of her

the Libertarian bullshit about 'no new taxes', I instantly know they are anything BUT a Democrat.

Clinton will not be able to hide her neoliberal ways. They just ooze out of her like this.

A national health care system will meet that same problem. How does Sanders convince everyone to swallow a massive tax increase?

This is a legitimate discussion of policy.

That would immediately kill the monthly deductibles that people pay.
It's cheaper.

and it is a more than the monthly deductibles and copays that I and most of the people I know pay.

So are you trying to tell us that you're all about defending the status quo that leaves millions uninsured and the end result is more people dying?

Your position sounds like that of a conservative with calling out VT. http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/26/single-payer-in-colorado-learn-from-vermont/

And, no, I am not now and never have been a conservative. I do stay informed, however, and that may have thrown you off to the point where you began to cast aspersions.

Initiating a single payer system is not gong to be cheap. It will come with higher taxes for everyone. Its not going to be paid for by simply taxing the rich, and it shouldn't be paid for that way. I am in favor of a progressive tax system, but if we want a program that everyone benefits from then everyone needs to pay a fair share.

A bigger problem than convincing a majority of Americans to go with this system and increase their taxes will be to pass legislation to create the program.

The ACA passed because we, temporarily, had a majority. Even that majority never considered going single payer. Hell, a public option (which was never intended as single payer) could not get out of committee.

The only way I see to get to anything like Single Payer is the long difficult road of improving the ACA, which will take more than a decade if we can control the House and the Senate. If we could get control of the House and Senate, creating a public option would be a good start. Initially, it would not cost much, but it would act as a natural brake on increasing health care costs. It would take up the slack from companies who do not want to work at the low end and if handled right would become the core of an eventual single payer system. Oh, it would still lead to higher taxes, but if done overtime, people would learn to deal with it.

Because this program requires raising funds, it must start in the House. A Republican controlled house will never, never pass that bill.

Or just fear monger about higher taxes
on hard working, white, middle class folks?

if this were to be introduced? are there actual numbers/studies on this?
open question

So he has left himself open to letting his opponents define his views for him. Clinton is smart to take advantage of this.

This is a bad move by Bernie's campaign to wait so long. This is a core part of his message, and he's yet to lay out the specifics. To make it worse, he's running against two wonkish candidates.

There's your plan.

It's simple, unlike the current system that adds an enormous amount of complexity in order to keep insurance companies in the mix.

Medicare are far lower than those of for-profit healthcare. That's why Medicare for all will save money, especially if you eliminate the profits for the rich on top of reducing administrative costs.

Where's Hillary's?

up to what amount of income, etc?

I am asking sincerely, I didnt see it on his site.

One reason may be he wants to be supportive of ACA.

Great line.
Cuts to the quick!

That's sure to win me over.

Hillary Clinton, making tone deaf an art form.

....they are using fucking REPUBLICAN talming points to make the case.

And they actually think people lime me will vote for THAT?

not workable, is just a lame excuse to continue the present status quo that is unsustainable. To say that Bernie doesn't have a plan is just hog wash!

what's his plan?

I am disgusted by what comes out.

at least $ 200 billion per year, which translates into
a $ 2,000 annual savings for the average family.

These numbers are very conservative.

Shame on HRC for her deliberate deception.

The U.S. Is the only major industrialized country in the world who can't make single payer work?

Her campaign slogan should be "No We Can't!"

what is she?

Out of all the industrialized nations, we Americans have the most expensive healthcare insurance. And why might that be?

Could it be because a few of the richest Americans insist on skimming profits from the top of the money we pay for that insurance?

I would rather pay those profits to my government which returns the money to me in services than to the 1% who simply buy bigger yachts with it as Bernie points out. Granted some middle class pensioners get a tiny, tiny, teeny tiny bit of those profits, but mostly a few rich "investors" skim the top of the money we pay for for-profit insurance, living luxury lives off of our misery, sickness and even deaths.

What a sick system Hillary is defending.

It is utterly sick.

If we are to pay the most for healthcare, let's pay it to our nurses, doctors and other medical service providers, not to profiteers from our misfortune.

I'm fully with Bernie on this.

We can insure more people for the amount of money we now pay for healthcare.

Maybe a first step would be to require all health insurance companies to be non-profit.

I wonder what the annual salaries are now of the CEOs of the health insurance companies. I remember that before Obamacare, they were shttp://www.forbes.com/pictures/mef45eghm/stephen-hemsley/candalously high. What are they now?

Forbes lists Stephen Hensley of United Health as the eighth highest paid CEO for 2015.

European countries provide great healthcare for less. Single payer, once it is set up and is working, is less expensive than what we have.

As our system now works, an uninsured individual goes to a hospital, and the hospital provides free care. The rest of us pay for that care anyway.

Say you have a drug addict. He/she will end up most likely in an inner city hospital needing care. The hospital has to give the care and deal with the bill somehow. How do you think that happens?

Who do you think pays for the care if the patient has no insurance, not even Medicaid?

I will let you figure that out.

We need singlepayer because it will save us money.

Healthcare insurance is a duty to ourselves, our families and our society, not a choice.

If we don't insure ourselves, others will have to pay for our healthcare. And many of us cannot even afford Obamacare because of the deductibles.

This is another problem that Hillary cannot understand because she lives in the world of the wealthy and not in the world we live in.

Well put

She's being incredibly disingenuous suggesting that Bernie would raise taxes on anyone who couldn't very easily afford it...such as herself, and her corrupt foundation.

Free college choices if you so choose them. K&R

because he doesn't have a plan

description of Bernie's single payer system with all the fine points of what coverage what costs to the patient, what administration needs to be in place, where the practitioners will come from, and every other nuance?
I think we are arguing about pipe dreams with no real grounds to make a decision.

For less money, with less administration, far more coverage and better health outcomes?

Sure, just a pipe dream..

solve your curiosity but not mine. We are bigger and more involved in the world than other countries.
You reply seems so lacking

The current system is far more complex and inefficient than the solution would be. Singlepayer works and is cheaper everywhere, yet we're supposed to believe America is different because.. America is just so gosh darn special?

Why is that so difficult for conservatives to understand? And, while we're debating the ACA healthcare rationing, where is Mrs. Clinton's plan?

So she is a supply sider now?

I don't get it. What is it about making sure that 30 million people don't have healthcare is so attractive to them?

I suspect the answer is: profits before people. As always.

Despicable!

Tweaks won't fix these problems.

>United Health-- 4th largest insurer -- is considering leaving the exchanges because it discovered it can't make a profit.
>More than a dozen smaller insurers have already left because they discovered they can't make a profit.
>Maine's community health program was the only one not to lose money its first year. The rest of the states ran into financial trouble because they underestimated costs/overestimated revenues
>The federal fund that was supposed to insure the insurance companies against losses in the early transition years only paid 10% or so of their claims, leaving the insurance companies eating their losses in its first year.
>while some people are seeing a small decrease in their premiums, a lot of people are getting hit with large increases
>ACA admin admits that it's going to be a tough sell to get the remaining uninsured to buy insurance instead of paying the penalty. That's because the holdouts (including moi) fall into that grey zone, did the math and realized that if we paid for insurance we had zip left over to pay health care deductible. As bad off as we may be without health insurance, we're worse off with it. My personal plan remains the same -- when the penalty costs more than insurance, I'll buy the insurance. Either way, I consider the insurance useless and a large extra tax on a pretty poor person.

For that matter, why would any candidate from any party attack Bernie Sanders??

It would be like attacking the candidates at the kiddie table on the republican side. It doesn't even make any sense. It gains her nothing.

I'm sure Bernie and his supporters would love it if anyone would attack him so he could get some attention but, just because the former Secretary of State doesn't have the same view as people who advocate one form health care reform, doesn't mean she is attacking anyone. She didn't even bother to mention his name.

She barely attacks him when they are debating and that's when you are supposed to throw a few punches. He can't even get O'Malley to attack him!