else has to work for it and be grateful.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

How much will each person's federal income tax rate go up from where it is today?

Questions Bernie will not answer because he'd rather promise everyone a pink unicorn and give details after the election.

The OP won't have the answer to your question either.

All for it. I'm just skeptical of handing this much federal power over to an inevitable incompetent future Republican president who will not only chip away at it (with a jackhammer), but use it as a hostage negotiation for them to point to as another failure of govt.

Expand medicaid, negotiate drug prices, and update systems for efficiency and cost control.

Don't do anything progressive because eventually a republican will come along and fuck it up doesn't seem like a good way to govern.

To collapse an entire industry, lay off millions of workers, and cost trillions of dollars. There are many progressive policies from criminal justice reform, to climate change, to raising wages, to strengthening equality protections, etc.

My bad. I'll leave you to it.

That it would result in major layoffs?

You mentioned climate change. Are you against cutting back on fossil fuels since that would result in layoffs?

It is the one that the right has been using for decades now.

I tried to disengage once I realized who I was dealing with. Hypocrisy and double standards seem to be the norm for a lot of people.

Well, after all the Third Way is the right wing of the Democratic party.

Dead-on accurate highlighting of their double standards.

We spend more than any country in Earth. We spend more than the next seven countries, combined. Military spending now accounts for 52% of all discretionary spending. Should we just keep spending because it might result in layoffs???

Here are a few things for perspective:

- Currently, the direct health and medical insurance industry employs just over 400,000 in the United States
- Since the government would need to expand to administer medicare for all Americans, I suggest that many of those who were employed in that industry could be absorbed into the medicare service apparatus
- Health care provider employment likely would remain constant - they would just bill the government instead of insurance companies
- In November, the U-3 unemployment rate was 5% with a total of 7.9 million Americans out of work
- Our one-stop career system can serve any laid off health insurance workers that cannot find work on their own, or need some type of training to be marketable

I'm not minimizing the seriousness of such layoffs. Please do not get me wrong. However, the expansion of Medicare to all Americans would happen over two or three years, I expect. This means those in the direct health and medical insurance industry will have some time to prepare - nothing like this would happen so suddenly they would be shocked. In addition, a part of this industry might continue operation to fill any holes that might be in the system. Usually seniors buy supplemental insurance.

Ah, but we speak of policy. Let me add a personal note. I'm profoundly dissatisfied with my HMO coverage provided through my employer. It costs an arm and a leg with double digit increases the past at least five years. We don't have boatloads of extra money to pay for surgery because we have a $6000 out of pocket maximum per year on that. My wife has chronic back pain and you know what her doctor at the HMO told her? "Well...maybe it will go away. Back pain sometimes does that." So I get to watch her suffer while working as hard as I physically can work. Now, this isn't a sob story, but you know what? I WANT SINGLE PAYER. It is more important to me personally than any other thing with the possible exceptions of expanded Social Security. There is nothing you can say to convince me that I would not be hugely better off if we had the kind of system Canada or the UK has. Or better yet, Denmark, Holland and the other nordic nations. For once, Janey, I'd like to see the substantial amount I pay in taxes used in part for programs that will actually benefit me instead of corporations.

I guess I'm just not a neoliberal. And you know what? This country, should we get more of the same shit we've been getting is maybe 10 years from a real revolution. Maybe a little longer. I'm ready to hit the streets on single payer, that's for sure. And I'll march and die in a hail of National Guard bullets to save my Social Security because I don't give a SHIT what the Republicans say or the Third Way Dems that are willing to cut those benefits. I paid full-boat into that system for upwards of 40 years now and I'M GETTING THOSE BENEFITS NO MATTER WHAT.

So maybe we can quit asking how much everything costs (nobody asked how much the forever war would cost, but we went ahead with it anyway). All I'm asking is that for once, just ONCE, we use our tax money on programs that will actually materially benefit us, the people instead of Wall Street, the MIC, big oil and the lobbies.

This is why I'm for Bernie so strongly. He's the only one in decades who has been telling the truth about kitchen table economic issues. So that's how I feel.

Because now that boy my employer and the school district I serve are down to one plan (because the other ones were "Cadillac&quot , guess what? Rates are skyrocting so much that the one plan we have left is now going to be Cadillac in a couple years. Both entities are looking at how to make cuts. Obamacare was a small step in the right direction, but we need single payer. Insurance, for all their whining, is doing great right now. Us, not so much.

Do you work in the insurance industry?

The cost is the cost of doing business; it keeps the economy alive and progressing, keeps American Dream alive and progressing, keeps the environment alive and helps it to recover, AND helps the business world to become (in the end) more profitable, believe it or not.

The workers for whom you show so much concern will benefit from a better life and better jobs, jobs they can be proud to do, because they can see that the results are worth their effort.

To not do it, to keep the lousy status quo because it's more convenient for the profiteers, is an argument unworthy of a Democrat.

No business model that profits off of denying people healthcare is one that we should be defending.

Most of the waste in medical care these days is in having to fight back and forth between insurance companies and providers to assure care and to assure care is paid for.

For-profit corporations are, by definition, a mindless, money-generating machine. Nothing wrong with that, until people want to give them traits like compassion and social responsibility---which is something they are not.

So the idea that all jobs and employment are worthwhile and worthy of saving is horse shit.

Employment is not the all-in-all, a functioning and forward-moving society is the correct goal. Employment is simply a byproduct of that effort.

Maybe next they'll argue for less gun control because factory workers will be out of jobs if they can't make their kalashnikovs.

Another segment of persons applies that thinking to the criminal detention 'industry' and they defend a lack of reform on the exact basis you are using. Raising wages? Again, this will cause job loss, collapse of entire segments of the economy according to some.
In short, your view here is a boilerplate conservative view which can be plugged into any issue one wishes. That alone should make a Democrat uncomfortable. Should.

I thought for sure you forgot the sarcasm tag.

May I suggest you do a little research into economics. Or at least stop listing to Rush so much.

Doesnt that save a lot of money?

It is a major factor in the ruin of our health care system and economy. Propping it up with our lives and health is ridiculous. We need to spend the money needed to get out of this trap.

helping Social Security if it harms the 1%, like raising the cap. She is all for letting the 99% help each other. That won't help the 50,000,000 living in poverty. Watch the defense budget to up, that's what she is all about.

I know! Let's invade another country and then we can hire more bomb makers, wouldn't that be grand?

Yes it's sarcasm, I would say it was obvious and that no one could actually be for more bombs but... say, how did Hillary vote on the cluster bomb ban again?

Calculating the Cost of Bernie Sanders' Single-Payer Health Program

<snip>
As Gerald Friedman has written in an open letter to the Huffington Post:

[The Wall Street Journal article] correctly puts the additional federal spending for health care under H.R. 676 (a single-payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation. These financial savings would be felt by businesses and by state and local governments who would no longer be paying for health insurance for their employees; and by retirees and working Americans who would no longer have to pay for their health insurance or for co-payments and deductibles. Beyond these financial savings, H.R. 676 would also save thousands of lives a year by expanding access to health care for the uninsured and underinsured. (9)

In addition to the federal government saving money with NHI, 95 percent of Americans would pay less than they now do for health insurance and medical care. NHI would be funded by a progressive system of taxation, mainly the payroll tax for those with annual incomes less than $225,000 - $900 for those with incomes less than $53,000 a year, $6,000 for those earning $100,000 a year, and $12,000 for those with incomes of $200,000. Employers would be relieved of their burden of paying for employer-sponsored health insurance, while gaining a healthier workforce and greater capacity to compete in a global marketplace.
<snip>

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/32945-calculating-the-cost-of-bernie-sanders-single-payer-health-program

Do you understand how many doctors and hospitals already refuse to take Medicare / Medicaid?

People will still need insurance, even if it is only supplemental.

The idea that waving Bernie's magic wand is going to get everyone insured 100% is lunacy - unless you are going to outlaw private insurance and force every doctor and hospital to work at a loss and take it. Are you?

if I asked you a few questions, would you? Do you understand that a significant portion of our nation's health care expenses continues to go to providing health care to the uninsured, sky-high administrative costs for private insurance, and returns on investment for shareholders in private insurance companies AND that these expenses could just as well be going to actual health care providers in the form of higher reimbursements? I just ask because you seem to be suggesting that there is no source of revenue from which Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements could be raised. The idea that actual providers are necessarily going to be hurt by single payer health care is incorrect. The fact is that there is a set amount of (let's call it) capital being spent on US health care. A huge portion of it is being spent on what can fairly be described as the "middle men" of private insurance (which I described above). If those middle men are eliminated, every cent of it can go to providers without raising overall health care costs one cent. What's more, if just a portion of it was directed to providers (say just enough to bring Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements in line with private insurance reimbursements), total health care costs could be reduced.

I have no problem discussing whether destruction of the private insurance industry is a good or bad thing from the standpoint of preserving industry jobs, maintaining the industry's contribution to the economy, freedom, or even just because "Hooray, capitalism," but this fear mongering about increased costs to working class Americans is just that and nothing more. We are Democrats. We have REAL debates.

First of all, we will avoid the moral argument of putting millions of people out of work, destroying trillions of dollars in capital, and stealing money from Americans by eliminating private health insurance. (Spoiler: no).

As to the idea that you can pay more via a nationalized program if there wasn't so much damn profit taking by those evil capitalist:

You can't say with one breath that you are going to save the American people SO MUCH MONEY by going to single payer, and then turn around and use the same pool of money you just claimed to save Americans, and use it to pay higher reimbursements to providers (who are still capitalists, are still going to raise rates, and are still going to take a cut.)

If taking out the middleman was so easy and awesome, and allowed so much higher reimbursements, why are the reimbursements for Medicare / Medicaid so low? Why are millions of providers opting out of serving Care/Caid patients?

You live in a fantasy land. The cost of going to single payer will mean an increased cost on American taxpayers of all levels. Take a look at what the tax wedge is for the Scanadanavian countries (or Canada) if you don't believe me.

Bernie Sander's policies will lead to higher taxes upon every single American. Hell, even the lowest tax bracket in most of these countries you want to emulate is at least 7% not to mention VAT's and 30% payroll taxes.

Pure fantasy.

So if you want to have a real debate, let's do that. I am ready for it, and I will come with real facts and figures and not "Bernie says ...."

Aren't we big on rhetoric? In one breath you point to the trillions in capital held in the health insurance industry (faux capital btw as it produces nothing and serves as nothing but a conduit with conditions). In the next you act like there is insufficient capital to provide coverage to all without raising working people's taxes. You ask why Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements are so low? Because the capital is sucked out of REAL health care by insurance companies so the only remaining source of capital is taxes AND politicians appear unwilling to tax the non-producing controllers of capital. That, of course, returns us to the REALITY that this discussion has never been about increasing taxes on the middle class as you have now twice tried to frame it but about the cost and benefit of the private health insurance industry.

"In the healthcare industry" - This little snippet is what is wrong with you folks who think that Bernie can just work magic and make universal health care real and painless. You act as if the trillions of dollars in capital are just in a bank account someplace, sitting there, collecting interest - or worse, owned by the eeeevil 1%. Newsflash - most of that money is being held in stocks by retirement plans, pensions, 401Ks and average investors. Your plan just makes that capital disappear. It doesn't reroute it, or redistribute it - it makes those stocks in those companies worthless. You will have destroyed that capital. No surprise that you folks don't even understand that.

"It produces nothing" Well if that's the case then I suppose life insurance, car insurance, homeowners insurance, workman's comp insurance etc. are all all just schemes too? NO! The health insurance industry provides peace of mind for 240 million Americans. They get sick - they get treatment - for a hell of a lot less money than it would cost to get that treatment if they paid for it out of pocket. Most Americans are perfectly happy with their insurance, their doctors, their hospitals, and their options. Your belief that insurance is a right, and something that people should get just because they exist, has warped your mind and your perspective.

The rest of your argument, well, it's garbage. It isn't even coherent. Care/Caid gets billions of dollars in revenue every year from working Americans in the form of payroll taxes. The idea that insurance companies are somehow sucking out the capital, and thus making it so Care/Caid can't reimburse at a competitive rate, is just plain wrong.

What is the tax wedge in America? Look it up.
What is the tax wedge in Scandinavia? Look it up.
What is the tax rate on the lowest tax bracket in Britain? Look it up.
What is the VAT in Europe? Look it up.

Bernie Sander's policies will, in fact, raise the taxes on working Americans. If you want America to be like all of these shining wondrous democratic-socialist countries, the least you can do is educate yourself as to what citizens are paying in taxes.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the majority of capital in the health insurance industry is held in the retirement accounts of working Americans? That simply isn't true. Maybe you are saying that a substantial percentage of the average working American's retirement account is invested in health insurance stocks. If that is your claim, let's hear a figure and see a link. Otherwise you are simply throwing a tantrum. In either event, capital is not being destroyed, it is being transferred from non-producers (i.e. coupon clipping .1%ers and the most outrageously-compensated business executives in American business) to producers (i.e., working men and women and their actual health care providers)

As for "producing something," you apparently do not understand the difference between the creation of wealth and controlling the distribution of wealth. The latter is the ONLY thing an insurance company does. Incident to that function, it MIGHT bring people peace of mind and it MIGHT prevent waste, however, either of which can be done equally well or better by government in the hands of an equal amount of capital.

Next, you throw out the GOP talking point about taxes in foreign countries. The real question is what percentage of the GNI ends up in the hands of the working class. Do you want to tackle that one?

Finally, your constant slew of insults is boring and ineffective. Why is it that a simple discussion drives you to the brink of un-civility?

Reading your response.

The vast majority of Americans (including a vast majority of Democrats) like things just the way they are.

Would they like to pay less? Sure.

But it wouldn't be such an issue of wages weren't flat.

Let's solve that issue, reinvigorate the economy and raise the standard of living in this country.

Quit trying to manipulate 1/6 of the US economy into something people don't want.

I honestly could not figure out why you had gone so far out on a limb to attack Sanders, or more accurately, his supporters, over single payer health care. Your comments to me were beyond condescending, even after it was pretty obvious that I have more than a passing knowledge about the pros and cons of single payer and was even willing to discuss the cons. It just made no sense.

I went to your journal, no answers there. It was empty. I took note of your signature and it said to me "Yes, Indydem holds some fairly conservative views on the 2nd Amendment," but there are lots of people with conservative views on the 2nd Amendment in our party and they don't engage in such vitriol when discussing an issue which very well could end up in the party's 2016 platform. I was just mystified. Finally, I went to your journal archives and there you had two posts.

The first made the mystery even more impenetrable. In it you went through a fairly insightful discussion of the impact of the ACA on working class people and, in the end YOU called for the very single-payer plan which you accused myself and others of living in a fantasy land for supporting. You could have knocked my socks off.

Then I read you second post. In it, you railed about how the nomination of Barrack Obama would drive working class voters to the GOP and how, if we didn't nominate Hillary, we would lose to McCain.

Now I understand.

In 2009, I honestly believed that single payer would be the way to go. Consider me naive, or stupid - take your pick.

I had been led to believe that single payer health care would be cheaper than private insurance. I was told that it would reduce costs, be very popular with people, - etc. etc.

Then I lived through the roll out of the ACA, it's unpopularity, and a changing opinion on my part.

6 years ago, I didn't like the ACA. I still don't like the mandate or the structuring of packages.

Today, I recognize that single payer healthcare is financially impossible, and a fantasy. It's never going to get past the congress. It's never going to survive a SCOTUS challenge. And finally, it's never going to happen.

No one is going to willingly pay 70% of their income to the government so that others can experience a benefit such as free college, free healthcare, etc. Call it selfish. Call it whatever you want. I call it reality.

Bernard Sanders (I-Vt) has not once had to explain how he is going to make all these fantasies come true without ending up with a tax wedge like Scandinavia.

I am not a socialist. FDR wasn't a socialist. Truman wasn't a socialist. JFK wasn't a socialist. Johnson wasn't a socialist. Carter wasn't a socialist. Clinton wasn't a socialist. Obama isn't a socialist. I'll stick with those folks and tell Bernie Sanders to go back to Vermont.

I am going to take you at your word. I admit that a cynic might look at your strident attack on Obama and your strident attack on Sanders and conclude that the common denominator is that you make over the top attacks on anyone who opposes Hillary. I prefer to think you believe that the middle cannot be swayed to the left and that ideological purity equals a Republican president and that such an event is an evil beyond our comprehension. I disagree with your original premise, but I share your concern. That is why am aghast at the tenor or not just our, but many, DU discussions these days. If we split this party because we can't act like adults, we will suffer a destruction that will make Dubya's reign look like FDR's.

How many countries have single payer?

MANY

So you think we can not do what the rest of the civilized world does. I

I believe that America can do the things that the others do.

has medicare?

How many now refuse medicare? Very few. More do refuse medicaid but medicaid would go away under Bernie's plan. Medicare for all, get it?

People will still need insurance? Only for vanity surgery if it's setup right.

Here goes for the reading pleasure of all DUers.

AND MAYBE HILLARY WILL READ IT TOO SINCE HER ANSWER WAS FALSE AND UNINFORMED. She too should have read this article.

The Journal correctly puts the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.

These financial savings would be felt by businesses and by state and local governments who would no longer be paying for health insurance for their employees; and by retirees and working Americans who would no longer have to pay for their health insurance or for co-payments and deductibles. Beyond these financial savings, HR 676 would also save thousands of lives a year by expanding access to health care for the uninsured and the underinsured.

The economic benefits from Senator Sander's proposal would be even greater than these static estimates suggest because a single-payer plan would create dynamic gains by freeing American businesses to compete without the burden of an inefficient and wasteful health insurance system. As with Senator Sanders' other proposals, the economic boom created by HR 676, including the productivity boost coming from a more efficient health care system and a healthier population, would raise economic output and provide billions of dollars in additional tax revenues to over-set some of the additional federal spending.

Summary of 10-year projections

Because of the nearly $10 trillion in savings, it is possible to fund over $4.5 trillion in additional services while still reducing national health care spending by over $5 trillion. With these net savings, the additional $14.7 trillion in federal spending brings savings to the private sector (and state and local governments) of over $19.7 trillion.

Just so, I can watch so called Democrats rush to defend it.

You just have to actually care to really hear them and not dig up more right-wing slander.

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/no-bernie-sanders-domestic-policy-plan-doesnt-really-cost-18-trillion

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/15/no-bernie-sanders-is-not-going-to-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/

Lastly, here is a very detailed, simple language, explanation of how It will work...from Sanders own website:
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/#universal-health-care

Of you really wanted answers, you could have found helpful information in less time than it took you to complain.

So if you're paying $500/mo for healthcare your healthcare costs under Medicare for all would be about the same as Medicare pts' pay now...$150yr for premium and $1.60/wk in new taxes for total coverage with no co-pay and if Sanders gets his way it also would cover dental, vision, and hearing. Stop with the "pink unicorn" smears...you know better because Sanders is known for his honesty and seriousness about these issues and it would take a detailed study to be precise so at best it's just an estimate...but removing the profiteers will always lower costs and you know this.j It works really well in all other civilized countries but this one which has refused to make health care a right. Work with us and stop being such a downer.

How much would one save by having single payer health insurance vs what we have now? The US spends more on Medicare for its 52.3 million enrollees than the UK does to cover its entire population (62 million). Medicare doesn't cover everything, gives no allowances for dental, vision or hearing expenses. Some of this is available on the NHS.

Sure, universal health care that's free at the point of delivery, as well as tuition paid for tertiary education to baccalaureate level isn't cheap. I'm sure we can put off buying a new aircraft carrier, or a few fighter jets... it's all a matter of priorities.

Even ACA has been more expensive then original numbers. Budgets are of then hypothesizes. It really is impossible to be completely accurate.

Here is Friedman's explanation. Bernie's plan will save us money and the how and why is explained here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html

But good job catapulting the propaganda!

The rate of increase has gone down by more than projected.

That doesn't mean there was no increase, it means the increases were smaller. So instead of paying $125 more, "many individuals" are paying $100 more.

When I hear of people saying their HC costs have gone up I say the ACA states 20% is the most a company can charge for overhead & profits etc. 80% must go to actual medical costs. Before the ACA it was 20-50%. So your HC costs would be soaring way above what they are now without the ACA or Obamacare. We need to get rid of the profiteers by having Single payer Medicare for all where the tax payer is the one who profits.

and co-pays.
I guess you didn't watch the debate.

Sanders is easily able to defend himself on this. I don't remember what he said.

will say or do just about anything to advance her political career.

if only she was in it for the good of her fellow citizens.

As in "I couldn't care less" whether you or your children get food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education, or anything else that makes life possible.

Bernie CARES. And he puts his might and muscle and brain into it. He doesn't seek profit, not for himself or his family, and he doesn't sell himself to corporate profiteers. And he doesn't lie, evade, manufacture or otherwise distort reality for selfish ends.

each and every little detail is ironed out.
There have been a few places where you can find rough estimates. I think one is http://feelthebern.org

a Republican congress.

in Pro-Bernie OPs to snark and deride. Don't you have anything better to do, like post POSITIVE and supportive OPs about your own candidate?

Please, understand that you can support Hillary without bashing Bernie.

Go BERNIE!!!!!

just more mudslinging

As opposed to actual concern about the direction of the country. Of course she cares about the country, but...

I raise an eyebrow at this claim:

Yes, it is called savings. Which is the case here. Not that you care about that.

The money might be spent but not by the government.

So, no, it is not savings.

who can't afford health care out of their own pockets?

If this is the Democratic Party it's becoming increasingly obvious that it's not the place for me. I guess this primary will decide many things.

"Hillary lied about the cost of Sanders's programs."

"No, it was just a different economic analysis."

"Fine! Just let them all die! I'm leaving the Democratic Party!"

Oh, the drama.

the Hillary force is strong in this one.

The nation's health care bill will be cut massively!

Sorry, but I'm not sure you understand what is happening on either side of the argument.

and achieve equal or better results. That is a fact you can not get around.

I would like to remind you that U.S. health insurance companies do not contribute anything to health care. They are only a PARASITIC middle man taking a cut of "FREE MONEY"

We don' t want any heads exploding!

in the things that I believe.

Like Turkey???

This is an example why. I was at a Bernie gathering to watch the debate and we all groaned when she said that.

you're another one who keeps popping in to Pro-Bernie threads to snark and deride. Why not spend your time and energy supporting YOUR candidate in positive and supportive ways?

And, you can find the information you seem interested in knowing--google is your friend.

Go BERNIE!!!

....did you read the subject line?

"Why did Hillary use a discredited Rupert Murdoch lie to smear Sanders?"

Scary, isn't it, when your candidate continuously steps in it, and you have to defend her all over again.

Good luck, George II, and please understand that I have updated my IL, so any response from you will be moot.