Most people will actually get access to health care that they previously could not afford, and they will pay less. There will be winners and losers. Ideally, the rich will lose a little, and the vast majority of Americans will gain a lot.

Again, my concern is the best interests of the American people, not any particular individual.

That said, sure. It’s a fair question.

-Laelth

[squirecam]

50. This is not how it's being billed as by them.

They aren’t running on some will pay more, some will pay less.

They promise that taxes won’t go up, and they won’t pay more. As you admit, for some that will not be accurate.

[Laelth]

53. The sales technique for M4A leaves much to be desired.

Personally, I would be perfectly happy with M4A who want it, but, really, that’s the same thing (eventually), and it’s not going to be cheap, but it will be more efficient than our current system as pretty much all of our candidates now freely admit.

-Laelth

[cbdo2007]

24. Unfortunately, most of the electorate doesn't care about anyone but themselves...

you and I care about everyone. I am happy to pay MORE if it means more people get coverage and it saves lives.

But I would guess at least 75% of people out there only care about how much it personally impacts them directly. Until Bernie can frame it in a way that does this, this issue is a complete non-issue.

[Laelth]

37. I simply can't believe that the majority of the electorate thinks that way.

Maybe they do. I don’t.

We’re all in this boat together whether we like it or not.

-Laelth

[cbdo2007]

58. Especially on the health care issue...well and guns and abortion and...

ok everything. They don't care until it impacts them personally, and they only even understand it from their own perspective that isn't any farther away from them than their own nose.

If the majority of Americans cared about anything besides themselves and their own situation, our side would win everything easily.

[ancianita]

32. +1

[womanofthehills]

57. Agreed - it's a me, me, me OP

[cannabis_flower]

10. Is everything about you?

[cbdo2007]

38. actually yes, that's the point of a democracy lol.

I am a voter and if they can't connect with me and the other voters on a very real and tangible level then most voters don't care.

If they tell me it saves a trillion dollars per year, I assume all that money goes to the government and big corporations like it always has and always will and I won't be connected.

If they tell me it will save ME $100 per month, I get interested because I can barely afford food on my table for my family and that $100 gets us more money in our pockets and food on our table and THEN I get interested.

[DanTex]

13. That's a good idea for Bernie to put out 10 real-world examples.

[cbdo2007]

34. I really think it would change the narrative on the M4A issue, people in the real world...

(meaning those not on DU) don't even really comprehend this issue because they can't connect to it in any way.

[ancianita]

35. Then a million more people show up and demand he give them personalized cost charts.

[cbdo2007]

39. Then he puts a calculator on his website so they can see a real world side by side.

[ancianita]

43. Cool. In the meantime, here are 22 summaries of number crunchers who lay out cost savings.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money'


https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/484301-22-studies-agree-medicare-for-all-saves-money?fbclid=IwAR113vdefEROcJbLsoMYII2MzNv1TWT1W314BI7fmlbcb602uPgiCxj5X1w

[Autumn]

16. Here's what I do know. I had an HMO that covered less and had fewer choices I have now on Medicare

I have 130$ deducted from my SS. When I was working I had a little over 500$ a month for my portion of my insurance deducted from my check, Dental and Eyes insurance were separated from Health. Under MFA they and hearing aids will be included. I pay 0$ co pay. $40 for a specialist and $70 for an ER visit. When I had to be in the hospital for a few days they charged me Medicare rates. I think I paid like $200.

I'm very happy the Union members in NV that have good insurance decided they would vote for Bernie, because unlike most people, they worry about people that don't have insurance. That a moral and very Democratic thing to consider.

[doxyluv13]

18. Yes, I'd like to see something like that too, but...

...The point that I get is that there will me no more co-pays. I have above-average insurance now but there have been times when the co-pays were real budget killers.

And the idea of showing MFA's effects of 10 different "typical" people is good since your individual savings will depend on what it's costing you now.

[Midnightwalk]

23. The answer will be tricky

In part because it’s not really all about single payer exactly

The plans include stuff like fixing drug prices, controlling doctor and services costs that are part of other candidates proposals.

Warren has a calculator on her website and I’m kind of amused. I get my insurance from work. You enter in how much you pay in premiums, deductibles, drugs, everything. Your savings is whatever you type in. But when I look at how it’s paid for I’ll pay some more too.
[link:https://elizabethwarren.com/calculator/medicare-for-all|]

Healthcare reform can achieve a trillion dollars savings a year, but it’s not all or mostly even because of single payer. Single payer does provide extra leverage for other savings but we won’t get that trillion a year through a single piece of legislation.

While we’re improving the system there will be some pain. What I’m looking for is some serious acknowledgement of that and plans to mitigate that both in reality and politically.

[cbdo2007]

29. Yeah, that calculator just says I would save exactly how much I put in because there

is no more premiums or copays, but doesn't say how much it will cost lol. That logic doesn't make any sense.

Yes, I realize there are many facets to it, but this is one thing the Repubes do soooooo much better than we do. The American People don't even care if it is a lie as long as you give them a direct answer to their question.

[Midnightwalk]

56. I think it's simpler

Republican lies always promise benefits without pain. No pain now, no pain in the future

Too many times we get caught up explaining there’s up front pain leading to the benefit. That’s why we can’t give as simple an answer.

That’s the political reason I don’t favor eliminating private insurance in the first bill. It’s much easier to explain. That’s what forces us into complex explanations. Warren’s calculator is a nice snarky attempt at a simple answer. It will turn some light bulbs on, but probably not too many.

[cbdo2007]

66. lol "snarky attempt at a simple answer"...that's a pretty good summary

But I think it's turning voters off on this issue.

In my view there should be no reason anyone should be against this based on the numbers, so I'm just trying to understand the disconnect here and when I dig into the numbers I can see that as one major place where even I can't figure out what the exact savings are.

[MoonlitKnight]

25. Yes! Screw all those poor people who die needlessly.

F that half a trillion dollars per year we waste on the current system. I’m healthy and pay less.

[Nanjeanne]

28. I'll help. But you need to add up your monthly

Premium. Your copays. Your deductibles. Your extras if you go to a hospital emergency, out of network costs, etc.

And if it’s just you or family costs.

After that I’ll be happy to take a look.

[uponit7771]

33. Ugh !! You don't believe Sanders will create 20 million jobs ?!!? What ?! / sarc

[Hermit-The-Prog]

42. How does paying for schools save me money? My kids are out of school.

[ancianita]

44. This will give you an idea.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money'


https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/484301-22-studies-agree-medicare-for-all-saves-money?fbclid=IwAR113vdefEROcJbLsoMYII2MzNv1TWT1W314BI7fmlbcb602uPgiCxj5X1w

[cbdo2007]

64. Actually not at all. What are my current premiums vs the M4A tax going to be per month?

That's what people want to know. That's the unanswered question here that nobody answers, especially not articles like this that just say "It will save money to consumers also by getting rid of copays and deductibles!!" but that money has to come from somewhere. We all don't just go down to $0 per month for all health care like they all are trying to make us believe.

There is an obvious disconnect with the average voter on this issue and I think this lack of specifics is the main piece of that.

[stopbush]

74. Exactly. Why do MFA advocates ignore this simple fact?

[ancianita]

80. No one CAN answer you until you actually state your premium costs per year. It's also unfair to

say that M4A promises ZERO per month, and you know it. EVERYone whose read anything about M4A knows that per month costs are less half of any premiums people now pay, or that there will be at least SOME cost.

The only disconnect the average voter has is their own lack of effort in seeing the vast pool of both FICA and minimal income tax that would help them pay much, much lower M4A health care costs -- to get what? Guaranteed coverage. Not just for themselves, but for their immediate family.

My monthly cost right now is only $200/month (It's called the supplemental coverage above the 80% base Medicare pays for ) for unlimited, un-networked access to doctors and hospitals anywhere I find myself in the country.

With M4A I know my monthly is more likely to go down. Even if it doesn't, I don't care. I want everybody in, nobody out.

Before Medicare, I paid over $700 monthly for Cobra for five years, and could never be late or the insurance would be canceled. In the 34 years before those Cobra bridge years, I had employer-based insurance, with a contracted 75% of premium payments made by my employer. When I wanted services, I had co-pays for doctor visits, prescriptions, unexpected fees, and in the final ten years, no dental or eyeglass coverage. I was nickel and dimed in addition to my coverage the whole 34 years, through providers like Humana's HMO and Blue Cross/Blue Shield. All that is gone with Medicare and my supplemental Plan F, that covers 99% of what Bernie's M4A will pay for. That's money now in my pocket.

[uponit7771]

88. +1, after Sanders creates 20 million jobs then you'll / sarc

[brewens]

47. It's that working people like that part of their pay that goes for health insurance.

They have to see they won't get screwed on that. I can't see anyone writing up a plan that lets employers off the hook, allows them to just pocket all the money that used to go for insurance, then making it all up in taxes on the workers. That's kind of what they're making it sound like. As if it's going to be another 30 or so billion in extra taxes.

On my last job, my contribution was about ten percent of what the company paid for my insurance. It would have sounded well worth it to me if it was going to be better coverage, and didn't depend on my staying with the company, even if it bumped my taxes up a little.

Now that I'm on Medicare, I suppose I'm supposed to pull up the ladder behind me. I can't think that way. There needs to be big changes in the system. I won't be disappointed if the next step ends up being a good public option, but we need to hear more details on that too. Will it be designed to be attractive for workers to switch from their employer provided plan? Maybe the employers being required to pay in for those employees that switched? I could see a plan that forced insurance companies to drastically lower premiums and improve coverage to compete. Maybe they would have to give it up and switch to offering supplemental plans.

[berni_mccoy]

51. Ask any elderly person on Medicare

Especially those who just went on it.

[cbdo2007]

59. Ask them how much my premiums are now vs how much the tax for M4A will be?

Who's going to explain it to them?!?

[berni_mccoy]

65. Tax increases will be far less than the lowest premiums

This is common knowledge now and people who deny it are not discussing in good faith.

[cbdo2007]

68. This isn't common knowledge or it would be in commercials all over the place...

Let's say I have a family of 4 and we make $100,000 now and we pay 50% of our health insurance premiums right now of $18,000 so we pay $9,000. Then we have approx $2,000 in medical expenses out of pocket every year, so we pay 11% every year on medical expenses (yes, this a very very simple example).

So the tax increases for a plan that covers my whole family and includes all paid copays and deductibles will be less than 11%??

That's what people want to know.

[berni_mccoy]

81. It is common knowledge, you just don't want to admit it

Bernie Sanders Is Right: 'Medicare For All' Is Best For US, Scientific Studies Confirm

https://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-right-medicare-all-best-us-scientific-studies-confirm-2928496

It found that every single study it analyzed predicted a single-payer system such as Medicare for All yields net savings over several years. But more important, Medicare for All means everyone in America will have high-quality health care coverage.

The study concludes Medicare for All is far less costly than the existing system mostly because it slashes the mammoth administrative costs that make healthcare in the U.S. so expensive. A single public plan negotiating rates with healthcare providers will greatly simplify billing. Medicare for All will eliminate three-quarters of the $812 billion the U.S. now spends on healthcare administration.

The study noted even the right-wing think-tank Mercatus Center found $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/484301-22-studies-agree-medicare-for-all-saves-money

And, if you’re thinking that having the federal government guarantee coverage to all Americans is a big deal, it’s actually not. The government already pays for about two-thirds of health care costs. Among other things, it pays for Medicare, Medicaid, VA, TriCare and a wide range of state and local health care programs, along with private insurance for government employees and tax subsidies for private insurance.

Whether you call it single-payer or Medicare for All, it isn’t some socialist pipe dream. It’s a sensible, efficient, and effective way to guarantee excellent health insurance to everyone.

MEDICARE FOR ALL WOULD SAVE $450 BILLION ANNUALLY WHILE PREVENTING 68,000 DEATHS, NEW STUDY SHOWS
https://www.newsweek.com/medicare-all-would-save-450-billion-annually-while-preventing-68000-deaths-new-study-shows-1487862

The Medicare For All plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars each year and would prevent tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, a new study shows.

The analysis, conducted by researchers at Yale University, the University of Florida and the University of Maryland, found that transitioning the U.S. to a single-payer health care system would actually save an estimated $450 billion each year, with the average American family seeing about $2,400 in annual savings. The research, which was published Saturday in the medical journal The Lancet, also found that Medicare for all would prevent about 68,000 unnecessary deaths per year.

It's common knowledge.

[Gothmog]

67. There are theoritical societal savings but these savings are NOT tax revenue

Such a plan in theory may generate societal savings but such savings would not pay for a program. Governments can only spend tax revenues and/or borrowings. This study does not say how one would pay for such a program in the real world. I note that Prof. Krugman like the concepts of such a plan in theory but notes that taxes will have to be raised a great deal to pay for such a plan
Back in 2016, here is his position Prof. Krugman compares Sanders hoped for health care savings to the GOP tax cuts. 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.

Today, Prof. Krugman says that such a plan is feasible if you are willing to pay a great deal more in taxes
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/paul-krugman-explains-why-single-payer-health-care-entirely-achievable-us-and-how

If we went to government provision of all insurance, we’d pay more in taxes but less in premiums, and the overall burden of health spending would probably fall, because single-payer systems tend to be cheaper than market-based."

The amount of higher taxes are not quantified in this article by Krugman. To pay for any such plan will require massive tax hikes

Again sanders has utterly failed in his attempts to get Vermont to adopt his magical single payer plan because the state of Vermont cannot use hypothetical societal saving to pay for this plan. Even Krugman admits that much higher taxes are needed

[cbdo2007]

70. Thanks for this good response, I do read and admire Krugman a lot.

Seems like a public option that people can choose to buy into if they don't like their employer based plan is the way to go.

Even if its subsidized by the govt to provide cheaper services to start out with, people will naturally switch over if it saves them money, and the savings will be apparent.

[Gothmog]

95. I have an accounting background and I like math

Societal savings are nice if they are ever actually realized but such savings are NOT tax revenues and cannot be used to pay for the $60+ trillion in new programs that sanders is promising. Taxes will have to be raised and I do not see how we triple the size of the US budget for these new programs in the real world

[MoonlitKnight]

99. Current cost - 540 billion per year equals $60 trillion.

Must be that new math.

[Gothmog]

100. CNN-Sanders' agenda: Its cost -- possibly $60 trillion -- would set a peacetime US record

Link to tweet

Sanders' plan, though all of its costs cannot be precisely quantified, would increase government spending as a share of the economy far more than the New Deal under President Franklin Roosevelt, the Great Society under Lyndon Johnson or the agenda proposed by any recent Democratic presidential nominee, including liberal George McGovern in 1972, according to a historical analysis shared with CNN by Larry Summers, the former chief White House economic adviser for Barack Obama and treasury secretary for Bill Clinton.

Sanders' plan would also increase the size of government far more than any modern Republican president, including Ronald Reagan, has sought to cut it, Summers' analysis concluded.

"On the spending side, ... this is far more radical than all previous presidencies, on either the right or the left," Summers said in an interview. "The Sanders spending increase is roughly 2.5 times the size of the New Deal and the estimated fiscal impact of George McGovern's campaign proposals. This is six times as large of a growth of government than any of the Ronald Reagan dismemberments. We are in a kind of new era of radical proposal."

Exact cost projections on all of Sanders' proposals aren't available, in part because he hasn't fully fleshed out some of the ideas he's embraced (such as universal pre-K and child care). But a wide variety of estimates put the likely cost of the single-payer health care plan he has endorsed around $30 trillion or more over the next decade. Depending on the estimates used, including projections from his own campaign, the other elements of the Sanders agenda -- ranging from his "Green New Deal" to the cancellation of all student debt to a guaranteed federal jobs program that has received almost no scrutiny -- could cost about as much, or even more than, the single-payer plan. That would potentially bring his 10-year total for new spending to around $60 trillion, or more.

[MoonlitKnight]

84. Please re-read what you quoted

If we went to government provision of all insurance, we’d pay more in taxes but less in premiums, and the overall burden of health spending would probably fall, because single-payer systems tend to be cheaper than market-based."

It’s cheaper. That means it costs less. That means you pay less. It’s not that complicated.

It saves a half a trillion dollars per year. The defense budget is $718 billion per year. We would save 2/3 of the freaking defense budget per year.

[Gothmog]

94. sanders needs $60+ trillion to pay for all of his programs

I read and more importantly, I understood the material posted. Societal savings are nice in theory but it is very uncertain if these savings are real and in any case these savings cannot be used to pay for these programs. Taxes or other revenue will be needed in the real world to pay for these programs. sanders has identified $17.8 trillion in new revenue in his silly handout used last night. That leaves a major funding gap in the real world.

Link to tweet

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, under growing pressure to explain how he would pay for his very expensive policy agenda, released a checklist on Monday evening that he described as a full explanation of how he would finance all of his proposals.

The actual document is somewhat limited, and in some cases the revenue Mr. Sanders identifies doesn’t match the costs of his plans.

For example, he estimated Sunday night on “60 Minutes” that the price tag for his “Medicare for all” plan would be about $30 trillion over 10 years, but the revenue he identifies for it in the new outline totals about $17.5 trillion. It is possible that the gap could be filled by existing appropriations for Medicare and Medicaid, but Mr. Sanders did not mention those in his outline or in the Sunday interview...…

Ms. Warren released a comprehensive plan in November to pay for her own version of Medicare for all, and the resulting scrutiny of the details was a major factor in her campaign’s decline. Mr. Sanders largely avoided that level of scrutiny by not releasing such extensive details.

His announcement on Monday came nominally in response to a question about whether his plan for free college was equivalent to President Trump’s promise to build a border wall and make Mexico pay for it: a rallying cry for supporters, but with no realistic path to happening.

Societal savings are not tax revenues. Maybe we will have savings but these savings are not tax revenue. Taxes have to be raised to pay for these programs and the societal savings may be nice in theory but cannot be used to pay for these programs.

sanders needs another$42 trillion of tax revenues that have to come from somewhere in the real world.

[MoonlitKnight]

98. Oh come on

That argument is disingenuous at best.

If I cut my expenses by 40%, I do not need to raise my income.

If my paycheck has more take home pay going into my bank account, I have more money. Not less.

With a President Warren, if I have over 50 billion dollars in assets, I am going to pay more - because I should. Just like everyone pays properly tax - including renters because your rent has to cover that.

If you can realize a savings of half a trillion dollars per year, you do it. If the side effect is that you will save millions of lives, how can you refuse to do it?

[Gothmog]

103. You do realize that the govenement has to either borrow or have tax revenues to pay for programs

In the real world, governments have to either borrow or have cash in the bank to pay for programs. sanders will need to raise taxes by over $60 trillion over ten years to pay for his programs in the real world. There may be societal savings if we are lucky. I used to be a college debater and I know now studies such as the one cited in the OP prepared. It seems that there are some fairly aggressive assumptions used in this study and I doubt that these savings will be realized in the real world. There is a reason why sanders has totally and utterly failed to get his magical single payer plan adopted in the real world which is that policy makers cannot us magical or theoretical savings to pay for a program.

Prof. Krugman and I treat the so-called societal savings the same way that we both treat the magical economic growth that is supposed to be generated from GOP tax cuts. 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.

GOP tax cuts are not magical and never pay for themselves.

[Gothmog]

105. Why has Vermont never adopted this magical plan if it is so great?

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]

86. How soon we forget

You like and trust the 2016 Krugman. You respect and agree with the 2018 Krugman (although you do put words in his mouth: He does not say "a great deal more in taxes," you do).

But didn't we once cross paths with a 2019 Krugman? One who looked at Warren's plan for MFA? You know, the Krugman who said:

"Nonetheless, Warren needed to show that she was working the problem. And she did. She brought in real experts like Donald Berwick, who ran Medicare during the Obama years, and Betsey Stevenson, former chief economist at the Labor Department. And they have produced a serious plan. As I said, experts will argue with the numbers, but this is the real thing — not some left-leaning version of voodoo economics." [emphasis added]

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287333314#post29

[Gothmog]

96. Warren's plan did not ad up but it was closed than sanders plan

Warren's plan would if it worked raised $21 trillion to pay for programs that cost at least $32+ trillion. The gap of $12 to $15 trillion is closer than sanders' gap of over $42 trillion.

Math us math and societal savings are speculative at best and cannot be used in the real world to pay for new programs

[Nanjeanne]

76. Sanders Medicare For All Plan w/regards to individual's tax . . . he

indicated that a 4 percent income-based premium paid by employees, exempting the first $29,000 in income for a family of four.
So a family of 4 with an income of $60,000 would pay 4% over the first $29,000--so 4% on $31,000 - or $1,240.

The rest of the money comes from a variety of options - like
7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers, exempting the first $1 million in payroll to protect small businesses.
Raising top marginal rate on income over $10 million to 52%
taxing capital gains same as wages

Etc.

But for you . . . Figure it out yourself by your annual salary minus $29,000 and times it by 4%.

[cbdo2007]

82. Got it, thanks!

So if I'm paying approx 11% now on $100,000 for a family of 4 then it goes down to $2,840, for coverage with no copays or deductibles. See, THAT's exactly what I was looking for.

Now why aren't there commercials and stuff showing this?? This easy math is what we need to really drive this home.

I wont even get into the discussion on "the rest of the money comes from a variety of options..." as those will be big holdups to all the lobbys and special interests and rich folk, but thank you for answering my question with some real numbers.

[Nanjeanne]

83. I don't know why. My guess is that will come when/if he's the nominee - but the info is out there.

It's that everyone asks "how will you pay for it" and that's a more complicated thing with the various options. And, of course, the goal of 4% might actually wind up being compromised at 5% or even 6. So it's tricky. But it will definitely be less than what people are paying with their premiums, deductibles (which are constantly going up) and copays and additions.

[Beartracks]

108. Thx. So take my taxable income, add back in any pre-tax ins premiums...

... that I currently pay over-and-above my employer contribution, then subtract $29,000 and multiply by 4%.

Compare that figure to those same premiums (minus any tax savings I currently get by having those premiums deducted pre-tax) plus all my doctor and pharmacy copays and all the other out-of-pocket expenses I pay all year long after the insurance pays whatever it's going to.

For my family, I think we come out way ahead under M4A. But then we have a lot of, er, pharma-medical industry interaction. And if access and outcomes are at least as good, then that sounds like a good deal -- especially if millions more Americans get those access and outcomes, too.

But that's probably where people get concerned or misinformed or confused: "if access and outcomes are at least as good" -- because that's a great unknown, isn't it?

===========

[Nanjeanne]

109. I would have to check the info from his site again on single or family. 4% was family

of four. It sure if single income is the same or less. Can’t check now. Info I read was for a family of 4. But yes first $29,000 isn’t taxed. So it’s the percentage above that.

And yes, the great unknown is the unknown.

[doc03]

85. I am 71 and on Medicare. I have to carry

additional insurance to pay what Medicare doesn't.

[Nanjeanne]

89. Which is why Medicare For All will help us seniors. We won't have to buy private insurance to cover

the 20% not covered in our current Medicare system.

[doc03]

93. Oh Bernie's Medicare wil pay everything, at what cost? nt

[Nanjeanne]

97. 4% of your income after deducting the first $29,000.

It's in the information that's been around for a long while.

[corbettkroehler]

92. A Good Start

Link to tweet

[Loki Liesmith]

101. It doesn't save me any money

[zipplewrath]

102. ACA cost me money

I wasn't supposed to complain about that because of all the people who were helped. I'm curious now why this is so important.

[guillaumeb]

104. Canada has a single payer system.

So do many other countries.

Canada covers its citizens for 1/2 what the US pays, for better coverage, and with better outcomes.

MFA is being attacked by the health care industries because these industries see MFA as ending their ability to make large profits.

The GOP attacked the ACA, calling it Obamacare, and support for it dropped...…

until voters saw that it did make some improvements. Not enough, but some improvements.

[Beartracks]

107. Yes, that would be great. Everyone focuses on tax costs like they exist in a vacuum, or...

... like the taxes that would pay for M4A are on top of all the medical and insurance costs everyone already pays -- which they are not.

==========