Sanders just said his MFA ends all premiums. I'm on Medicare. I pay a monthly premium.

[stopbush]

Please explain how he ends the paying of monthly premiums by initiating MFA when Medicare recipients currently pay a monthly premium.

In my opinion, he is implying that current Medicare patients don’t pay any premiums and don’t have any co-pays. That’s not true.

[underthematrix]

1. I pay $233 a month which is 1/3 of my income

[DENVERPOPS]

30. True

I pay 450 a month for B,C,D.....
All those on the Medicare for all bandwagon haven’t a clue about the reality of it. And that doesn’t include all the deductibles.....

[vsrazdem]

76. You won't be paying those on Medicare for All.

[yardwork]

113. Why not? Will Medicare for All magically change Medicare?

My mother is on Medicare and I manage her finances. She pays $200 a month for a Medicare managed care plan subsidized by a former employer. Without the subsidy she would pay a lot more.

Mom's Medicare coverage doesn't pay for her dental care or vision care. It doesn't cover eyeglasses, tests, root canals, or other treatments.

Mom's medication costs her about $250 each month out of pocket. She's not on many medications, fortunately, but some of them aren't covered by her Medicare plan.

There are also significant co-pays for treatments, especially hospitalizations.

[vsrazdem]

114. Medicare for all has no copays and no deductibles. You do not need a supplemental policy. There

will be a maximum out of pocket $200 annual for medications. She will not need a supplemental policy or a drug plan. Lower incomes will have no tax for this and everyone else will pay 6.5% tax to provide this. For example, an income of 30,000 per year would pay $162.50 in taxes per month for Medicare for All. That's it. Medicare for All covers vision and dental. I am sure there are some limitations on how many pair of glasses you can get, and probaly only covers basic dental. But it's better than nothing.

[underthematrix]

129. How is this being paid for?

I believe one day we will get here but we have to change our values. Hell we can't even vote in OUR SHARED interest,i.e. healthcare, education, voting rights, immigration reform, etc.

[vsrazdem]

133. AgaIn.

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

[fleabiscuit]

170. Just a guess, but the 55 mentions of TAX will not endear most readers of the plan. nt

[pnwmom]

176. That doesn't begin to explain how they could fund a completely different program

than what we now have with Medicare.

[getagrip_already]

154. Free Money!!!

Everybody gets some.

[Doremus]

169. So sick of the 'we can't afford it' mantra

Bullshit. There's wasn't so much as a peep from the RW when they conducted their free money giveaway to the tune of a $3 TRILLION tax cut. And that's just the latest one. There were many similar giveaways in past years and of course the omnipresent behemoth defense budget and unlimited money for unending wars.

WHY do we buy into their bullshit propaganda??

[vsrazdem]

186. and don't forget Space Force and on and on.

[dansolo]

187. You do reailize we are talking about $30 trillion here

I don't give a shit what the RW says. I want to know how M4A will be paid for. This is a program that has to be in place forever. There MUST be guaranteed funding for it.

[Doremus]

205. And yet every other developed country in the world has managed to do it.

It's a pity that Americans are so fucking gullible.

WHEN will we ever stop eating RW shit????

[LiberalFighter]

131. Better than nothing?

I have a great health care plan that supplements my Medicare. And my negogiated supplemental plan (a Medicare Advantage plan) costs me nothing. If I wasn't enrolled in the Medicare Advantage and used my Traditional I would be paying monthly premiums for that part.

When I was bombarded with Medicare Advantage plans that were offering no monthly premiums I investigated. It turned out that the co-pays and out-of-pockets were much higher than my plan.

BTW, Medicare only pays for 80% of covered coverage.

[vsrazdem]

132. That's why MFA is better than medicare. And Better than nothign was referring to dental and vision.

I'm glad you have a great healthcare plan. Now wouldn't if be nice if the rest of the country could too.

[yardwork]

136. MFA isn't better than anything unless it gets approved by Congress.

Bernie doesn't have much of a track record in getting bills approved by Congress, despite his decades as a senator.

[vsrazdem]

137. Sorry, MFA would be better than anyhing else out there. Is that better.

[yardwork]

141. Medicare for All doesn't exist. It won't exist unless it gets approved by Congress.

You can't say it's better than anything, because it doesn't exist.

[The Mouth]

200. Shssshhhh

You'll scare away the unicorns.

[yardwork]

201. Lol!

[pnwmom]

175. Dream on. n/t

[underthematrix]

120. Yep. This sounds about right. When we had Obamacare we got a subsidy which made our monthly

premium $75 and our prescription cost were between 0 and $5. I love my Medicare but it's not cheap. i would rather see a PUBLIC OPTION because it would increase the insured pool, lower premiums (including Medicare) and give the govt much more power in negotiating drug prices.

[Grins]

128. I pay $5,300 a year...

...for Medicare, supplemental insurance, Rx plan, and dental (no vision). About HALF what I paid when I was self/employed.

In one of the debates Jake Tapper went out of his way to argue with the field that Americans LOVE their private insurance too much.

BULL!!!

You tell Americans they can get the same coverage for HALF - OR EVEN LESS - and you watch how fast they suddenly will not love their private insurer anymore.

[HerbChestnut]

2. Bernie's MFA Bill would change much of how Medicare works and what it covers.

Full text of the bill here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1129/text

[dhol82]

5. Yeah, and how is that gonna pass Congress?

Magic?

[HerbChestnut]

9. It starts by voting for a presidential candidate who supports it.

[dhol82]

15. and has a congress that will pass it.

[HerbChestnut]

17. Vote for representatives that support it too.

Whether or not it passes is ultimately up to the voters.

[dhol82]

19. I can just see the voter in Mississippi and Alabama praising Jesus and voting for a democratic plan.

Yeah, right.

[HerbChestnut]

22. Part of living in a representative democracy is that not everyone will agree with you.

Fortunately for us, the majority of Americans support MFA.

[dhol82]

25. You keep believing that!

[The Valley Below]

123. If you consider 87% against being a "majority." LOL.

[The Valley Below]

157. Kaiser Family Foundation

87% against eliminating private insurance.

[The Valley Below]

161. 87% against isn't a "majority" except in upside-down world.

[The Valley Below]

165. Asked and answered.

[UniteFightBack]

102. Right just vote for Bernie and everything else will fall into place. I should buy stock in rose

colored glasses.

[FoxNewsSucks]

46. No,

explain to the public what they get, how it works, and how it's funded. The public will demand it.

I don't lose any sleep worrying about what it would cost the rapacious insurance companies or their executives.

[dansolo]

106. I really don't understand this repeated fallacy

M4A is sold as if the money is going to come from the insurance companies and the rich. The money really will be coming from the taxpayers, which is the fact that Sanders and Warren consistently try to hide. The other people who are going to be paying for it is anyone who works for anything related to any medical services.

[The Mouth]

202. Hey, we have printing presses

or just have the fed issue it.

/sarc

[Beartracks]

82. When did Democrats stop fighting the long fight?

Seems we see accusations of "pipe dream" tossed around a lot lately, and the "Congress won't pass it so why bother" argument. What we need and want will most probably take more than one election cycle to get, and many more election cycles to keep. That we can't reach our goals in 4 years or less should never be a reason to not fight for them now.

===========

[ArcticFox]

87. That has got to be the smartest comment I've seen

In a long time on DU.

Yes, I'm serious.

I've been getting so fed up hearing all about how we need to limit our thinking to "what can get past Congress."

Thank you!

[Beartracks]

88. Well, thank you.

Sometimes midnight brings out the clarity.


=======

[stopbush]

193. When did Ds start acting like Rs by proposing pie-in-the-sky

programs that are short on explaining how they will be funded?

[stopbush]

10. Where in that bill is the section that outlines how it all GETS PAID FOR?

Because I can’t find it.

[ArcticFox]

89. If you're insured now, any added taxes will be less than your premium

But as I understand Bernie's platform, we're going to make those at the top start paying their fair share, which would include keeping all is proles healthy

[Loki Liesmith]

105. Not enough money at the top to fund this

People underestimate the costs of MFA and overestimate they number of rich people needed to find it.

[ArcticFox]

118. Not really true

Please try to explain how all of northern Europe can get away with it, while it's supposedly impossible here.

[stopbush]

124. Europe "gets away with it" by levying heavy taxes on their citizens to pay for healthcare.

The low end is around 15% per month of one’s income. In addition, many countries have additional taxes - like retirement taxes - that are not specifically called healthcare taxes but that are part of the mix of taxes that support their broad social support networks.

All told, Europeans can pay over 30% of their income in taxes to support their social programs. There’s no reason to believe it would be any different here were we to adopt a European system of funding.

[ArcticFox]

146. I wonder how many people appreciate everything Europeans get for their taxes

Like health care they don't have to pay exorbitantly for.

Like university education they don't need to go into massive debt to afford. Which isn't full of fraudulent institutions.

Like long-term paid family leave and the right to return to their position afterwards.

Like child care while parents work that doesn't cost as much as one parent can earn like it often does here.

When all those things are added up, I think we're getting the shaft with our privatized system. And I'm fairly sure I'm leaving some things out.

[stopbush]

147. Yes, we are getting the shaft.

But you will never get tens of millions of Americans who are happy with their employer-provided insurance - often at no cost to the employee - to agree to huge tax increases that hit them directly, simply to provide for the common good.

[ArcticFox]

153. Many more are not so lucky

Employer provided insurance is becoming more the exception than the rule. Maybe some of those who'd like a chance to see a doctor will vote

[Danmark]

152. Wake up, ofcourse it can be done.

Just get your priorities in order, that's all it takes.

[ArcticFox]

155. I think you responded to the wrong post

Looks like you wanted the one above me. ✌️

[delisen]

184. Many countries afford it. Just study how they do it

I am not a Sanders voter but any nation can decide to organize itself to serve its people or to serve a small slice of its people, such as multimillionaires, billionaires, and those corporate "citizens."

We have a very expensive system with poor health outcomes, including a high rate of debilitating illness and premature deaths. It needs to be changed and the first step is study systems with far better outcomes and adapt to the reality that we can assure decent health care for everyone.

Assuring suffering and premature deaths instead of health use is not smart and makes our entire country weak.

Sometimes adapting to reality means accepting the fact that we can achieve what other countries are able to achieve.

[stopbush]

164. Bloomberg does not believe in MFA. His plan is a lot like Biden's -

strengthen and expand Obamacare while adding a public option.

See here: https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/19/politics/mike-bloomberg-health-care/index.html

[stopbush]

173. No need to call Mike when his healthcare plan is outlined at his campaign website.

here: https://www.mikebloomberg.com/policies/health-coverage-plan?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI4_vjnuCG5wIV0_7jBx0NPQhvEAAYASAAEgKXrfD_BwE

Note: the current outline does not provide specific info on where funding will come from, but it does estimate the cost at $1.5-trillion over 10 years.

[George II]

40. Unfortunately he doesn't consider how Medicare is administered today, which includes...

...private insurance companies.

[vsrazdem]

77. Not it is not. Medicare Advantage is private insurance. Medicare is not.

[radical noodle]

84. But with Medicare

we have supplements and Part D for drug coverage. Those are private insurance companies.

Besides, Medicare for all that Bernie proposes is misleading. It isn't Medicare at all.

[vsrazdem]

93. You won't need supplements. I'm all for getting the insurance company out of my healthcare, and now

that I have medicare, its fabulous. I would prefer not to have to pay a supplemental and drug plan, but so be it, it is still 100% better than my empolyer provided insurance which was the same premium as what I am paying now, $300 with my Medicare, supplemental and drug plan. But I don't have a $6000 deductible and 20% copay. I will admit, the drug plan was better with my employer plan, as I paid less for my scripts with them. With MFA, I will be paying roughly $185 a month on my income, sounds good to me. I had to sit at home with my employer plan and pass an 8mm kidney stone because I couldn't afford the $500 copay for the ER. You may have private insurance, but many people can't use it, so its not really healthcare.

[radical noodle]

96. My employer provided healthcare

was as good as it gets. I didn't have to pay a dime for it. We had a deductible, but were given money in an HSA to cover it. Still, Medicare and the supplements are fine considering my age and my husband's health problems.

I do agree that we need other options for some folks but I'm not unhappy with what I have now.

[Freddie]

109. I had really gold-plated insurance

Before I retired. I’m on my husband’s now which is almost as good. At my ex-job I paid $180/month for both of us. No deductibles or co-insurance (if you stayed in network) and very small co-pays for Rx and doc visits. LOTS of people still have good employer-based insurance like this and they would be at a disadvantage in any MFA plan - higher taxes than what they pay now for health care, and possibly not as good coverage. And if you think employers are going to raise your wage because they’re not paying your insurance any more I have a bridge to sell you.

[radical noodle]

149. LMAO! You're so right!

Yeah, the chances of that salary increase are pretty tiny.

[forthemiddle]

145. Wrong

Traditional Medicare is administered through private companies called carriers, or MACS.

https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Contracting/Medicare-Administrative-Contractors/What-is-a-MAC#WhatIsAMac.

Your doctor does not send any claims to the Government, instead they send them to the individual MACs that then process the claims, and either pay, or deny that claim.

For example Wisconsin uses WPS, other states use Blue Cross Blue Shield.
This is one reason Medicare can boast such a low amount spent on administration compared to traditional insurance companies, they have contracted out a huge part of the administrative duties.

[dhol82]

3. Yup, and mine just went up up by 200% in January.

Bernie is a bust as far as I am concerned.

[HerbChestnut]

7. Medicare will look very different after MFA is passed.

Full text of the bill here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1129/text

[dhol82]

13. Ok. I'll believe it when I see it.

[vsrazdem]

4. you pay it in taxes. There will be no premiums, including people who are currently on Medicare and

will transition to Medicare for All. No premiums, no copays, no coinsurance to cover your 80/20 that you currently have on medicare now. You pay a 6.5% tax on your income for the coverage.

[dhol82]

11. Do you really think that the republican members of Congress will just roll over and beg for this?

You are delusional.

[vsrazdem]

16. No, but the people will want it and he will go to every state if need be to tell them what they can

have, IF they get their representatives to go along with it. It people want it they will get what they want or get rid of those standing in the way and find people who will support it. That is how it gets done.

[dhol82]

18. If, if, if.

Great plan.

[vsrazdem]

20. Well I know people are sick of going bankrupt or dying because they can't get healthcare. Sure you

have insurance, but can't afford to use it, so Yes IF, IF, IF. It is a place to start.

[TidySum]

98. It's a better plan than defeatism

Should we just stop trying because Republicans might oppose something?

The fact is, the majority of people, including many Republicans, would support this plan.

[ehrnst]

116. From the same group that did that poll...

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/398580-poll-majority-of-americans-say-the-would-not-vote-for-a

[Thekaspervote]

31. Sure

[UniteFightBack]

103. No. Clearly people vote against their own self interests time and time again and this will be no

different. We finally got traction with the ACA AFTER 10 YEARS and suddenly that is NOT GOOD ENOUGH for 'progressives'. Why we have to throw that ALL AWAY because a fake revolution is underway.

[vsrazdem]

112. No, its not good enough when you can't afford to use it.

[FoxNewsSucks]

47. Well, Joe Biden says republicons will be eager to work with us.

Even Moscow Mitch! Bi-partisan, you know.. . . .

[stopbush]

32. The current Medicare tax is 1.45% for the employee and 1.45% for the employer.

In truth, under this plan, the employee would pay a 6.5% tax AND the employer would pay another 6.5%. That is a 450% tax INCREASE for both the employee AND employer from the current rate.

Add that to the 6.2% Social Security payroll tax currently paid by both the employee and the employer, and you are talking about employees and employers each paying 12.7% in payroll taxes, and for the employer, that tax is paid on every employee.

THAT is a hard sell.

[vsrazdem]

48. There is an income level for people to start paying. Lower income does not pay anything. This is

not a payroll tax. Employers do not pay anything, that is why they should love this plan. They do not match the employee amount, it is a 6.5% tax on your personal income, not a medicare tax. That is why it is medicare for ALL, so the premiums remain low.

[stopbush]

71. Er, above you say there are no premiums. Now you say the 6.5% tax

keeps premiums low. What is it?

And the employers pay nothing into the system? And how does that not create a huge deficit in funding?

[vsrazdem]

79. It is a tax, not a premium. Sorry, it should be keeps the costs per person low.

[ArcticFox]

92. Do your math and you'll see MFA is a deal

You're saying about a ten percent (additional) tax for MFA. The median family income for the United States is $75,500 in FY 2019. (HUD) That means about $7550 to have MFA.

My employer and I pay more than that for private insurance for my family if three, including premiums, copays and deductibles. I'd say twice as much, plus or minus.

Personally, I'd rather pay less in total than more. And it would also be nice to know I'd still be able to get health care if I lost my job.

[stopbush]

191. But under current Medicare, EACH family member pays a monthly premium.

My wife and I each pay $155 a month for our Medicare plus dental, etc. What makes you think that would change under MFA?

If a single person makes $75,000 a year, they may well pay that extra $7550. But what makes you think that would apply to, say, a family of four with an income of $75,000? Do you really think MFA would cost the same for four people as it does for one? Even current employer-provided insurance usually requires an additional monthly premium if an employee adds their spouse and/or kids to the policy.

More people in the program means more services and expenses. Where does the funding come from to cover a family of four as opposed to an individual?

Just another obvious factor that seems to be overlooked by MFA advocates.

[pnwmom]

177. So how does it work with doctors, many of whom refuse Medicaid, and even some

refuse Medicare?

Do we suddenly put all doctors on salaries set by the government?

[vsrazdem]

185. Unless they want to retire, they will accept the only game in town.

[pnwmom]

189. And what happens when ten or twenty percent decide to retire, or just

to decline future public patients? A lot of them are past retirement age already.

How do we handle that?

[vsrazdem]

190. All patient's will be public, so unless they don't want to work anymore, they have no choice.

[pnwmom]

195. Dream on! There is no legal way we could prevent qualified doctors from

taking on private patients.

And many are ALREADY 55 and over and could retire whenever they want.

[vsrazdem]

197. I don't know too may patient's who would love to pay out of pocket for their healthcare.

[pnwmom]

198. But we all know there are lots of doctors who could afford to retire early

or subsist on a handful of private pay patients.

[vsrazdem]

199. I have been in the healthcare field for 40 years. Doctor's don't like to retire.

[pnwmom]

203. Medicare for all could make it a lot easier for them, if they don't feel like working

for the government at whatever salary the government decides.

You think they'll be okay working for a 50% pay cut? I don't.

[vsrazdem]

204. Yes, and the planet could be hit by an asteroid. Doomesday scenarios.

[SCVDem]

6. Isn't this the opposite end

of tax breaks for the rich?

There needs to be an income scale, but free for all?

How does Cuba do it?

[TwilightZone]

8. Because MFA isn't Medicare.

The name Medicare For All was used because everyone knows Medicare and most people like it, but MFA isn't actually Medicare. Plus, the candidates vary on what they consider MFA. It confuses people, which is part of the problem.

Here's a good (though long) article that explains it pretty well.

https://www.propublica.org/article/medicare-for-all-is-not-medicare-and-not-really-for-all-so-what-does-it-actually-mean

[George II]

14. He co-opted the name "Medicare" hoping people would fall for it. Nobody did.

[thesquanderer]

26. "Fall for it"? It's not current Medicare... it's an *improved* version of Medicare.

We should all be able to "fall for" such things.

[George II]

42. No it's not. It has little in common with the current Medicare. Actually probably just the "name".

[thesquanderer]

56. What it has in common is that it is a government run single payer system.

And I'd say that's its fundamental defining feature.

Even the current Medicare itself has changed in very significant ways since it started.

[George II]

57. But, without considering how Medicare is administered, Sanders is proposing....

....that private insurance companies be eliminated entirely.

Even after 30 years in Washington he doesn't understand how private insurance companies are involved in administering, and keeping costs DOWN, the existing Medicare system.

Some people may think it's a "single payer system", but it really isn't. I have been on Medicare for 7 years, and I know it's NOT a "single payer system".

[vsrazdem]

80. OMG keeping costs down, are you serious. The way they keep costs down is by denying coverage.

[True Blue American]

90. There is no way Congress

Is going to kill Insurance Companies in one stroke. That is why Democrats manged to get the ACA PMed s a first step. We could have some of the problems fixed by now if voters had not listened to the far mongers. If Republicans stay in we will be back to square one.

[George II]

12. He'll end $1000 or so in premiums, but assess $2000 in taxes. Win-lose for Americans.

[Blue_true]

27. That is not exactly true.

A 6.5% tax on an income of $200,000 amounts to $13,000 per year. If that $200,000 income covered a family of four, that family is likely paying far more than $13,000 per year for health insurance and is facing a lot of things which the insurance will not cover.

The issue that I have with Bernie is that he has not provided details on the cost side of his MFA plan. For example, does that 6.5% cover just the payer, or does it cover the spouse and kids?

[George II]

29. I was generalizing. My point is we have no details, and the cost is probably more than we'll "save".

[Blue_true]

37. I can't dispute either point that you made. nt

[squirecam]

34. And

For a person with that income who has employer paid insurance, you just raised their taxes $13,000.

This plan will never pass.

[Blue_true]

45. Good point since the employer is currently paying most of the

person's health insurance premium.

Also, someone pointed out when Sen. Warren ran into her MFA debacle, the two MFA plans punish employers that had the empathy to offer health insurance to employees and lets the ones that didn't completely off the hook.

[squirecam]

50. And

If you think after M4A that he employers will raise wages if they don’t have to provide health care, I’ve got a bridge for sale, cheap.

Companies took their Trump tax cut.....and didn’t invest or raise wages. They bought stock or gave dividends.

The candidates need to be honest.

[George II]

110. That's trickle down, which we know doesn't work. Employers will pocket the difference, if any.

[vsrazdem]

49. And got rid of their deductibles and coinsurance.

[LonePirate]

163. Where in the world did you find that hogwash or did you concoct it on your own?

[dflprincess]

21. Bernie's plan (and really Elizabeth's) is really more of a "Medicaid" for all

as either plan would cover more than Medicare does. It's just that "Medicare" has more positive reactions than "Medicaid".

[Kahuna7]

33. Riiiiight. nt

[snowybirdie]

23. So Sanders wants to

change the one medical plan that currently works. Screwing up the healthcare of seniors' lives would be a disaster.

[dflprincess]

39. I currently have Medicare A

which is free. Because I'm still working my employer's plan is my primary coverage (and I am fortunate that my employer has excellent insurance for a reasonable price and relatively low max out of pocket, no deductible).

If I were to stop working and go on Medicare it would cost me more out of pocket than my current plan. I'd have to pay for Medicare B, pay for a supplement to cover what A & B don't (including things like an annual eye exam), find a Medicare D policy, and get dental insurance.

I'm finding out that, while it's better than nothing, Medicare isn't everything we've been led to believe it is.

Both Sanders and Warren want to expand what Medicare covers which makes sense and can only improve it.

[MichMan]

59. Plus it was prepaid for 40 years before you were ever eligible

[stopbush]

73. It depends where you live.

I pay $135 a month for Medicare. I also have Medicare Advantage, which costs me $0 a month. Zero. I pay $20 a month for dental/hearing/vision. So, my premium for a great plan is $155 a month.

[Voltaire2]

108. How dare he replace an expensive complicated

program that doesn’t cover all standard healthcare with a comprehensive ehensive plan with no premiums no copays no mystery bills no networks? WTAF!?

[Kahuna7]

28. I'm paying $300 with supplemental and prescription coverage. nt

[ChubbyStar]

36. Well then you should welcome paying NOTHING

I sure would love it if my monthly health plan for myself and my daughter was nothing!

[Blue_true]

41. We will pay SOMETHING. That lack of detail is what bothers me about Sen. Sanders,

he seems to be that way with every big plan that he is espousing, heavy of the imagery of the benefits, nothing on the costs. Money to pay for his plans won't just drop out of trees and even if he seized all the money of billionaires, that wouldn't remotely be enough to pay for his proposals.

[True Blue American]

91. Not going to happen!

Nothing is FREE!

[Voltaire2]

174. The program is funded through taxes.

If you aren’t paying taxes it costs nothing.

[UniteFightBack]

104. NOTHING is FREE. And when we start bandying about 'free this and free that' WE LOSE. nt

[True Blue American]

182. 100%

[vsrazdem]

52. So am I and it is the best insurance I have ever had, but I am sure willing to have support everyone

having great insurance.

[Hoyt]

35. If you believe him, he will eliminate Medicare premiums, make copays zero, free dental, and

a bunch of other stuff that will never be enacted.

The only thing honest about MFA is that Sanders says it will increase your taxes. There are people in the country who will bomb government buildings if taxes are increased. There are local governments that need to increase taxes, but can't if federal taxes increase.

Now, with that said, we absolutely have to come up with a plan that covers everyone, and face the political realities to get something enacted. That means pipe dreams ain't gonna work.

[squirecam]

43. Be honest

That’s the problem. If taxes go up $5000 for each person, but universal health care is worth it, then argue for that and convince everyone.

But lying and saying the magic unicorn will pay and you won’t......that won’t work. People know it isn’t true and you lose credibility and voters that way.

[stopbush]

192. Indeed. You point out a very important factor when you say

“...if taxes go up $5000 PER PERSON.”

Not per family. Per person.

Current Medicare patients pay a monthly premium of $135 PER PERSON. Why would that change under MFA?

A family of four is going to see a huge increase in their taxes to fund MFA, because there will be a PER PERSON increase in taxes.

[Blue_true]

44. Is Sen. Sander's plan a good idea?

No one is against full healthcare coverage for every American, but the reality is that has to be paid for. How does Bernie pay for his plan, he has not done the dollars and cents analysis that Sen. Warren did and got hammered for. Sen. Sanders is just moving along making promises without bothering with problematic details, the thing that astounds me is a lot of young people are buying his claims.

[vsrazdem]

54. Well, I guess people should check and decide.

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

[Blue_true]

60. There is no dollars and cents breakout like Sen. Warren did.

A lot of promises and visions of how things will be is not a plan, voters need to know the costs and Sen. Sanders is steadfastly avoiding laying those costs out for review.

[Demsrule86]

53. And his plan covers 80 % he said it...by my math that is a 20% deductible that has no out of

pocket limit... so how is that going to work...we pay all these taxes and still need some sort of a wrap.

[vsrazdem]

63. No, there is no 80%.

[Demsrule86]

65. I am pretty sure he said 80%

When the transcript becomes available,I will check.

[vsrazdem]

67. No he did not. There is no deductible, no coinsurance, and a max of $200 for prescription drugs.

[Demsrule86]

72. I am not in favor of this plan...I may have misunderstood...will check

I have not seen a detailed explanation of the plan.

[vsrazdem]

81. How can you not be in favor of a plan you have not seen detailed ?

[Mariana]

95. Because it's Bernie's plan. nt.

[Politicub]

55. Bernie proposes a wholly new system. It's Medicare in name only.

[Blue_true]

62. He proposes it without key details and some take him seriously. nt

[brooklynite]

58. Simple answer: more Government spending...

...the question is, where does the tax revenue come from for the additional spending?

[vsrazdem]

64. Well we seem to have no problem funding military, wars and tax breaks for the rich, so I guess

we can find if for the people.

[brooklynite]

66. What has Sanders specifically proposed to address that?

[vsrazdem]

68. From his website.

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

[stopbush]

74. Pie in the sky options. Raise the top tax rate to 52%, tax Wall Street, etc.

Stuff that will never get through Congress.

[vsrazdem]

75. I like pie, and sky, so I will keep wishing if you don't mind.

[stopbush]

122. How about this: what if that pie in the sky actually means that you and the average American

would pay out 30% of their weekly paycheck to fund MFA? Would you be for it then?

[vsrazdem]

125. Now that is pie in the sky. 6.5% is not 30%.

[stopbush]

140. 30% is the tax rate individuals in the UK pay to fund government programs.

19% of UK government spending is on healthcare.

[Doodley]

69. Why do you assume more government spending?

[LonePirate]

61. How do so many Dems and DUers not understand single payer health care systems like MFA?

People need to educate themselves!

With MFA and all other single player plans, be it from Sanders or Warren or whoever, premiums are converted to taxes. Those premiums could be the current Medicare premiums or they could be what many employees pay through paycheck deductions or what people pay through the insurance exchanges. Those are all gone. Yes, you may and likely will pay taxes but your premiums, co-pays, deductibles, prescriptions and other medical expenses would be history. Eliminating all of those expenses will result in a massive net savings to Americans as those expenses dwarf any new taxes implemented to pay for the single payer system.

[Doodley]

70. Exactly, If it works for other developed nations, it can work here.

[Hoyt]

83. Problem is, some people don't believe it. It's really that simple.

People don’t see it passing, they see decades of new admins trying to repeal/change MFA just like ACA if it managed to pass, they think it will cost more than the rosey projections, many people are just stupid, many would like to try it out first, etc.

Thus, only chance I see is a Public Option — with big subsidies — where people can try it. If anywhere near as good as we think, 80% will take it within 5 years. Then, achieving MFA is simple.

[Beartracks]

86. As I understand it, the necessary taxes will be less than the premiums...

... and copays and all the other costs of the current system because all of those current costs have to pay for all insurance administration and profits and paperwork from 1000s of plans and wasted time of medical staff trying to wade through all of that IN ADDITION TO the costs of the actual healthcare, whereas the taxes paying for M4A just have to pay for the healthcare and the administration of the program itself.

==========

[mike_c]

78. This whole line of inquiry is disingenuous.

Senator Sanders has been clear from the beginning that Medicare will need to be expanded to replace for-profit health insurance to include things not now covered (dental, vision, etc). Your monthly premium will go away under Sander's version of M4A. So will mine. The co-pays will also go away. The "hole in Medicare" will be filled with coverage extended beyond current Medicare coverage. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Sanders wants comprehensive single payer health coverage for all Americans. That's it.

[radical noodle]

85. There have to be limits

Without them, you'd have people abusing the system. What are the limits?

[vsrazdem]

94. There are no limits. You get the care you need just like in other countries. If people can get

their healthcare, a lot of these illnesses could be caught early and save a lot of pain and money in treatment. How would they abuse it. You really think people want to go sit in a doctor's office or ER when they aren't sick just for the fun of it. Come on.

[radical noodle]

97. Oh, there are definitely people who will abuse it

if there are no limits. Some people take great delight in traipsing to the doctor multiple times a week. I'm in my 70s and just had a tooth removed (in the back). The dentist wants to do an implant for $5000. There's no way I need a $5000 tooth that badly back there. If there were no limits, I'd probably do it, but it sure as hell isn't necessary.

What about vision care? New glasses every six months? There must be limits.

[vsrazdem]

99. I am sure there are things that it won't cover, I would think implants would be listed as cosmetic.

However, there are things that Medicare also doesn't cover. I got a welcome to medicare exam when I signed up and they ordered lab tests, including a Hepatitis C, which they said was a screening for my age group, which Medicare did not cover. Luckily it was only $24, so I am sure there are certain things like that involved.

[radical noodle]

148. The devil is in the details

To some folks, implants might be necessary.

BTW, Hepatitis C screening is supposed to be covered under certain circumstances. I'm surprised it wasn't paid for.

https://www.medicare.gov/coverage/hepatitis-c-screening-tests

[vsrazdem]

150. I was suprised too. In fact, I thought may be was another patient's test, because I have never had

elevated liver functions or any reason why it would have been done, but the doctor said it was routine in my age group for screening, so that may be why it wasn't covered, as there was no corresponding diagnosis code, just a screening, but I was born in 1953, so I don't know why it wasn't covered.

With implants, they would probably say you could get a bride, but not implant. But any dental coverage is better than none.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

101. But we are a consumer culture

So while I wholeheartedly support everyone being covered, you know and I know that consumers want and value different things, and many will want voluntary plans to get them those things.

Simple example: some people have had a cold for a week and a half. Some are fine with going to the minute clinic and seeing an anonymous PA who will prescribe a Z pack - they just want to be seen right effing now. Some will want to see Dr. Williams, the internal medicine doctor that they've seen for the past 15 years. Some will want to go to the Ear Nose and Throat practice and see a specialist. M4A on its own can't reconcile these three consumers.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

100. There are plenty of Medicare Part B supplment plans

... so it' questionable if private insurance actually goes away under MFA.

[janterry]

107. I believe Sanders

We can do this. We have to stop arguing and just do it. Think of all the other countries that have this sorted.

I'm tired of us working through the what about this or that. If we as a country want MFA we can do it.

[Nanjeanne]

111. You realize don't you that Medicare now is not the Medicare For All bill of Sanders.

[vsrazdem]

115. I don't think they do. I don't think people currently on Medicare realize that they most likely

would be paying nothing, because most people on medicare have limited incomes. If they did the sure wouldn't be against it.

[stopbush]

121. You mean Medicaid? That program already exists. The monthly income threshold

to qualify for Medicaid is ridiculously low. Most people - even those on a fixed income - make too much money per month to qualify for Medicaid, so their only option is Medicare.

Sorry, but the people who “don’t realize” how the current system works are those pushing Sanders’ ill-thought-out MFA.

[vsrazdem]

127. No I do not mean Medicaid. Medicare for all is no premiums, no deductibles and $200 out of pocket

drug expense. Why is it so hard to grasp. This is a system many other countries have.

[stopbush]

130. You never seem to mention what the TAXES are in other countries to pay

for their healthcare systems. Why?

[vsrazdem]

134. I don't know what they are and I don't care what they are there. Here they will be 6.5%

[stopbush]

135. So, ignorance is bliss?

In the UK, the baseline tax for their national health system is 20% of an individual’s income. But that’s not the only taxes paid by individuals - there are VATs and other taxes that push the typical Brit’s tax burden to over 30% of their gross income. UK taxes go into a general pot for government spending. Healthcare spending is around 19% of that pot.

You ask why and how they can do universal healthcare in Europe but not here, but when it’s pointed out that the Europeans do it by levying significant taxes on individuals, you say you do not care what it costs them to do it there.

Ostrich, meet sand.

[Recursion]

117. It's why "Medicare for all" is a stupid name

Ironically, Medicare doesn't even qualify as an ACA plan because its coverage is so minimal: there's a $1000 deductible and no out-of-pocket maximum. Sanders' plan, as outlined, would have zero premiums or copays, which is not remotely how Medicare works.

[stopbush]

194. Er, your information about Medicare is wrong.

[Recursion]

196. No. There's a $1000 deductible and no out of pocket maximum

Many Medicare recipients purchase private insurance to cover that, but vanilla Medicare isn't good insurance.

[stopbush]

119. Currently, 100% of workers pay into Medicare thru a weekly payroll deduction of 1.45%.

Employers also pay into the fund at a rate of 1.45% PER EMPLOYEE.

Current Medicare beneficiaries pay an average premium of $135 per month.

Add all of that up and it’s enough money to fund Medicare/Medicaid/Disability for the 19% of the population CURRENTLY on those programs. Current Medicare patients have co-pays for everything including prescriptions.

So, please tell me, Sen Sanders, how you come up with the funds to pay for the program for 100% of the population when you eliminate existing monthly Medicare premiums, co-pays and the employer contribution, all while expanding the Medicare program to cover a five-fold increase in the number of people in the program?

Sounds like snake oil to me.

[vsrazdem]

126. Again, from his website.

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

[stopbush]

138. Again, Sanders does not provide SPECIFICS on where the funding comes from for his program.

Do you ever look at that link you paste in as an answer to every challenge made? I think not, because the answers do not lie at that link.

[vsrazdem]

139. You asked how he was proposing to pay for it. Not specifics.

[stopbush]

142. Er, that's what specifics are, ie: how it's paid for.

[vsrazdem]

143. Show me a better plan that covers EVERYONE and I'm all for it. I don't see one out there.

[stopbush]

144. This is silly talk.

What’s “better” about it if it has no chance of passage.

What’s better if it is enacted and the price tag ends up being the worst-case that has been projected by independent voices that have examined the Sanders plan?

What’s better if it ends up screwing current Medicare patients?

[guillaumeb]

151. Premiums for a private insurance plan. eom

[LonePirate]

168. I never realized so many people liked the current US health care system until I read the MFA threads

Last edited Wed Jan 15, 2020, 07:22 PM - Edit history (1)

A significant number of people apparently love the current system. They must love all of the high prices, all of the out of pocket expenses, all of the headaches dealing with insurance companies, etc. It is no wonder they so vociferously oppose MFA. I sure hope they never lose their jobs or encounter a significant medical emergency. It would be awful if a life experience threatened their idealistic view of things.

[vsrazdem]

171. I know, I really don't get it. People saying this is going to make Medicare and healthcare worse.

I can't for the life of me figure it out, unless they are afraid of change, but for crying out loud, something HAS to change. People are dying. All these people that say they have GREAT insurance. It's basically I got mine, so I don't give a shit about anyone else. Very sad.

[LonePirate]

172. Your last two sentences perfectly sum up the MFA opposition.

[Aussie105]

178. We have health insurance in Australia.

Two types:

1. Public system: GPs bulk bills, sends you to a specialist who bulk bills, or does blood tests. Costs: nil.
Scripts vary in costs: depending on medicine, but usually heavily subsidised by the government. My scripts as a pensioner cost me $6, no matter what it is.

You could end up in hospital for weeks and not pay out of pocket.

Sounds like it's unaffordable for a country to do so? Well, it's paid for through the tax system. Of course, Australia doesn't maintain a super expensive Army, so the money is there, not being spent on fighting overseas wars.

Good system? Well, yes, it's free, so cheap. But there are disadvantages.
a. Can't choose your own specialist.
b. Public hospitals aren't very kind, they are overworked and try to keep beds free. Gall bladder out one afternoon, next morning, pack your bags, here are some pain killers, off you go, type of thing.
(Wife had hers out in the private system - spent a whole relaxing week in a hospital bed recovering.)

2. Private system.
You buy insurance, the more protection, the higher the premiums.
You get to choose your doctor, specialist, and hospital.
After a hospital stay, you will get a flood of bills for gap payment - the anaesthetist, the surgeon, the hospital itself charge more than what you are covered for.
So a patient is seen as a cash source, rather than a sick person who needs to be helped.

So there you are. Sounds like America has the private system only.

So yes, a MFA can be cost free to a patient.
(But is America going to give up it's war machine to do so? Not a chance!)

[KayF]

179. you also won't have to pay for supplemental insurance

MFA includes all that. There's an argument that MFA differs so much from Medicare, that it's so much more generous, that it should be called something else.

[whathehell]

180. Um, he stops it?

He ie speaking of HIS plan, not the current on.

[Aussie105]

181. Medicare for all.

Pity people can't see past a name and look at details.

'Obamacare' has the name Obama in it, hate Obama, so you must hate Obamacare. Never mind the details of what Obamacare actually is.

Same for MFA - has the word Medicare in it, so it must be expensive, have co-pays, deductibles, etc, right? And never mind looking at the details.

Shallow thinking at it's worst.

Maybe call it something else? NHC, for National Health Care? or UHC, Universal health care?
Whatever. But do yourself a favour, and look for the details behind the name, ok?

But yes. The (supposedly) richest, most advanced nation on the planet hasn't got a seriously efficient healthcare system? After how many centuries? The mind boggles!

Strange though, those who say 'we can't afford it!' have never thrown that idea around when it comes to other large government expenditures, like the Army, Navy, Air Force.

[MichMan]

183. MFA was deliberately named that because people like and are familiar with Medicare

in order to deflect any opposition to calling it "government run healthcare"

[redstatebluegirl]

188. Somebody needs to tell some of these people how much the taxes are in Canada, or the Netherlands.

NOTHING IS FREE!!! If you think for one minute that the only taxes that will increase are the rich you are crazy. NOTHING IS FREE. Would I like it better if college tuition and medical care were taken out via mine and others taxes of course, if it is a level playing field, if they fix the tax laws at the same time. Otherwise the middle class will pay a serious price for these things.

I don't know what the percentage of taxes are in Canada, but we have friends who are professors there and they say they are very high, but having the healthcare paid for is a major plus.