2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders’s single-payer plan isn’t a plan at all - Ezra Klein
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/17/10784528/bernie-sanders-single-payer-health-careOn Sunday night, [font size="+1"]mere hours before the fourth Democratic debate, Sanders tried to head off Clinton's attacks by releasing his plan. Only what he released isn't a plan. It is, to be generous, a gesture toward a future plan.[/font]
To be less generous but perhaps more accurate this is a document that lets Sanders say he has a plan, but doesn't answer the most important questions about how his plan would work or what it would mean for most Americans. Sanders is detailed and specific in response to the three main attacks Clinton has launched, but is vague or unrealistic on virtually every other issue. The result is that he answers Clinton's criticisms while raising much more profound questions about his own ideas.
~~
~~
Clinton's third attack was that Sanders's plan would raise taxes on the middle class. In response, Sanders gets very detailed on the financing of his plan. It would raise taxes on the middle class in part through a 2.2 percent tax increase on all income, and in part by a 6.2 percent "income-based premium" on employers (which would, in turn, get passed on to workers through lower wages and higher prices).
The rest of the financing would come through a raft of new taxes on the rich. Sanders would raise marginal rates on income over $250,000, he would raise the tax rate on capital gains and dividend income, he would hike the estate tax, and he would close sundry deductions and loopholes.
In general, I'm comfortable with higher taxes on the rich though they've risen substantially in the Obama era already but tax increases of the scale Sanders proposes here would begin to have real economic drawbacks. European countries tend to pay for their health care systems through more broad-based, economically efficient taxes like VATs; Sanders's effort to fund a universal health care system so heavily on the backs of the wealthy would be unprecedented.
(more)
When talking about moving to a single payer system - this sounds great to me. However, it won't happen unless Democrats gain control of both the Senate AND the House. Without either of these chambers in Democratic hands you can say "Good-bye" to 'Single Payer'. Pulling-off winning control of the House and the Senate while winning the White House would be quite a feat. One which presumes a far less exorcised GOP than we have any rational reason to hope for. The opposition to a direct approach like this would be enormous. In case anybody questions this, just think back to the Bill Clinton administration when he tried to get a single payer system considered. THE IDEA GOT NOWHERE.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I vote for the platform, not for what may or may not be politically viable in the next 8 years. We don't know what will happen (evidence: see Bernie's campaign which nobody predicted).
At least he has values he is willing to fight with us with for.
madokie
(51,076 posts)is the cost of health insurance that people won't be having to pay once we have a plan like Bernie is talking about. Somehow that part of the equation is omitted. Either by choice or by whatever one wants to call it, Ignorance would be the right word there I do believe.
I love how so many here trip over their own two feet trying to tear down Sanders rather than attempting to build up their candidate. The reason for that is largely that Hillary hasn't many redeeming values to build on, when it comes right down to it. ACTUALLY
Hey Bill when you make these post lets talk about all the facets of it rather than cherry pick what you want to say and hope the rest of us don't get it. We. Get. It.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)One thing that the media, and many politicians will not acknowledge is that the US ranked 37th in the WHO survey before the ACA. All of the countries with single payer ranked higher.
Of the median income is approximately 57,000 a year, a 2.2% tax would be approximately $1250 a year, or $100 a month. That is a fraction of what people are paying.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 27, 2016, 07:00 PM - Edit history (1)
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)First one to go negative is a rotten egg!
Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Without winning control of both the House and the Senate getting Single Payer system is undo-able. SP IS the best way to go but we tried that during the Clinton administration and the opposition by Insurance Companies - represented by the GOP - was ferocious. I think we're more likely to get there by moving incrementally there.
Vinca
(50,319 posts)If this had been JFK's way of thinking we'd still be talking about when we might get to the moon. Hillary's new chant: "No We Can't! No We Can't!"
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)with a Republican you'd get even less.
How inspiring.
onecaliberal
(32,934 posts)Just because you have it fucking Ezra.