Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumWhat Happens When You Take Bernie's Name Off SinglePayer?
Thom Hartmann shares a new poll showing that the majority of Americans support Bernie Sanders' health care plan... as long as they don't know it's from Bernie Sanders.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)is thick with this one.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)"might be open to" single payer.
(even when their actions were making it impossible behind the scenes)
Its time for a candidate who hasn't said its never going to happen..
Jennylynn
(696 posts)So long as they called it ACA. (In the South)
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)He claimed it was created by Republicans to prevent "the government takeover of the healthcare system".
Some of these shows use fake call-ins so all you hear are people agreeing with the host.
They actually chalk up the ACA as one of their victories.
Jennylynn
(696 posts)This actually surprises me, although it shouldn't. Arseholes.
Volaris
(10,271 posts)Mandatory private health insurance was concieved by the heritage foundation and promoted by Newt Gingrich as the republican/conservative/free market response to the Clinton administration's failed push for a single payer system.
If Obamacare sucks, those callers-in should blame NEWT GINGRICH. If the ACA is awesome, they can thank Obama for accomplishing Newts idea on their behalf instead of dying for lack of healthcare.
The Republicans trying to run away from their own bad ideas is getting tiresome..I'll give Ted Cruz credit tho..at least when he said he wanted to go to DC to shrink the size (and usefulness) of Govt, he put his money where his mouth was and OWNED that crazy...
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)Even Obama himself uses it. I'm sure its all hubris. The Republicans are easy pickins. They are stupid. I could foresee, as probably most Democratic party reps could, that the ACA would only increase in popularity after that first website hicup. So I'm sure they were chuckling behind the scenes that their peers across the isle were helping stamp a Democratic Presidents name on it that they would have to own later on, or scramble to distance themselves from.
So its pretty obvious there was a concerted effort by Obama on down to use the term Obamacare as well whenever they could. Just to rub it in, exacerbate the process for a laugh. But all because of this arrogant behaviour, they now are losing their own orignal term. The whole damn point of calling it The Affordable Care Act was to help explain the act in its name and help promote the idea every time it is coined.
I was certain that the Rethugs would be calling it Obamacare every time they could, and the Dems and especially Obama, would be always using not just "ACA" but the whole name, not only to highlight why it was passed in the first place, but to avoid charges of hubris. And then, when the ACA started to pay off, the Rethugs would still have this problem of attaching a successful program to their nemesis of a black Dem President, but the Dems would have been taking the high road and all the while the Affordable Care Act would start to live up to its name. That would have been the smart way to do it.
Sometimes Democrats can be just as stupid as Republicans.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)One of the few things he's said that I agree with.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)to grab the same anvil yourself, stamped with the term "Obamacare" and jump in beside them. They could have just slipped onto their inflatable pool chair stamped with "ACA" and just floated around sipping a margarita and watched them drown.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)They are afraid of doing anything without cutting in the corporations. The fact that Sanders believes so strongly in it makes it even more abhorrent to them.
KPN
(15,646 posts)
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)they removed that part where Bern taxes people living in Poverty to pay for it.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
mdbl
(4,973 posts)You should know better lol
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)unless he has taken it down....
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Face it. Hillary said that to smear him.
She counted the "poor" as actually being upper middle class.
Which, in her circles, is poor.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)I forgot that if u can't count , chances are u cant read,,,,,,,,
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Still no link of course.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)a lame-brained, Reaganesque funding plan in reality.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Reagan considered people making $200,000 to be living in poverty.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Please provide a link to a credible source or a video to document your absurd claim.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)Gee, that sounds familiar. I can't quite remember from where, though........................
chknltl
(10,558 posts)
muntrv
(14,505 posts)
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)So it isn't his name that's the problem, it's the cost, and figuring out how to pay for it.
aggiesal
(8,914 posts)There are not enough people in Vermont to be able to cover the costs.
But if you make it a federal mandate, and include the whole US population,
then the story changes.
We could probably pull it off here in California, with our large population,
but smaller states would have a difficult time implementing it unless it was
instituted at the federal level.
Of course Hillary already told us it would never happen, so we know where
you stand.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)that was vetoed by Ah-nold?
Surely, the votes are now there to pass such a thing...or perhaps not.
Read up on it. It's interesting to learn why CA Dems have no interest in reintroducing that plan.
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/single-payer-health-insurance-bill-orphaned-in-california/
aggiesal
(8,914 posts)We don't have single payer, not because we can't afford it, but
because of 2 things,
1) The unions stopped supporting the measure.
2) The White House pushed not to implemented it.
#2, I can't understand, but I can believe #1.
Having single payer would remove a bargaining chip from the unions.
They could no longer use having a medical plan as a benefit for joining a union.
So the premise still stands, smaller states can't afford single payer without
it being federally administered, while the larger states can, if they had the will
to push it through.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Cut the Pentagon budget by a few fighter jets and everyone can get health care.
aggiesal
(8,914 posts)we could have everything Bernie is advocating for, ...
Single payer, free college, ...
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)stopbush
(24,396 posts)That's $6-trillion over 10 years. I don't see how that offsets the $18-21 TRILLION Sanders' Medicare-for-all plan would cost over the same decade.
pberq
(2,950 posts)By eliminating the for-profit health insurance industry, and by eliminating premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, we would end up ahead by about $500 billion per year. So it is inaccurate to list the cost without at the same time mentioning the savings, which are greater than the costs.
First an explanation from Physicians for a National Health Program:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer
What is Single Payer?
Single-payer national health insurance, also known as “Medicare for all,” is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health care financing, but the delivery of care remains largely in private hands. Under a single-payer system, all residents of the U.S. would be covered for all medically necessary services, including doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs.
The program would be funded by the savings obtained from replacing today’s inefficient, profit-oriented, multiple insurance payers with a single streamlined, nonprofit, public payer, and by modest new taxes based on ability to pay. Premiums would disappear; 95 percent of all households would save money. Patients would no longer face financial barriers to care such as co-pays and deductibles, and would regain free choice of doctor and hospital. Doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.
And here is an explanation from economist Gerald Friedman:
http://dollarsandsense.org/blog/2016/01/chelsea-clinton-is-confused-about-single-payer.html
In all, Senator Sanders’ proposal would save us well over $500 billion in the first year with growing savings thereafter while the single-payer agency restrains the continuing accumulation of monopolistic profit and bureaucratic bloat. These savings would allow us to provide access to health care to the millions who remain without insurance, and the millions more who remain underinsured by policies with such large deductibles or cost-sharing that they remain vulnerable to financial ruin.
For the privilege of receiving inadequate health insurance through private companies, Americans can expect over the next decade to pay over $13 trillion in, what amounts to, private taxes imposed by insurers on behalf of the government that mandates that we have health insurance. Add to this, another $5 trillion that under the Clinton health program we can expect to pay in out-of-pocket spending for medical costs not covered by health insurance. Instead, with Sanders’ single payer plan, we would save enough in reduced administrative waste and monopoly profits that we could cover everyone’s medical needs and still take home savings of over $1,700 per person per year for the next decade.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)for its ridiculous assumptions, like GDP growing at an annual rate of 5% for a decade. Remove that fantasy and Sanders' numbers collapse, along with any imagined savings.
Oh, yeah, and Friedman is supporting Hillary.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)pberq
(2,950 posts)Let's see, removing the entire bloated insurance industry from the healthcare equation - that won't amount to much.
Eliminating all insurance premiums, deductibles, copays, etc. - that won't amount to anything.
Now I see your point.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)pberq
(2,950 posts)I will take a look at your link.
While I'm doing that, consider looking at this:
Beyond the Affordable Care Act: A Physicians’ Proposal for Single-Payer Health Care Reform
http://www.pnhp.org/nhi
Introduction
In the United States the right to medical care remains a dream deferred, despite passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The U.S continues to spend strikingly more on health care than other industrialized nations,1 while our health outcomes lag behind. Even with the ACA fully implemented, an estimated twenty-seven million will remain uninsured,2 while many more face rising copayments and deductibles that compromise access to care and leave them vulnerable to ruinous medical bills.3-9
We propose a single-payer National Health Program (NHP) covering all Americans for all needed medical care. The design of such a program has been previously described,10,11 but intervening developments – notably the proliferation of large integrated delivery systems – require revisions.
The NHP can be conceptualized as an expansion of Medicare to the entire population, with correction of that system’s deficiencies – most glaringly, high cost sharing, limitations on coverage, and subcontracting to wasteful private plans. By dramatically reducing administrative costs and other inefficiencies, the NHP could eliminate both uninsurance and underinsurance without any increase in overall health care expenditures. It would sever the problematic link between employment and insurance, and minimize patients’ and physicians’ paperwork burden. Although the system we envision would be publicly financed, it would rely largely on existing private hospitals, clinics and practitioners to provide care. However, because investor ownership of health care providers is known to compromise quality and divert funds from clinical care to overhead and profits,12-14 the NHP would not include such providers. Following are the essential features of the proposed system.
This article takes apart Clinton supporter Kenneth Thorpe's "ananalysis" of Sanders' health plan:
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2016/february/on-kenneth-thorpes-analysis-of-senator-sanders-single-payer-reform-plan
On Kenneth Thorpe's Analysis of Senator Sanders' Single-Payer Reform Plan
. . .3. Thorpe assumes that the program would be a huge bonanza for state governments, projecting that the federal government would relieve them of 10 percent of their current spending for Medicaid and CHIP -- equivalent to about $20 billion annually.
No one has suggested that a single-payer reform would or should do this.
4. Thorpe's analysis also ignores the large savings that would accrue to state and local governments -- and hence taxpayers -- because they would be relieved of the costs of private coverage for public employees.
5. Thorpe's analysis also apparently ignores the huge tax subsidies that currently support private insurance, which are listed as "Tax Expenditures" in the federal government's official budget documents. . . .
This article addresses the fraudulent claim made by the Clinton camp that Sanders' plan would hurt the poor (how low can they stoop?):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steffie-woolhandler/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all_b_9385012.html
Contrary to Claims by the Washington Post and Fortune, the Vast Majority of the Poor Would Gain
. . .But his plan would relieve the poor, as well as the middle class, from the daunting co-payments and deductibles that obstruct care and threaten finances. And it would abolish the narrow provider networks that restrict patients’ choice of doctors and hospitals. Instead, Americans could go anywhere for care, a privilege that every Canadian enjoys, but is rapidly vanishing in our country.
In every nation with national health insurance the poor — and middle-class families — fare better than here. They bear less of the health care cost burden, have better access to care, and live longer and healthier lives.
It takes extraordinary mental and rhetorical gymnastics to portray universal health care as bad for the poor. Having mastered that art, perhaps the Clinton team will turn its attention to repealing the law of gravity.
This DailyKos diary from December 2015 shows how the benefits of Single Payer are greater than even what Bernie Sanders says:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/12/7/1457990/-What-Bernie-Sanders-Doesn-t-Say-Aabout-Medicare-For-All
What Bernie Sanders Doesn't Say About Medicare For All
1. Private Insurance and Obamacare don't end medical bankruptcies
80% of people who go bankrupt due to healthcare costs are insured. In fact, medical bills are the biggest cause for all bankruptcies! That's a real tragedy.
2. American companies are at a competitive disadvantage with their global competitors because of healthcare costs
Bernie mostly focuses on the benefits of single payer Healthcare to the average person, but what he doesn't say is that corporations are at a competitive disadvantage compared to their global competitors. Autoweek reports that “Japan’s health care gives Toyota edge [over GM]”. GM could have launched 3 additional new-model programs if it didn’t have to pay for its retirees’ health care. . .
. . .11. United States quality of healthcare is unimpressive
In a study of the healthcare systems of 11 major countries, the United States fared dead last. Another study ranking all the healthcare systems in the world, the United States was ranked an embarrassing 37th in the world. To add insult to injury, every single country above it had a Medicare for All healthcare system.
pberq
(2,950 posts)The Urban Institute’s Attack On Single Payer: Ridiculous Assumptions Yield Ridiculous Estimates
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-himmelstein/the-urban-institutes-attack-on-single-payer-ridiculous-assumptions-yield-ridiculous-estimates_b_9876640.html
The Urban Institute and the Tax Policy Center today released analyses of the costs of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ domestic policy proposals, including single-payer national health insurance. They claim that Sanders’ proposals would raise the federal deficit by $18 trillion over the next decade.
We won’t address all of the issues covered in these analyses, just single-payer Medicare for all. To put it bluntly, the estimates (which were prepared by John Holahan and colleagues) are ridiculous. They project outlandish increases in the utilization of medical care, ignore vast savings under single-payer reform, and ignore the extensive and well-documented experience with single-payer systems in other nations - which all spend far less per person on health care than we do.
The authors’ anti-single-payer bias is also evident from their incredible claims that physicians’ incomes would be squeezed (which contradicts their own estimates positing a sharp rise in spending on physician services), and that patients would suffer huge disruptions, despite the fact that the implementation of single-payer systems elsewhere, as well as the start-up of Medicare, were disruption-free. . . (more at link)
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)stopbush
(24,396 posts)You do realize that Bernie math is a joke, do you not?
http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/200785-The-Sanders-Single-Payer-Health-Care-Plan.pdf?version=meter+at+3&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)She says all kinds of things and her supporters think it's true.
She doesn't OWN this issue. The NYT article she got her talking point from was discredited because it's numbers were based on keeping the current system in place and the piling universal health care on top of it when it would be a REPLACEMENT. People would SAVE money.
pberq
(2,950 posts)See my links above for references
pberq
(2,950 posts)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-himmelstein/the-urban-institutes-attack-on-single-payer-ridiculous-assumptions-yield-ridiculous-estimates_b_9876640.html
The Urban Institute’s Attack On Single Payer: Ridiculous Assumptions Yield Ridiculous Estimates
The Urban Institute and the Tax Policy Center today released analyses of the costs of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ domestic policy proposals, including single-payer national health insurance. They claim that Sanders’ proposals would raise the federal deficit by $18 trillion over the next decade.
We won’t address all of the issues covered in these analyses, just single-payer Medicare for all. To put it bluntly, the estimates (which were prepared by John Holahan and colleagues) are ridiculous. They project outlandish increases in the utilization of medical care, ignore vast savings under single-payer reform, and ignore the extensive and well-documented experience with single-payer systems in other nations - which all spend far less per person on health care than we do.
The authors’ anti-single-payer bias is also evident from their incredible claims that physicians’ incomes would be squeezed (which contradicts their own estimates positing a sharp rise in spending on physician services), and that patients would suffer huge disruptions, despite the fact that the implementation of single-payer systems elsewhere, as well as the start-up of Medicare, were disruption-free. . .
riversedge
(70,225 posts)a better chance.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)She has already promised that much.
No. We. Can't!!!
According to Hillary, Americans can't do what every other developed country has successfully done.
IronLionZion
(45,442 posts)We have 50 states and a bunch of territories. Surely someone can successfully implement single payer somewhere in America. Vermont came close. California's legislature passed it in the past when Arnold vetoed it.
Canada got it one province at a time starting with Saskatchewan, a small province in their rural heartland.
