Bernie bombing 60 Minutes worse than Bloomberg

[DIVINEprividence]

weak debate performance. Way worse. This is a joke.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/24/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-2020/index.html

[HarlanPepper]

1. This little bit is what would/will cost him the election

Guthrie: Will you raise taxes for the middle class in a Sanders administration?


Sanders: People who have health care under "Medicare for All" will have no premiums, no deductibles, no copayments, no out of pocket expenses. Yes, they will pay more in taxes, but less in health care for what they get.

[pfeiffer]

4. Wait...but if I'm healthy...

...I don't receive all those great M4A perks, but my taxes still go up?

Darn. I should try not being a member of the middle class.

[HarlanPepper]

6. Yes, theoretically.

But you will have a government run healthcare plan that will take the place of your old employer based plan.

[pnwmom]

27. But is your employer going to hand you a big raise? No. n/t

[HarlanPepper]

29. Precisely.

[localroger]

35. Actually, your will take home more money

I have employer supplied health care. It's optional; it has to be, because some of our employees get a better deal from the other employed spouse. This means that a fairly stiff premium is deducted from my paycheck, and if I leave the plan I take that money home. If my taxes go up by a similar amount, it's a wash, except I no longer have to worry about all the network and pricing BS which is still a problem even with good insurance.

[sdfernando]

41. But for me....I only get $80 a month

Deducted. The company pays the other $350. So now I get the 80 back but have to shell out the other $300 I didn’t have to pay before? I highly doubt the company is going to give the part of the premium they have been paying.

[xmas74]

69. I pay $100 a pay period for

Medical,dental,vision, additional life insurance and AFLAC for me and my child. I'm paid twice a month.
His plan will cost me more.

[localroger]

70. Yes, it will.

You will lose a benefit that only a few people in well compensated jobs have. So screw the rest of us, I suppose? After just the paperwork nightmare that was my angiogram 6 years ago (I got a bill for $98,000, then a bill for $18,000, then found out the insurance company settled on Day 30 -- the last possible day -- for $36,000, and when I asked the hospital comptroller where the hell that number came from she was unable to tell me) I say fuck this system and the pale horse it rode in on.

[xmas74]

71. I'm a government worker.

I make very little in exchange for good benefits. According to some on here I will make more money if it goes through. No, I won't.

Here's the deal: my employer will bargain away our insurance, stating that M4A will be available. We might get one more holiday a year out of it. (It won't be a pay raise!) Next, the GOP will rally and take over, ending M4A in any form. In the meantime we've bargained off our insurance.

What needs done instead is to strengthen the ACA, adding a public option, expanding Medicaid to all 50 states and making the Healthcare Marketplace federal in every state without the option of allowing state control. In addition, open enrollment should be available year round instead of only for a few weeks. Newborns should have mandatory paperwork filed upon birth for CHIP qualification and all students enrolling in school should have the same. Doctor offices should all have the income scale posted and the initial forms should be available to fill out in office. Income based clinics should receive more funding, allowing for more services to fill the gap. And more grant programs should be offered to those going into various medical fields including doctors, nurses, assistants, hygienists, optomitrists and dentists because right now we don't have enough workers. Once these are supported then a roll out should begin through reducing the age of available services.

And if you feel the need to get shitty with me because you don't like my opinion-well, you know what you can do to yourself. I want to know my child will be insured doing the gap from one to the other. Hell, I'm on meds that I absolutely need and I'd like to know that I'll still have insurance between the gap, unless you don't care if my blood sugar jumps all over the place if left untreated and possibly kills me.

[mcar]

45. There's the question

[JudyM]

9. But your net outlay will be less, no premiums, etc. Multiple studies show...

“Multiple studies show Medicare for All would be cheaper than public option pushed by moderates“

Two new studies further showed that the Medicare for All plan is not only cheaper than the status quo but also costs less than the public option moderates have claimed is more fiscally sound.

A study published in The Lancet this month by researchers at Yale University, the University of Florida and the University of Maryland estimated that Medicare for All would save $450 billion per year — about $2,400 in annual savings per family — and would prevent more than 68,000 unnecessary deaths each year.

"Our study is actually conservative because it doesn't factor in the lives saved among underinsured Americans—which includes anyone who nominally has insurance but has postponed or foregone care because they couldn't afford the copays and deductibles," Yale researcher Alison Galvani told Newsweek.

https://www.salon.com/2020/02/22/multiple-studies-show-medicare-for-all-would-be-cheaper-than-public-option-pushed-by-moderates/

[squirecam]

11. In the example there is no outlay.

Nt

[JudyM]

18. What example do you mean? The study compares current outlay to projected outlay.

[squirecam]

20. If your taxes go up $4000

But you don’t use the medical care, or your employer paid for the premiums, then you just lost $4000. There is no outlay for that individual, as the example the poster used.

[JudyM]

21. Oh sure, lots of folks have employers who pays their full premiums.

[squirecam]

23. They exist. For example, my firm pays the premium for all its employees.

Nt

[JudyM]

24. Your employer pays 100%? Very rare.

http://files.kff.org/attachment/Summary-of-Findings-Employer-Health-Benefits-2018

And that is before deductibles and copays, which of course the hypothetical purports to not need because of never needing medical care.

[squirecam]

25. We have deductibles and copays.

Nt

[LaurenOlimina]

52. You won't in the Sanders plan.

[squirecam]

65. My position

Doesn’t change whether or not I have deductibles or copays.

[LaurenOlimina]

67. Mine does.

[stopbush]

26. Most employers I've had over the decades paid 100% of my premiums.

[localroger]

36. Who do you work for?

I have two coworkers who are not in our company plan because their spouse's plan is better. Both spouses are six-figure white collar executives, one for a hospital and the other for an insurance company. While their plans cover more and have lower deductibles, neither is fully paid by the employer. (I believe one of them is partially subsidized.)

[cannabis_flower]

39. I started out with..

A company who paid all my premiums. Gradually, over the course of 5 or 6 years they went from paying it all to me paying about $75 out of each of my weekly paychecks. It started out with me paying about$14. a week. Then my job was moved to Mexico and I no longer have health insurance.


The school district I sub at offers subs health insurance, but at a higher rate than regular employees. I think I would have to pay almost$300 a month on a $450 a week or less paycheck.

[HarlanPepper]

12. If this were Norway or Finland or somewhere else with an active, engaged electorate

Bernie would have a great chance to make his case. But this is America, where more people care about the Masked Singer or what the Kardashians are up to on Instagram than participating in ways citizens of other countries do in their government.

So they will listen, and they will hear NOTHING after the raise taxes part. This is not an electorate that does nuance at all. That’s a big problem for a politician with lots of nuanced concepts.

[JudyM]

16. Judging by how he's doing, your assumption may not be borne out.

[pnwmom]

28. Cheaper for whom? The employees wouldn't see bigger paychecks.The stockholders would profit. nt

[JudyM]

31. Context/explanation is in the article.

[DENVERPOPS]

30. Same age old argument

Most of property taxes are public education and emergency services...........

As long as I can remember people have argued against paying: "I shouldn't have to pay because I don't have kids in public education, and my house never catches fire.......

[KY_EnviroGuy]

37. Do you drive on all the highways for which you're paying taxes?

Do you have kids in all the schools for which you pay taxes?

Do you eat all the foods our FDA provides inspections for?

Because you don't ever have a car wreck, do you believe you shouldn't have to buy auto insurance?

KY.......... .........

[HopeAgain]

43. "Darn. I should try not being a member of the middle class."

Meanwhile the uninsured suffer with no coverage so the middle class don't have to give up their nice plans. Maybe you didn't mean for that to sound so heartless.

[samnsara]

5. but i will still have to buy a supplement..AND have higher taxes?

[HarlanPepper]

8. I'm not sure about how that would work

Bernie probably isn’t either if you read through his fumbling of the answers.

[PatSeg]

44. Well, that's not Medicare then

With Medicare, patients still pay premiums, deductibles, etc. Those who can't afford it, often get help from Medicaid. What Bernie is proposing is something different and a lot of people are going to be leery of it.

[McKim]

61. I Would Pay More Taxes

I would pay more taxes if I thought it meant everyone had health care access. Our problem in America is that too many have bought into the idea of only caring about themselves and not The Common Good. This Right Wing think tanks have done a great job brainwashing people. I would also pay more taxes just to not see homeless people sleeping on the streets and begging for a meal. Please raise my taxes!

[HarlanPepper]

62. Exactly.

But I have very little faith that the brainwashing you mention is going to be reversed in one election cycle. While you, I, us, may be willing to pay more, there will be others that won't for the reasons you cited above.

[pfeiffer]

2. It appears he gave several disastrous answers in last night's...

...60 Minutes interview.

Yikes.

[samnsara]

3. i dont like debates and i dont watch them..a person could be extremely capable..

..of doing the job and bomb the debates or interviews. I could do neither so they have my admiration for sure...but I would really prefer a town hall where the audience can participate... and i think the candidate would be more natural.

I know we would get far better questions!

[Kaleva]

34. Debates only show how well or poorly one does in debates.

Reagan bested Carter and Mondale in the debates but we know which ones would have made a better president. In 2000 and 2004, many Americans decided they'd rather have a beer with Bush then with either Gore or Kerry.

[Me.]

7. Whoo Boy, Cilizza Usually Only Targets Women Candidates

[BlueMTexpat]

14. So you've noticed

that too!

[Squeaky41]

10. Bernie Boost

He was fine during this interview. Legislators will determine costs.

[HarlanPepper]

15. Which legislators?

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

19. +1 which legislators?

Lame duck maybe wrong term but they will not work with him.

[Skittles]

46. LOL

[bucolic_frolic]

13. A "tax on Wall Street speculation"

Capital drives innovation when it is invested in research, factories, production. Reduce capital, reduce jobs. Spend it all on consumer goods - McMansions for millennials, fast cars, soda, fast food delivered in limos. This is such a weak, sappy agenda.

[KPN]

17. Cillizza is an ass number one. He has always had it

in for Sanders number two.

This is a hard sell for Bernie no doubt. But he didn’t bomb last night. I watched the interview. Cillizza’s assessment is not just way over the top, but outright wrong. The interview was for the most part typical, straightforward and remarkably spot on Sanders. He did not bomb by any stretch.

I am finding it quite appalling that we have a frenzy among Democratic Party insiders seeking actively to undermine any hope of Sanders being elected even if he does win our primary. Because that is exactly what they are doing.

Keep it up folks if you want to lose in 2020. Sanders’ supporters are actually growing in numbers don’t demographics. If you’re goal is to guarantee we lose in November, posting and promoting divisive, undermining and alienating material like this is a great way to do it.

[Turin_C3PO]

22. It's the primaries.

It’s always like this. Things will settle down once we have a nominee. I’m confident that Democrats will unite eventually.

[EveHammond13]

32. he is selfish and undisciplined because he doesn't care about winning

he cares about evangelizing for his far-left ideas and running for the Senate again as an INDEPENDENT (and he just filed as such)

[yaesu]

33. Who cares about corporate MSM or even watches it? I know I don't. nt

[joethedrummer]

38. I saw his weakest part as not explaining how he will pay for his proposals

This comment is from a Canadian poster, screename removed on original, so can't give them credit, but they put it really well

From a Canadian perspective, it seems ridiculous to be having this conversation at all. These investments largely pay for themselves.

If someone has access to preventative healthcare without cost to them, they take fewer sick days, which means more taxable income for the government. If students have post-secondary education, they earn more money with better benefits and are thus taxed on more income at a higher rate. If people have parental leave (Canada is up to a shareable 12 to 18 months + 5 weeks), then those children grow up healthier, smarter, happier, and better adjusted - and happy healthy smart and well-adjusted adults don't cost the government a whole lot of welfare. Instead, they tend to pay a whole lot in taxes while stimulating the economy.

You don't need to balance these investments with an equal tax, because for the most part, these programs pay for themselves (either right away, or as people enter the workforce). This is how Canadian taxes are pretty comparable to American taxes - and end up paying less if including even basic insurance premiums - yet receive significantly more government services.

[AncientGeezer]

58. Wouldn't pay a 10th of what the Sen is proposing to spend

[Hoyt]

59. Cut entire military budget, which is fine with me, but it wouldn't pay 25% of MFA.

[joethedrummer]

64. What about what we already pay into our healthcare system?

According to Sanders rhetoric we overpay for it, so switching to MFA would save us money in the long run.

[Hoyt]

66. Doubtful -- we are picking up uninsured, 100% of cost, offering "free" dental, etc. That may be good

from a societal standpoint.

But some folks who aren't paying a lot for healthcare now, will pay more. Those using a lot, will pay less. Again, that's probably a good thing from societal standpoint. We'll see how many folks accept that.

People are going to want to know what it will cost them directly, a family of 2, family of 3, etc.

Then, on top of MFA, we need to add climate change, education, child care, bolstering social security, infrastructure, etc. Folks want to know what it will cost.

[blue-wave]

40. Sad performance indeed

[PatSeg]

53. Yes, that was just awful

After all these years, you'd think he would have better prepared answers to these questions.

[maxsolomon]

42. Did Trump have explain how his Tax Scam would be paid for?

Nope.

Yet it's pushed the Deficit to over a Trillion.

[Skittles]

48. um......we expect better from our candidates

yes we KNOW Dems have to be twice as good to be considered half as good but USUALLY THAT IS NOT HARD

[brooklynite]

49. Trump never promised that middle class taxes would go up...

[maxsolomon]

50. Right. He lies.

Sanders should try it sometime.

[Skittles]

57. oh, he does that too

[Skittles]

47. it ASTOUNDS me that he is still in the race

considering who has dropped out

[HopeAgain]

51. Bloomberg's got more issues than just dabating

Chew on this video for a while:

&feature=youtu.be&t=1157

[DallasNE]

54. This Exposes The Media Double Standard

When is the last time Trump was ever asked what the cost of his plans would be and how he would pay for it. Only Democrats get asked that question. Why is that. Trump is proposing another round of tax cuts for the middle class and a new health care plan that is cheaper and has more coverage than the Affordable Care Act.With those parameters the insurance would require massive government subsidies. And Mexico is not going to pay for it. And Cooper was going with shock value with the inflated $60 trillion number.

Plus, the framing on Medicare for all is totally dishonest. Yes, it does shift coverage from private plans to government plans and that also shifts payment from private sources to government sources (taxes). That means that any honest reporting would net out the costs. One study says that there would actually be a net reduction, not $60 trillion -- and why not. All of the industrialized countries with a Medicare for all type plan pay roughly 50% of what we pay so it makes sense that when you net it out it costs less. But the disruption would be massive so to me there needs to be a way to mitigate the disruption over time -- but enough of that.

[aikoaiko]

55. LOL. Chris Cillizza still doesn't understand why people are voting for Sanders.

[FloridaBlues]

60. His plan will have a difficult time passing.

[avebury]

63. I have government provide healthcare and am only out of pocket

for the insurance cost if I exceed my benefit allowance. Of course I still deal with deductibles when I use it. If they take away my current insurance I would be out of pocket way more than I am currently if I also lose my benefit allowance. Of course Rethugs like Trump would love to tax the benefit allowance that employees receive. I have no desire to see my out of pocket cost to have insurance go up.

[Scurrilous]

68. LOL

Disqualifying!