...into "$5000" in more taxes. This is the replacement of single payer for private insurance premiums, high deductibles, and drug-price gouging.

Hoe does Team Clinton find every sack of shit to work for them?

how does a single payer system be overall cheaper by

(1) covering more people (the currently uninsured)
(2) not having co-payments as cost control measure
(3) not having limits on procedures or drugs?

1 - it covers the same number of people. You are ignoring the much higher cost of uncovered people ending up in the emergency room, or 'free' clinics and the costs associated with poor quality heathcare for those who are not covered, or under convered.

2 - There are other 'single-payer' non co-payer examples around the world, and even if you believe that people are abusing the system, they are still less expensive than the current system.

3 - Limits are still there, just based on need vs profits.

1/2. in the short term, you're going to pay much more in health care costs (for the currently uninsured) before the long-term cost savings come through. Why doesn't Sanders account for this short-term spike in his funding (and taxation) proposal?

3. What kind of limits? What if somebody wants a branded vs generic drug? What about experimental vs standard of care therapies? Somehow Sanders waves all of these important issues away.

since your talking points seem to be a bit right-wing and would apply to it as well.

Under the ACA are more expensive than previously insured people.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/obamacare-enrollees-are-sick_us_56face7be4b0143a9b497571

That's not a bad thing, but it does mean if you are proposing bringing in new people who are sicker than average, it's going to cost more.

... currently uninsured are costing money now. They will cost less when they are in the system. If there is an increase in cost short term, then that's what's called 'investment' ... we can't repair the roads because there might be an upfront cost? My roof leaks, but I'll let it destroy my $1M home because it will cost 10K to replace it?

... What if somebody wants branded vs generic drugs, experimental vs standard therapies now? Even in 'single-payer' or 'full-coverage' countries now there are options. You get the basic level of coverage based on need, using what's considered 'conventional' treatments for health issues ... you can then buy insurance on top of that for your 'branded' and experimental services ... you think that the basic insurance coverage now covers all the 'bells & whistles'?

who were uninsured and not receiving health care of any kind are now on the rolls.


I will never understand why some dems care so very little for their fellow man. The repugs I get.

... who would have thought a year or two ago that single-payer insurance would have been so controversial for 'Democrats"?

I'm sure if Hillary suddenly came out and started calling for a return to a monarchy, the same people who are now backing away from single-payer would be backing away from democracy.

about $3 trillion in health care a year.

Ok let's say you eliminate all administrative costs. That's maybe 10%?

But you are also covering MORE people with MORE benefits and LESS co-payments.

30% of 3 trillion is a bit less than 1 trillion.

And that's before you consider that eliminating all administrative costs is impossible. Even Medicare has some costs.

Also the ACA mandates 80% of premiums be spent on benefits and health care improvement. So there no way to get 30% of the 3 trillion we spend on health care back by eliminating the max 20% a for profit insurer can take to cover admin costs and profit.

Eliminating them and cost drivers such as high executive salaries, marketing, etc... also eliminates that 30%

You also have to remember the higher costs triggered by our current system.

Yes, co-pays can prevent people from going to the doctor for frivolous things....but they also keep people from going to the doctor for things that turn out to be major problems when they are finally treated.

That cough that just won't go away might not be worth $40....until it costs an enormous pile of money to save you from something like pneumonia or later-stage lung cancer.

You can pay for a whole lot of primary care doctors saying "You just have a cold, get some rest" for the same price as a single hospitalization for pneumonia.

(1) That means in theory one budget for what is now multiple, including Medicaid and Medicare.

(2) Co-payments may still exist, they won't be extortionate.

(3) There are limits currently too. Mounds of them. The "death panels" have existed all along, they're called insurance adjustors.

I think you're asking the wrong questions. Look at Germany (not quite single payer), Canada or Scandinavia (single payer) and ask, how do they get better results in longevity, prevention and health at a lower % GDP spent on health care? Why can't some form of that be implemented here?

The key is in eliminating the profit and growth motives of private insurance. How do almost all systems in place have administrative costs 1/3 or less than the U.S.? How is it that Social Security, lacking the profit-seeking private entities in the middle, gets along with 2% administrative costs?! Get rid of the profit-seeking corporate middleman! The profit motive is still there for the actual medical providers, but with limits on the gouging especially in the pharmaceuticals.

"Taaaaaxxxessss!"

Christ on a crutch. Why on earth do Hillary supporters feel a sudden need to go full Tea Party to defend her?

one looks at it.

They may not be using the verbiage, but they're certainly tapping into the sentiment.

Sometimes this place is indistinguishable from FreeRepublic.

if it's all tied into Single Payer.

Cause that ain't happening anytime soon.

So it's a lie either way: The "$5000" increase is predicated on implementation of a single-payer system that eliminates double that in premiums and deductibles. If it fails in the legislature, the increase also doesn't happen. It's not like he could impose the $5000 just for the hell of it, without a single-payer system.

People could input their medical costs and see how the new plan would effect them. The calculator should also provide a more detailed breakdown on personal versus employer costs. How much Bernie's programs might save businesses would be useful. The only problem with a benefits calculator that I see is that Trump's unpaid for tax cut plan might appear to look very good on the surface to many, if a middle class family is really getting $1690 in free money. That's a lot and would be appealing to people who need to work to make their ends meet. OTOH, Trump's plan on the Vox calculator is already going to look attractive, so at least there will be an alternative.

the election is over? Elections have consequences and when those consequences come back on us we will remember who pushed her off on us.

people being terrified of Trump/Cruz...so their lies and distortions should be forgotten.

It's cunning and unethical but I don't know how else to explain their reasoning.

MSM or a lot of other bunk I am doing just fine without now.

Thanks for the kick.

Very important fact that everybody should know. All of people do not realize this.

I used to really, really like MSNBC and I really, really liked Ezra Klein. And a lot of others who I now know sell their ethics and honesty for a position with the establishment. Yes, Ari Berman too. And Chris Hayes.

I said before Chris is friends with Sam Seder but you haven't seen Sam for a long time - well, actually I haven't watched MSNBC for a long time now - but prior to my not watching, Sam had disappeared. Sam is a Bernie supporter and he'd never sell out. Neither would David Sirota, another writer that I hold in high esteem.

Sam Seder - Ring of Fire with Papantonio and Kennedy online for those who don't know them.

In an analysis released today, the Tax Foundation, an independent tax policy research organization, found that Sanders’ plan would lead to 10.56% lower after-tax income for all taxpayers, and a 17.91% lower after-tax income for the wealthiest Americans. When accounting for reduced GDP, taxpayers would see their after-tax incomes fall by 12.84% on average, the report said.

Clearly, just another partisan rag shilling for right-wingers like Hillary.