all a favor by insisting they explain where the trillion$ will come from.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/joe-biden-health-care-plan-obamacare-public-option/index.html

so they can then pay out incredible amounts of money to their CEOs and upper management and no one mentions that these subsidies are our money. I'd prefer the money went to healthcare and healthcare professionals in the form of taxes --- cause subsidies are taxes.

with faulty math, an impossible timeline and claims that patient expericence will not suffer at all.

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/sanders-single-payer-health-care-plan-effect-national-health-expenditures-and-federal-and-private-spending

financing?

Whataboutism?



Currently, Medicare is financed in large part by the vast majority of people who are paying into it not actually participating in it.


https://www.urban.org/research/publication/sanders-single-payer-health-care-plan-effect-national-health-expenditures-and-federal-and-private-spending

1. M4A would be paid for by transitioning people from private insurance to public insurance. Instead of their money going to a private insurance company it would go into Medicare. Since M4A is likely going to be cheaper than our current healthcare system, this will save people money on a per month basis.

2. Referencing your quote, "Currently, Medicare is financed in large part by the vast majority of people who are paying into it not actually participating in it."

That is how insurance works even in the private sector. Groups of people pay into a pool which the insurance company then uses to pay doctors, hospitals, car mechanics, etc. The reason the insurance model works is because only a fraction of the people that pay into the pool actually use the benefits.

Actually, that's a huge oversimplifcation. The transition will cost money on top of medical care and before it can be delivered, and requires businesses to pay in as well - which has not been mapped to savings for them from their current subsidies. Did you read the actual bill? One of the reasons that Green Mountain Care was scuttled in VT was that it was going to raise taxes more than was tolerable, and out of state businesses were not going to be required to pay the fees that businesses large and small in VT were going to be required to. Trillions of dollars being redistributed will not happen quickly or without impact on health care, and not without consequences to delivery of health care.



Again.. "likely" doesn't cut it. The CBO will score it, and they will take into account the other economic consequences of upending 17% of th GDP - which will include the full consequences that the MFA bill has not worked through - layoffs of people in insurance industries, supporting businesses, salary cuts, closing of rural hospitals that are currently kept afloat by higher private insurance payments, etc. Also, it's easier to keep costs down than it is to slash them. But while a single-payer system would undoubtedly produce efficiencies, it would also bring huge disruptions. Especially if, as Bernie states, it would all happen within 8 years.




Actually no. Once again - an oversimplification. Everyone paying into a private insurance group can get care now. Under the ACA, they get copay free yearly checkups, and subsidized contraception. The vast, vast majority of people paying into Medicare are guaranteed not to participate and use the services. That's a huge distinction when you are talking about insurance statistics and metrics.

The time for all of this to have been done the way Sanders claims was during the Truman era. Unless there is a time machine, there isn't a way to replicate what the majority of the rest of the world took 50+ years to develop, growing alongside and with technology.

It's like someone from Boston looking at Chicago's grid street layout, and saying, "It's so much more efficient! Easier plowing of roads, first responders getting there more quickly, pedestrians can look at an address and know immediately how far away it is, fewer curves and traffic circles mean fewer accidents... if they did it, so can we!" You'd understand the challenges and the obstacles to retrofitting that onto Boston. The consequences of doing that with our baked in system are not so obvious, leading people to become experts on health care, the way that tea partiers became instant constitutional experts the minute Obama got elected.

Most countries with UHC involve employers in the funding and administration of health care coverage. The larger ones don't handle it at the federal level, even those with populations higher than our current Medicare population. Many use private - yes, not for profit, but not governmental - entities to administer and deliver services such as reimbursing physicians. MFA includes none of that.

Australia, for instance, has 80% of their population in a few densely populated areas, making centralized delivery more efficient - fewer facilities needed. However, those in rural areas, get substandard care because of the expense of creating numerous care centers that treat fewer people. Our population is 60% urban or suburban.

Also those on Medicare pay into it over a career of working until they reach age 65. How will Medicare for All fund itself if people of every age aren't paying into it? And as Delaney said, Medicare pays less to hospitals than private, employer and union plans pay.

There are a lot of things to solve for Medicare for All to work, and prohibiting private plans under it is just silly. If people want to keep their plan, let them. If Medicare for All solves all the above problems and proves itself, people will eventually opt for it. This of course will take years.

Medicare for All sounds good but it's not an easy fix by any means.

Sanders never talks about the actual funding.

Actually, he does, in a good amount of detail. See:

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

how it will be paid for. That's why people get that impression.

There's no way to really explain that even in the 60 seconds they'd give him in a debate.

And it's not free. I pay monthly premiums for basic Medicare, a supplemental plan, and for drug coverage. That adds up to around $300 per month. I had thought that this coverage wouldn't cost me anything when I got to 65. Wrong!

So some of the funding comes from the premiums- just like you pay every month for private health insurance. Plus the administrative costs are much lower for Medicare than private insurance.

If more people were on M4A, that would put more $ in the system. I think it should be an option, along with private employment based insurance. My guess is that employers would ditch the insurance benefit for their workers to save money.

So I paid into medicare for 49 years before I could use it. And I am still paying plenty to cover what basic medicare doesn't. That's a lot of money.

And current workers have been paying into Medicare as well. My feeling is that if younger workers choose Medicare for All and begin paying into the system, that will infuse it with more funding. The younger workers will likely not use as many services as we "oldsters" do, so it would make the system solvent for longer.

This is only my thinking on the matter, I would be interested to see what a specialist in the area would do with the data.

I guess that's what the public option is supposed to be. But putting the whole nation on a full coverage version of medicare would mean Americans would have to accept European levels of taxation and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

....who currently are on Medicare. It's simply not going to happen.

What about if you like your insurance you can keep it? And your doctor?

This is a perfect opportunity for Delaney to have a Sister Souljah moment at the debate.

With his self funding and very popular message on health care Delaney might be able to take his case all the way to the Convention, unless Biden promises him the vice presidency or a cabinet position.