Three Questions Bernie Sanders Should Answer Before the New Hampshire Primary

[SecularMotion]

Throughout his campaign Bernie Sanders has made three promises that are extremely attractive to voters. He’s promised to make tuition free at all public universities and colleges. He’s promised to establish a single-payer health coverage system. And he’s promised to break up the big banks during his first year as president. Given how many families are struggling with college debt, how important health care is to everyone, and how much people hate Wall Street, these promises are resonating with Democratic primary voters. Before New Hampshire voters cast their ballots in seven days, reporters should press Sanders to provide serious answers to three questions about the practicality of these promises.

How Do You Actually Break Up the Big Banks in One Year?

Think for a minute about how long it takes for a married couple with significant assets to get divorced. It’s not easy. Then take a look at Bank of America....

How Do You Prevent an Endless Cycle of Rising Tuition and the Taxes To Pay for It When Students No Longer Pay Tuition?

When Senator Sanders says he will make tuition free at all public universities and colleges, what he means is that individual students no longer will pay tuition and instead federal taxpayers will pay their tuition....

How Do You Actually Shift the Existing American Health Coverage System into a Single-Payer System?

Senator Sanders says there is no reason the United States shouldn’t have a single-payer health system; countries like Sweden, Canada and Denmark have single-payer systems, so can we. Those countries created their single-payer systems before private health insurance took hold....

http://www.reardonreports.com/three-questions-bernie-sanders-should-answer-before-new-hampshire-votes/

[global1]

1. How Do You Put A Man On The Moon?......nt

[TCJ70]

2. This is the kind of stuff that frustrates me...

Last edited Wed Feb 3, 2016, 06:39 PM - Edit history (1)

...there's so much emphasis on the "HOW WILL YOU DO IT?!" that it detracts from his core message, which explains how he will do it. It's a problem that doesn't only plague Sanders. The focus on getting things done is the wrong focus right now. Our politics are way out of whack and need to be realigned before ANYONE, Sanders or Clinton, can get anything done. Bernie's core message is "Get involved, stay involved, let's change government to work for all Americans". That's how it gets done, NH. Now get on board the revolution.

[Paper Roses]

3. Rec for your reply. n/t

[kristopher]

21. YOU are ignorant by choice.

His platform specifies how he plans to pay for his proposals.

Try reading before typing - for a change.

[stopbush]

24. Yes, his plan specifies how he'll pay for it: with daisies and rainbows.

Economists who are long-time advocates of single payer say his numbers are bogus. Things like claiming his plan would save $380 billion in prescription drug costs when Americans spend only $304-billion a year on prescription drugs. Oops! Bernie's "experts" had to modify their savings back to the $281-billion range after that promise was proven to be "ambitious" (and we're now supposed to trust THAT lower number??).

And the pro-single payer economist who was brought in twice to work on Vermont's initiative to create a viable single-payer health system says Bernie is underestimating the cost of his program by $1-trillion A YEAR. If Bernie cut defense spending to ZERO, he'd still be about $400-billion a year short in paying for his health plan.

Bernie's people are pulling numbers out of their asses. I expected much more from him. I've been a Bernie fan in the past, but I have been disappointed to see the politician come out in Bernie, with him throwing around Reaganesque, pie-in-the-sky BS promises to give people free everything through what he says are small tax increases. Well, they won't be small.

[kristopher]

36. You and the lying numbers from those protecting their investments are wrong

Gerald Friedman, the UMass economist whose economic analysis was cited in the Wall Street Journal article that claimed that Bernie Sander's proposals would cost the US $18 trillion thinks it is the Wall Street Journal that doesn't understand the math.

Doing all the calculations Friedman concludes that Single Payer health care and Bernie's plan for it will cost the US $5.081 Trillion LESS over the next ten years than the US is currently paying, while also insuring every uninsured person in the United States, and eliminating all copayments and deductibles!

The stunning chart and the Huffington Post article that outlines his math is linked following the julienne carrot:


Projected 10-Year Impact of HR 676 -- (John Conyers' Single Payer Healthcare Bill)

Increased Tax Revenue from Progressive Taxation: $17.568 Trillion
Deficit Reduction from Tax Increase Excess $02.889 Trillion
Additional Federal health Care Spending $14.679 Trillion
Total Savings from Health Care Efficiencies $09.634 Trillion
Reduced Private Spending $19.759 Trillion
Additional Spending -- Cost of Covering Everyone, $04.553 Trillion
and eliminating all co-payments and deductibles!)


Net REDUCED National Health Care Spending $5.081 TRILLION!!!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/16/1421895/-Hey-WSJ-Bernie-s-Plan-SAVES-the-US-5-081-Trillion-on-Health-Care

An Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal on Its Bernie Sanders Hit Piece
09/15/2015 08:03 pm ET | Updated Sep 16, 2015
Gerald Friedman
Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Gerald Friedman's research was cited in a Wall Street Journal story about Bernie Sanders's proposals for government spending. Friedman responds to that story below.

It is said of economists that they know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. In the case of the article "Price Tag of Bernie Sanders's Proposals: $18 Trillion," this accusation is a better fit for the Wall Street Journal that published it.

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 ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html


National Nurses United

ECONOMISTS AND HEALTH CARE EXPERTS IN SUPPORT OF BERNIE SANDERS’ MEDICARE FOR ALL

Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-All plan for universal health care in the United States is the right way to ensure affordable access to health care for all Americans.
The Affordable Care Act has made important strides in expanding health insurance, especially for low-income and young Americans. It has instituted important protections against exclusion from coverage. And it has empowered American workers, especially those with health conditions. But 29 million people in this country remain uninsured, and many more struggle with high co-payments and deductibles. Senator Sanders’ plan delivers universal coverage at a fraction of the cost because it replaces private health care premiums, co-payments and deductibles with a single, smaller payment into the Medicare-for-All system. In short, the Sanders plan will do more and cost less than any privately-administered health insurance system.

We agree with Bernie Sanders that we must build on the proven record over 50 years of the Medicare program. We must provide the freedom and security to all Americans that comes with finally separating health insurance from employment.

Bernie Sanders’s single-payer system would cost less than our current system, because a single-payer system wouldn’t spend huge sums on advertising, marketing, executive pay, and billing, as private insurers do. The Sanders single-payer system would empower Medicare to negotiate fair prices for drugs and procedures. It would be financed by a fair and reasonable tax, replacing a battery of larger and more burdensome payments to private insurance companies. By eliminating the profit-seeking interests of the insurance companies, the bills will get paid, and there will be no more fighting with insurers who fail to pay in full or on time.

Every other major Western country has made the morally principled and financially responsible decision to provide universal health insurance. The result – in Europe, Canada and Japan – is better health at lower cost. The United States can do this. And we have a program – Medicare – that shows how it can be done here.

See a list of others who have signed on their support:

RoseAnn DeMoro, National Nurses United Executive Director
James K. Galbraith, University of Texas
Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Robert Reich, University of California Berkeley
Eileen Appelbaum, Center for Economic and Policy Research
John Dennis Chasse, SUNY Brockport
James M. Cypher, Universidad Autnoma de Zacatecas
Reynold F. Nesiba, Augustana University
Scott McConnell, Eastern Oregon University
Professor Mayo C. Toruño, California State University, San Bernardino
Zohreh M Niknia, Mills College
John T. Harvey, Texas Christian University
Mitchell R. Green, Binzagr Institute for Sustainable Prosperity.
Erik Dean, Portland Community College
Timothy A Wunder, University of Texas at Arlington
Kalpana Khanal, Nichols College
Scott Fullwiler, Wartburg College
Linwood F. Tauheed, University of Missouri-Kansas City
William S. Brown, former academic economist, private business owner, Taku Reel Repair
Doug Henwood, Economics Journalist and Consultant
Barbara Katz-Rothman, CUNY Graduate School and University Center
Masanori Kuroki, Arkansas Tech University
Terrence McDonough, National University of Ireland Galway
Helen Scharber, Hampshire College
Arthur MacEwan, University of Massachusetts Boston
Anita Dancs, Western New England University
Mona Ali, State University of New York at New Paltz

http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/pages/economists-and-health-care-experts-in-support-of-bernie-sanders-medicare



Physicians for a National Health Program, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of 20,000 doctors who support single-payer national health insurance, released the following statement today by its president, Dr. Robert Zarr, a Washington, D.C., pediatrician.

The national debate on single-payer health reform, or "Medicare for All," that has emerged in the course of the presidential primaries is a welcome development. But unfortunately a number of misrepresentations about single-payer national health insurance – and the prospects for its attainment – have crept into the dialogue and are potentially misleading the public.

Most of these misrepresentations, or myths, have been decisively refuted by peer-reviewed research. They include the following:

Myth: A single-payer system would impose an unacceptable financial burden on U.S. households. Reality: Single payer is the only health reform that pays for itself. By replacing hundreds of insurers and thousands of different private health plans, each with their own marketing, enrollment, billing, utilization review, actuary and other departments, with a single, streamlined, tax-financed nonprofit program, more than $400 billion in health spending would be freed up to guarantee coverage to all of the 30 million people who are currently uninsured and to upgrade the coverage of everyone else, including the tens of millions who are underinsured. Co-pays and deductibles, which have been rapidly rising under the Affordable Care Act, would be eliminated. Further, the single-payer system’s bargaining clout would rein in rising costs for drugs and medical supplies. Lump-sum budgets for hospitals and capital planning would control costs even more.

A recent study shows 95 percent of U.S. households would come out financially ahead under an improved version of Medicare for all. The graduated, progressively structured tax burden would be based on ability to pay, and the heavy cost to average U.S. households of private insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and many currently uncovered services would be eliminated. Patients could go to the doctor or hospital of their choice, and would no longer be restricted to proprietary networks. Multiple studies over a period of several decades, including by the General Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, show that a single-payer system would provide universal coverage at a much lower cost, per capita, than we are spending now. International experience confirms it. Even our traditional Medicare program, which falls short of a true single-payer system, has much lower overhead than private insurance, and shows that publicly financed programs can deliver affordable, reliable care.

A single-payer system would also greatly diminish the administrative burden on our nation’s physicians and hospitals, freeing up physicians, in particular, to concentrate on doing what they know best: caring for patients.

Covering everyone for all medically necessary care is affordable; keeping the current private-insurance-based system intact is not.

Myth: The U.S. has a privately financed health care system. Reality: About 64 percent of U.S. health spending is currently financed by taxpayers. (Estimates that are lower than this exclude two large sources of taxpayer-funded care: health insurance for government employees and tax subsidies to employers and individuals for purchasing private health plans.) On a per capita basis, the amount of government-funded health care in the U.S. exceeds the health spending of nations with universal health systems, e.g. Canada. We are paying for a national health program, but not getting it.

Myth: A single-payer system would overturn the gains won under the Affordable Care Act and provide inferior coverage to what people have today. Reality: A single-payer system would go far beyond the modest improvements that the ACA made around the edges of our current private-insurance-based system and ensure truly universal care, affordability and health security. For example, H.R. 676, the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, would guarantee coverage for all necessary medical care, including prescription drugs, hospital, surgical, outpatient services, primary and preventive care, emergency services, dental, mental health, home health, physical therapy, rehabilitation (including for substance abuse), vision care and correction, hearing services including hearing aids, chiropractic, durable medical equipment, palliative care, podiatric care, and long-term care. It would eliminate financial barriers to care like co-pays and deductibles and eliminate restrictive networks. It would end the steady erosion of job-based coverage under our current arrangements and disconnect insurance coverage from employment. H.R. 676 currently has 61 sponsors.

Myth: The American people don’t support single payer. Reality: Surveys have repeatedly shown that an improved Medicare for All is the remedy preferred by about two-thirds of the population. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey yielded similar results, showing 58 percent of Americans support Medicare for All. A solid majority of the medical profession favors such an approach, as well, as do more than 600 labor organizations, and many civic and faith-based groups.

Myth: The goal of establishing a single-payer system in the U.S. is unrealistic, or “politically infeasible.” Reality: It’s true that single-payer health reform faces formidable opposition, especially from the private insurance industry, Big Pharma, and other for-profit interests in health care, along with their allies in government. This prompts some people to conclude that single payer is out of reach and therefore not worth fighting for. While such moneyed opposition should not be underestimated, there is no reason why a well-informed and organized public, including the medical profession, cannot prevail over these vested interests. We should not sell the American people short. At earlier points in U.S. history, the abolition of slavery and the attainment of women’s suffrage were considered unrealistic, and yet the movements to achieve these goals were ultimately victorious and we now wonder how those injustices were allowed to stand for so long.

What is truly “unrealistic” is believing that we can provide universal and affordable health care, and control costs, in a system dominated by private insurers and Big Pharma.

We call upon our nation’s lawmakers and the political leaders of all political parties to heed public opinion and to do the right thing by acting swiftly to bring about the only equitable, financially responsible and humane cure for our health care ills: single-payer national health insurance, an expanded and improved Medicare for all.

Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org) has been advocating for single-payer national health insurance for three decades. It neither supports nor opposes any candidates for public office.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2016/january/doctors-group-welcomes-national-debate-on-‘medicare-for-all’

Government funds nearly two-thirds of U.S. health care costs: American Journal of Public Health study
Contrary to popular perceptions, taxpayers fund 64 percent of U.S. health care, more public dollars per capita than the citizens of other nations – including those with universal health programs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, January 21, 2016
Contact: Mark Almberg, PNHP communications director, [phone], [e-mail]

Tax-funded expenditures accounted for 64.3 percent of U.S. health spending – about $1.9 trillion – in 2013, according to new data published today [Thursday, Jan. 21] in the American Journal of Public Health. The Affordable Care Act will push that figure even higher by 2024, when government’s share of U.S. health spending is expected to rise to 67.3 percent.

At $5,960 per capita, government spending on health care costs in the U.S. was the highest of any nation in 2013, including countries with universal health programs such as Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom. (Estimated total U.S. health spending for 2013 was $9,267 per capita, with government’s share being $5,960.) Indeed, government health spending in the United States exceeded total health spending (government plus private) in every other country except Switzerland.

The finding that Americans pay the world’s highest health-related taxes conflicts with popular perceptions that the U.S. health care financing system is predominantly private, write Drs. David U. Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, the authors of the study. Himmelstein and Woolhandler are professors at the City University of New York School of Public Health and lecturers in medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Direct government payments for such programs as Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Administration accounted for 47.8 percent of overall health spending. The analysis also identified two commonly overlooked tax-funded health expenditures – government outlays for public employees’ private health insurance coverage ($188 billion, or 6.4 percent of total spending) and tax subsidies to health care ($294.9 billion, or 10.1 percent of the total). Together, these public expenditures put the U.S. in first place for health care taxes.

Using another yardstick, the researchers note that tax-funded health expenditures in the U.S. accounted for a larger share of the gross domestic product (11.2 percent in 2013) than did the total health expenditures of any other nation.

The researchers drew upon data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Census Bureau and the Internal Revenue Service to analyze government outlays for health care costs. They utilized data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to compare the U.S. data with that of other nations.

“We pay the world’s highest health care taxes. But patients are still saddled with unaffordable premiums and deductibles,” said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler. “Meanwhile, billions are squandered on paperwork, and insurers and drug companies pocket huge profits at taxpayer expense.”

Dr. David Himmelstein commented: “Our study shows that universal coverage is affordable – without a big tax increase. In fact, we already pay for national health insurance, but we don’t get it. It’s an outrage that the American people pay sky-high health care taxes, but 33 million are still uninsured.”

In addition to their academic posts and clinical work as internists, Himmelstein and Woolhandler are co-founders and leaders of Physicians for a National Health Program, a nonprofit organization that advocates for a single-payer health system. PNHP had no role in funding their study.

**

“The current and projected taxpayer shares of U.S. health costs.” David U. Himmelstein, M.D., and Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H. American Journal of Public Health, online ahead of print, Jan. 21, 2016. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997

A PDF of the article is available to media professionals upon request from Mark Almberg at [e-mail]. The abstract of the article is available here: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2016/january/government-funds-nearly-two-thirds-of-us-health-care-costs-american-journal-of-pub

[George II]

37. That's only half of it. How does he plan to get his proposals passed through Congress?

[George II]

43. Actually I don't know the answer. Generally when a President makes legislative proposals....

....it's the House and Senate who passes the legislation after it's sponsored by one or more members in each house.

Inasmuch as Sanders will have very little support in either house, neither will pass.

So the question remains, HOW does he plan to get his proposals passed through Congress?

Fairly simple question, no need to be offensive.

[TCJ70]

40. GAH! This is what my original reply addresses...

...changing congress and government is step one to anything else in Sanders campaign platform. Changing government from the ground up is how it gets done.

[Maedhros]

23. You realize that "how will the Demcrats pay for all the free stuff"

is the Republican refrain from pretty much every election ever?

[Maedhros]

32. Subsidized, not free.

Taking sides with Reagan. That tells me all I need to know.

/ignore.

[99Forever]

42. Wrongo. JFK "promised" the Moon.

Which he delivered.

Next bucket of fail try?

[okasha]

57. Ah, now I understand!

Bernie's going to put Pie in orbit!

[TCJ70]

25. If you want to ignore his core message...

...which I laid out in my post, that's fine. Don't pretend you haven't heard it. Not liking the answer is different than not getting on.

[okasha]

56. Woe unto those

who hear the gospel preached and repent not!

I want a President, not a cult leader.

[frylock]

30. TAX AND SPEND!!1

[uponit7771]

27. This is what fustrates me... non answers to fair and rational questions... Sanders is not far from..

... this very post in his replys

Nothing concrete, more of a complaint about what's being asked... no answers

[TCJ70]

31. The pay for's have all been out there for awhile...

...I have no issues with the questions, but the answer is what it is. This country has done some great things and is capable of doing them again. It's going to take work, it's going to take a shifting of the priorities of government. That is the answer to how it gets done. The details can and will change, as they did with the ACA and any other big push for social reform in the past. It starts with citizens getting involved and staying involved, which is what the Sanders campaign is really all about.

[uponit7771]

34. ... and no they have not, not in any RATIONAL form. That's why many who've looked at Sanders

... bank breaking plan and his SP plan say there're are tons of asterisks by them.

How in the world is he going to get doctors, hospitals and pharma to accept half of what they've been paid?!

He's not...

That has an asterisk beside it with "collective bargaining" whatever that means... it sure doesn't mean a plan with some numbers but it

[TCJ70]

38. You want to jump to the end...

...without going through the process. You want one guy to do it for you. That's not how Sander's has said things work and he's right. I'm sorry you don't like the answer, but don't pretend you haven't gotten one.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. It's nice to learn that the current tuition system isn't on an endless cycle of inflation.

It is? It can't be! because otherwise the premise would be bullshit.

[Wilms]

5. Look up the author....Hillary supporter and Shaheen staffer.

[NurseJackie]

9. That's good enough for me!

[Nanjeanne]

6. How Do You . . . Solve a Problem like Maria?

[jehop61]

7. So many

Sanders supporters seem to be wearing blinders and are afraid to think his ideas through. So they challenge any questioner. What are they afraid of? That their candidate has shoes of clay?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Maybe Hillary could do those things by raising the price of her gigs for corporations.

[Agnosticsherbet]

10. Breaking up the banks on a year is imposible.

Bernie Sanders's plan to break up the banks, explained
Section 121 of Dodd-Frank requires a vote from the Fed that such institutions pose a "grave threat to the financial stability of the United States," and a further vote from two-thirds of the Financial Stability Oversight Council. That means Sanders needs four of the seven Fed governors to go along with this plan, and seven of the 10 voting FSOC members to approve it. And that is just not going to happen.

For one, the current composition of the Fed board would never embrace such a draconian solution absent proof that these banks are a grave threat to the economy (proof that Sanders hasn't supplied as of yet). If the current Fed board thought the big banks needed to be broken up, it would be doing so already. Moreover, while Sanders could fill the two current vacant seats on the Fed board, the other five have long terms that extend until 2022 at the earliest. (Janet Yellen's term as Fed chair expires in 2018, but her term as a governor extends until 2024.) That's a long time to wait to gather the votes necessary for Sanders to implement his plan.

Even if the Fed assented, it would also need the concurrence of five of the following heads of these seven agencies: Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, National Credit Union Administration, and Federal Housing Finance Agency. (The two other votes are an independent insurance expert and the Treasury secretary, the latter of which would presumably not be a problem for Sanders.)

The power to do that is not user his control.

I look forward to seeing a post that shows it is possible.

[leftofcool]

14. People need to ask themselves why those big banks were created to begin with.

Small banks can't and don't compete in a global economy. Big banks give big loans to companies, small banks do not etc...

[Agnosticsherbet]

17. Economies of scale... Now provide an explanation of how.

The question isn't about the relative merits of small vs big banks. It is where he gets the power. Dodd Frank does not give him that power in any explanation I've found.

By the way, changing the subject is a logical fallacy.

[litlbilly]

11. All I can say is, Bullshit. do some research and youll have the answers. I guess Hillary has no

answers because she's against all of those things. And of course, since she's Hillary, she doesn't have to right?

[PonyUp]

29. All she has to say is "NO WE CAN'T", and her fans are satisfied with her answers. n/t

[Agnosticsherbet]

45. Did the research. Dodd Frank doesn't give him the power.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/21/10802660/bernie-sanders-bank-breakup

Sanders is making promises he can not keep.

[litlbilly]

46. The only promise from Bernie: Nominate Supreme court justice who will get rid of CU. got it?

[Agnosticsherbet]

48. You haven't been listening to him.

He promised to break up the big banks in one year.

[litlbilly]

49. Oh sure, like only the last 10 years. tell ya what, you stop lying about Bernie, then we will stop

telling the truth about Hillary.

[Agnosticsherbet]

50. oh, personal attack because you don't have an answer.

Might want to check out what Sanders promised.

[litlbilly]

51. I know you are but what am I?...What are you 3? maybe 4. Yikes:)

[Agnosticsherbet]

53. My mistake was thinking one of Sanders Suppoerts would know know what he has promised.

You clearly have not be listening to him.

If you are going to support someone you should check out what he says.

[litlbilly]

54. Blah Blah Blah, learn how to read

[Agnosticsherbet]

55. Check out Sanders. Clearly, you don't know what he said,

[cali]

12. I hate lying shit

Bernie has not promised anything. He has been crystal clear that nothing happens quickly and that nothing can happen under the status quo.

[Maedhros]

22. Absolutely correct.

The article knocks down a few straw men...

[litlbilly]

47. These Hillary people are gonna cause people to start vomiting. It's sick

[AtomicKitten]

13. Hillary needs to release transcripts of her paid Goldman Sachs speeches.

[JudyM]

18. +1. Gotta keep hammering this.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

16. The banking/divorce analogy is inapt.

Divorces take a long time because they are adversarial proceedings. I used to work in corporate mergers and acquisitions. They usually take place in less than a year because the parties are motivated. Likewise corporate downsizing operations take less than a year as well. Bernie's legislation apparently provides a carrot/stick mechanism to motivate banks to comply, because if they don't they will lose all of the financial benefits of the Fed, on which they currently rely. It is a fast track, but I suspect that is because we are even more exposed now than we were in 2008, because these banks are even bigger than before.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/tbtfleg?inline=file

The tuition issue is easily understood. The US will use it's economic buying power to control costs, i.e. tuition rates, just as we will do with the drug companies. Universities will have to negotiate their rates rather than setting them as high as possible against individuals with no negotiating leverage. The OP question has a weird premise, because the status quo is precisely "an endless cycle of rising tuition," which has been outstripping general inflation for decades.

As to health care, we currently absorb millions of Americans into a single payer system every year. It's called Medicare. Now we need to expand that system in order to use the federal buying power to bring down drug prices and eliminate the economically wasteful red tape associated with a bloated private health care system (both extremely doable) to dramatically reduce per capita costs. It's precisely because these other countries aren't reliant on private health care that their per capita health care costs are lower and they deliver better services at a lower cost.

Private enterprise has worked very well in many situations for many millennia, but their are many activities where private enterprise is not as effective as government, e.g. national defense, building roads and dams, delivering mail, imprisoning people, health care and education, maintaining free and fair electoral systems, etc.

[JudyM]

19. Are you willing to completely refrain from giving any preferential treatment, including meetings

or private communications, to each and every one of your private or corporate donors, to remove any appearance of conflict of interest, for the duration of your term?

[KingCharlemagne]

20. These are excellent questions. I mean REALLY EXCELLENT. Of course, Senator

Sanders should be able to answer them, at least in general terms.

I do have one question about these three questions: has Sanders said he will break up the big banks "in one year"? Since a presidential term is 4 years, I'm a little curious where the 1-year frame comes from.

[guillaumeb]

28. If the US did not waste 1 trillion per year on the war machine,

and taxed the rich at Kennedy era rates, there would be an amazing amount of money available.

For the past 36 years, the 1% has been so successful at imposing austerity on the bottom 90%, so successful at depressing the economy, that most US citizens do not know what it is like to live in a worker friendly economy.

[Armstead]

35. Oh a confidant of Shaheen, and, a surrogatre for Clinton...Surprise, surprise

More "Oh no we can't do that."

[Ron Green]

41. Having a President advocating for some "dream" ideas is not a problem, as long as people realize

THEY have to create the conditions for them to happen. And this what Bernie Sanders is calling for: a real system change that requires participation by many more people than in our current world where they whine, "How's he gonna pay for it?"

[William769]

44. I'm reminded of a episode of "The West Wing"

Were they are at a debate for Bartlets reelection. The 10 word answer.

Sanders you have given us the 10 word answer that makes your supporters feel good and makes you think you know what you are talking about.

So here's my question to you Sanders give us the next 10 words and tell us how your going to do it. Maybe then people will take you seriously.

Yes this is from a tv show but definitely applies here.

Give us the next 10 words. That's going to be the Mantra from now on.

[Live and Learn]

58. And Hillary needs to answer why she Can't Do anything.

And explain if she voted for the IWR because she was stupid or a sell out.

[Okpedro]

59. A new study is out on single payer

http://www.kspr.com/life/money/bernie-sanders-plan-to-pay-for-health-care-falls-short-by-trillions-says-one-analysis/21052342_37805632