I'm proud to introduce the Medicare for All Act of 2019.

[Uncle Joe]

Link to tweet

That's what free agency is all about.

[BlueFlorida]

1. Third OP on the same unworkable stunt

It has no chance of going anywhere, there is no way to pay for it and a vast majority of Americans don't want it.

[wasupaloopa]

12. We pay for it. His ideas are insurance regulations.

I have Medicare. I pay for it. We all pay for part A now with pay roll deductions
Part A is for hospital bed day cost.

I pay for part B which is to pay for doctors. I pay for part D which is drug coverage.

I also pay for supplemental insurance which covers what Medicare does not pay.

Bernie is talking about regulating insurance companies

[dchill]

23. "...a vast majority of Americans don't want it."

That's more than a little hard to believe. Way more.

[sheshe2]

2. How are we paying for it?

I missed that part.

[BlueFlorida]

3. By farming and selling unicorns of course nt

[sheshe2]

5. ;)

I love the Irish Rovers.

Part Irish here. Loved listening to them in the pubs.

[WheelWalker]

7. Perfectly on point.

[sheshe2]

10. ;)

[comradebillyboy]

32. One of my physics professors from the 60s was a member of that group

[Uncle Joe]

4. Here is Bernie's options for paying for it.

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

[BlueFlorida]

8. lol

[sheshe2]

9. I have read that all the times you posted it.

Hasn't answered my question any more than your posts saying that the CBO is wrong and Bernies figures??? are correct.

I want to do build on what we have. The ACA. That was supposed to be our first step. The GOP has done it's best to destroy it. PS. I went to ACA when I was forced off my job and Cobra was outrageous. ACA was totally affordable, in fact cheap. I had my doctor.

Bernie wants to go from A to Z without telling us how it will be paid for. He just talks. He also is taking our choice away. You like your employer insurance? Forget about it!

[Uncle Joe]

11. The CBO was detrimental to the ACA

(snip)

The CBO doesn’t follow the simple logic of only considering something part of the federal budget if it is directly paid for by the federal government. Nor does the CBO follow the basic logic of considering private activity part of the federal budget if it is required by federal law, like via an individual/employer mandate. Instead, the CBO considers health care reform an “essentially government program” if it crosses some arbitrary line of too much regulation.

According to a 2009 CBO paper on the topic, “insurance purchased through exchanges or in the private market—should be classified as federal revenues if there is an individual mandate and tight government control of the insurance market,” but not part of the federal budget if “there is an individual mandate and an active, loosely restricted private market, and if premiums are paid through nongovernmental exchanges or directly to insurers.”

In effect the CBO believes the government forcing you to pay premiums to insurance companies doesn’t make those premiums effectively a tax. But if the government also requires that private health insurance to actually be good, then it would be.

(snip)

CBO’s weird decision about what is or is not too much regulation was extremely detrimental to the ACA and is responsible for one of the changes made to the law during drafting. Senators initially wanted to require that 90 percent of premium dollars had to be spent on actual care — a medical loss ratio, which again, is well below international norms. The CBO wrote them a letter warning them that this regulation would push the ACA over their imaginary line. The CBO would have considered the entire insurance market part of the federal budget if that regulation was included. Thus legislators decided they would only use a medical loss ratio of 80-85 percent — a move that ended up actually costing the government significantly more.

(snip)


http://healthoverprofit.org/2019/01/09/cbo-will-score-all-health-reform-plans-as-nationalization/

[sheshe2]

19. Yes.

Read that the dozen times you posted.

[Uncle Joe]

20. So do you believe the CBO was correct in its' determination that the entire private insurance market

should be counted as part of the federal budget if 90% of premium dollars were spent on actual health care?

CBO’s weird decision about what is or is not too much regulation was extremely detrimental to the ACA and is responsible for one of the changes made to the law during drafting. Senators initially wanted to require that 90 percent of premium dollars had to be spent on actual care — a medical loss ratio, which again, is well below international norms. The CBO wrote them a letter warning them that this regulation would push the ACA over their imaginary line. The CBO would have considered the entire insurance market part of the federal budget if that regulation was included. Thus legislators decided they would only use a medical loss ratio of 80-85 percent — a move that ended up actually costing the government significantly more.

http://healthoverprofit.org/2019/01/09/cbo-will-score-all-health-reform-plans-as-nationalization/

[ehrnst]

36. "Health Over Profit" mission statement:

It's not a think tank, nor a health policy research org...

Our mission is to use all of the tools of activism available, from online actions to lobbying to nonviolent civil resistance, to create a political environment in which National Improved Medicare for All is the only politically feasible solution.

http://healthoverprofit.org/our-mission/

That would be like using National Right to Life as a source for analysis of the CDC's accuracy in tracking deaths from abortion. One doesn't have to be an expert in statistics to reject the analysis of this organization as suspect and biased towards a political agenda.

Since the possibility of anyone here on DU, including you, of having the knowledge and expertise on the CBO to debate individual claims made in this analysis, the burden is on you to defend your source as expertise on the topic that is unbiased, balanced and unburdened by a politcal/religious or other agenda than research. The mission statement of Health Over Profit, well meaning as they may be, shows that unbiased analysis is not their priority.

[ehrnst]

38. Why should we believe that the analysis you are presenting valid and unbiased?

Our mission is to use all of the tools of activism available, from online actions to lobbying to nonviolent civil resistance, to create a political environment in which National Improved Medicare for All is the only politically feasible solution.

http://healthoverprofit.org/our-mission/

Since the possibility of anyone here on DU, including you, of having the knowledge and expertise on the CBO to debate or confirm the validity of conclusions made in this analysis is unknown, the burden is on you to defend your source as expertise on the topic that is unbiased, balanced and unburdened by a politcal/religious or other agenda than research. The mission statement of Health Over Profit, well meaning as they may be, shows that unbiased analysis is not their priority.

Someone could just copy and paste a critique about the CBO scoring of the ACA from a FoxNews analyst, and then demand the same of anyone who points out that the source is not reliable, that they "prove" that they have more expertise than the FoxNews analyst...

But here's a chance to show your expertise. What does the CBO get wrong and right in this score?

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52849

And as we have seen, you yourself reject the conclusions of analysis or fact checking that you don't like out of hand from otherwise reliable sources of journalism, and harrange the conclusions themselves as unreliable and therefore wrong.

Since you are a fan of copying the the same content over and over, you won't mind if I remind you where you have rejected the validity of a source, because the content made you unhappy.

The Fact-Checkers Are Clueless

(from Jacobin, not surprisingly)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016213850

It's a bill and Blahous of the Koch funded Mercatus Center based his findings

on Bernie's bill which reflected 2+ trillion dollars in savings over ten years.

Blahous and his bosses weren't happy with that outcome so he proposed an alternate reality scenario NOT based on the economic/financial requirements of the actual BILL

.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016213850#post82

(In response to a WAPO critique of Sanders)

Dear Washington Post,
When will you be covering your owner's; "Bezos" aka; richest man in the world, corporation that being Amazon not paying a penny in income taxes despite making over a 11 billion dollars?

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/128751852

I agree with parts of the article but take it keeping the big picture in mind.

Nothing Bernie or any other Democratic Congressperson proposes will pass in this Congress, I believe we can agree on that.

I'm also acutely aware of Bernie's other proposals ie: Medicare for All, livable wages, tuition free higher education. etc. etc. and that they should be viewed in their entirety not piece meal.

That's the problem with too many analysis either being piece meal or using binary thinking as did the analysis by the Koch Brothers' funded Mercatus study regarding Bernie's Medicare for All proposal.

.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1016215555#post34

[ehrnst]

34. You clearly haven't give the response that is being hoped for.

Something that will jumped on as either "defending a bloodthirsty industry" or claiming that you can't prove his source wrong... an article from a source not concerned with facts as much as:

Our mission is to use all of the tools of activism available, from online actions to lobbying to nonviolent civil resistance, to create a political environment in which National Improved Medicare for All is the only politically feasible solution.

http://healthoverprofit.org/our-mission/

[sheshe2]

37. Thanks!😊

[SergeStorms]

24. There's a lot of...

suppositions there. Too many "save up to" and pie in the sky maybes to make it work. Even if it could be paid for, there wouldn't be money enough to tackle any of the hundred other emergencies befalling our country at the moment. Infrastructure, crumbling schools, childcare, college loans etc. etc. etc. We can't put all of our eggs in one basket. The American people will never go for it and the republicans would tear anyone proposing this a new asshole. Trump would be "president" for another 4 unbearable years, and we can't withstand that.

[George II]

29. I just went through that document and did the calculations. Assuming that EVERY one...

...of his revenue sources gets passed and implemented (there are ten), they add up to $1.62 trillion per year. In his first paragraph he says that we currently spend $3.2 trillion, more than $2 trillion on Medicare, Medicaid, and "other programs".

That's still a shortfall of more than $380 billion per year, 20% of the total $2 trillion, or a shortfall of $1.6 trillion per year (49%) of the entire $3.2 trillion.

And again, that's assuming that all ten sources of revenue are passed and implemented, and also assuming all of the numbers he's giving us are accurate.

It's never going to happen.

[msongs]

6. we could take those f 35s in vermont and sell them, cancel the whole program nt

[sheshe2]

13. Bwahahahahahahaha

Boom!!!!!

Most awesome post!

[Uncle Joe]

14. Yes tens of thousands of Americans are dying every year because we tolerate

a parasite on our health care system...but that was an awesome post.

[sheshe2]

15. Well.

Uncle Joe

14. Yes tens of thousands of Americans are dying every year because we tolerate

a parasite on our health care system...but that was an awesome post.

Please tell me which parasite you are referring to so I can respond, Joe. The GOP? The war machine? F-35's? ACA? Obama?

What?

[Uncle Joe]

16. It should be obvious to anyone that has been paying attention,

the for profit "health" insurance industry.

An institution that profits by winnowing out the weakest among us while making health care more expensive and restrictive for the rest.

Anybody that loves freedom and their fellow Americans should hate that industry.

[sheshe2]

17. That industry.

ACA covered millions.

It would have covered more until the GOP took most of it away.

ACA did NOT winnow out the weakest. It gave people with preexisting conditions the right to care. It kept kids on their parents policies.

It was a stepping stone to be improved over time. We cannot ever go from A to Z without steps BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWX then and only then do we get to Z.

[Uncle Joe]

18. I never said the ACA, I said the for profit "health" insurance industry.

I believe they call that a "strawman."

P.S. You missed Y

[sheshe2]

21. Thanks for pointing out the missing Y.

Since I missed the Y. "Y" are you dissing ACA. You say you are not, yet you are. Neither you or BS thinks it is good enough or should be built on. ACA was the stepping stone to single payer.

FYI. The short time I was on ACA I got two refunds under the 80/20 clause.

[Uncle Joe]

22. That's correct neither I nor Bernie believe the ACA is good enough,

we want the best.

Thanks for the anecdotal history of your experience, I'm glad it worked out well for you but I'm focusing on the big picture.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), of 2010, or Obamacare, was the most monumental change in US health care policy since the passage of Medicaid and Medicare in 1965. Since its enactment, numerous claims have been made on both sides of the aisle regarding the ACA's success or failure; these views often colored by political persuasion. The ACA had 3 primary goals: increasing the number of the insured, improving the quality of care, and reducing the costs of health care. One point often lost in the discussion is the distinction between affordability and access. Health insurance is a financial mechanism for paying for health care, while access refers to the process of actually obtaining that health care. The ACA has widened the gap between providing patients the mechanism of paying for healthcare and actually receiving it. The ACA is applauded for increasing the number of insured, quite appropriately as that has occurred for over 20 million people. Less frequently mentioned are the 6 million who have lost their insurance. Further, in terms of how health insurance is been provided, the majority the expansion was based on Medicaid expansion, with an increase of 13 million. Consequently, the ACA hasn't worked well for the working and middle class who receive much less support, particularly those who earn more than 400% of the federal poverty level, who constitute 40% of the population and don't receive any help. As a result, exchange enrollment has been a disappointment and the percentage of workers obtaining their health benefits from their employer has decreased steadily. Access to health care has been uneven, with those on Medicaid hampered by narrow networks, while those on the exchanges or getting employer benefits have faced high out-of-pocket costs.The second category relates to cost containment. President Obama claimed that the ACA provided significant cost containment, in that costs would have been even much higher if the ACA was not enacted. Further, he attributed cost reductions generally to the ACA, not taking into account factors such as the recession, increased out-of-pocket costs, increasing drug prices, and reduced coverage by insurers.The final goal was improvement in quality. The effort to improve quality has led to the creation of dozens of new agencies, boards, commissions, and other government entities. In turn, practice management and regulatory compliance costs have increased. Structurally, solo and independent practices, which lack the capability to manage these new regulatory demands, have declined. Hospital employment, with its associated increased costs, has been soaring. Despite a focus on preventive services in the management of chronic disease, only 3% of health care expenditures have been spent on preventive services while the costs of managing chronic disease continue to escalate.The ACA is the most consequential and comprehensive health care reform enacted since Medicare. The ACA has gained a net increase in the number of individuals with insurance, primarily through Medicaid expansion. The reduction in costs is an arguable achievement, while quality of care has seemingly not improved. Finally, access seems to have diminished.This review attempts to bring clarity to the discussion by reviewing the ACA's impact on affordability, cost containment and quality of care. We will discuss these aspects of the ACA from the perspective of proponents, opponents, and a pragmatic point of view.Key words: Affordable Care Act (ACA), Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare Modernization Act (MMA), cost of health care, quality of health care, Merit-Based Incentive Payments System (MIPS).


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28339427

[lapucelle]

25. What's wrong with pointing out that money could come from cutting funding

for this particularly egregious hobby horse?



https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-went-wrong-with-the-f-35-lockheed-martins-joint-strike-fighter/

[BannonsLiver]

26. I'm guessing its because bernie is pro F-35?

That boondoggle has brought home a lot of pork to Vermont. If Bernie is for it, how could one of his supporters be against it? It’s clearly a touchy subject though.

[lapucelle]

27. Many of his constituents were against it.

Taxpayer money could be better spent.

No donut for you.

[George II]

30. Parasite on our healthcare system - are you aware of the profit margin of the healthcare system?

[ehrnst]

33. A bit over the top, don't you think?

No, just because people don't walk lockstep with your statements doesn't = "tolerating tens of thousands of people dying every year."

But that was an awesome false dilemma fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[BlueFlorida]

28. Trump has his wall

Trump has his wall
Bernie has medicare for all

Neither will ever exist
Political stunts to insist

As they roar the wall or medicare for all
For them the aroused bases are sure to fall

[ehrnst]

31. So why did he do an about face on the filibuster this week, when his MFA bill isn't designed for

the budget reconciliation process?

Budget reconciliation is one of the ways the Senate manages to hobble around the filibuster. It’s a rule that allows the chamber to pass annual fiscal bills with a majority vote. The rules are designed to allow changes to taxes and spending to pass with 50 votes, so that that government can enact budgets. But reconciliation bills can only enact changes to taxes and spending.

What this means is that a party that has control of government, but lacks 60 Senate votes, has an overwhelming incentive to cram its agenda into a form that can pass via reconciliation. But, as any expert in Senate procedure will tell you, it’s not a “good legislative process.” It’s a terrible legislative process. It forces the majority to make laws without being able to change regulations.

One of the obstacles Republicans faced when they tried to repeal Obamacare was that using reconciliation prevented them from designing an alternative even if they wanted to. Reconciliation would probably prevent Medicare-for-all or any real single-payer plan. Needless to say, any attempt to break up the financial industry, increase the minimum wage, or pass any other major reform would be completely ineligible under budget reconciliation.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/bernie-sanders-filibuster-senate-reform.html

Sanders’ Medicare for All plan would likely have trouble making it through reconciliation because it effectively bans comprehensive private insurance. That’s arguably the defining aspect of his proposal, the thing that makes it a true single-payer system, and it would almost certainly violate the Byrd rule’s restrictions on regulations that only have an “incidental” budget impact.

Using reconciliation would also make it more challenging to finance Medicare for All, since under the Byrd Rule, legislation cannot raise the deficit outside the official budget window.

https://slate.com/business/2019/04/bernie-sanders-single-payer-kill-the-filibuster-medicare-for-all.html

Or is he planning something else, which could be seized upon by his opponents as an authoritarian power grab? Is that sort of authoritarian maneuvering something that we are comfortable with, or just when it's something that we want? Could this also come back to bite us in the ass like the Nuclear Option to get Obama's justices approved?

What Sanders is saying is that he will command his vice president to ignore the parliamentarian’s advice and simply rule that anything he wants to do is permissible under reconciliation. This strategy has been floated before — Ted Cruz and Rand Paul proposed that Republicans use it during the debate over Obamacare repeal — but never actually used, because it is, if anything, more consequential than simply destroying the filibuster, as it could be applied to all sorts of other Senate procedures as well.
.....................................................

“If you’re going to go nuclear,” asks Georgetown’s Josh Huder, “why not just go nuclear?”

My view of this strategy is it’s an unnecessarily complicated way of trying to get rid of the filibuster. It forces you to repeatedly overrule the parliamentarian. It replaces a principled argument for majority rule with a procedural maneuver that’s hard to explain and harder to defend. And it forces you to govern through the procedural quirks of reconciliation, rather than proposing, debating, and passing bills normally. Why not just make a case, on the merits, that 51 votes should be enough to pass a bill, change the rules openly, and then operate under the clear new rules thereafter?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/11/18306132/bernie-sanders-filibuster-budget-reconciliation-medicare-60-votes

[Recursion]

35. Are doctors and hospitals required to accept it? It doesn't say.

And if they do, are they allowed to balance bill on top of it? It doesn't say.

This isn't a plan.