• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Vox: Bernie Sanders outlines his single payer bill

Sinfamy

Member
Jun 3, 2013
4,654
41
590
steamcommunity.com
The GOP tried to pass legislation dismantling the ACA over 50 times.
I want to see the Democratic party trying to pass M4A 100 times. Fuck this defeatist attitude. If they vote down, use that vote to show how little they care about the American people in their respective primaries.
 

soul creator

Member
Mar 31, 2006
17,053
3
1,530
www.soulcreator.com
Huh?

The millions of people that work in the private insurance industry along with the millions of people in the hospital, medical, and drug industries that have jobs that are supported by their clients in the private insurance industry.

Then it sounds like we should either make sure they still have jobs administering health care under the new system, or have excellent compensation packages to account for any job losses that may occur (ironically, they'd still have full health care coverage in this case). HR 676 had provisions for that, and we should organize and put pressure on our representatives (or vote for new representatives) that will make sure that this bill announced today does this, or that future legislation does as well.

I think this is a much better solution than "let's maintain the system that is easily manipulated by powerful interests and keeps millions of people either uninsured, or underinsured, try and pass some mythical public option that has no political movement behind it, no current legislation, and no bill behind it, and hope that one day we become Switzerland".
 

The Wart

Member
Dec 23, 2005
690
0
0
The GOP tried to pass legislation dismantling the ACA over 50 times.
I want to see the Democratic party trying to pass M4A 100 times. Fuck this defeatist attitude. If they vote down, use that vote to show how little they care about the American people in their respective primaries.

Jesus christ. Politics really is nothing but theater to some people.
 

lenovox1

Member
Feb 13, 2009
7,921
0
740
Then it sounds like we should either make sure they still have jobs administering health care under the new system, or have excellent compensation packages to account for any job losses that may occur (ironically, they'd still have full health care coverage in this case). HR 676 had provisions for that, and we should organize and put pressure on our representatives (or vote for new representatives) that will make sure that this bill announced today does this, or that future legislation does as well.

I think this is a much better solution than "let's maintain the system that is easily manipulated by powerful interests and keeps millions of people either uninsured, or underinsured, try and pass some mythical public option that has no political movement behind it, no current legislation, and no bill behind it, and hope that one day we become Switzerland".

And the money for that would come from...

...

?

That sounds like something those millions and their families would not support, just like that, and would have a whole host of immediate, irreversible political consequences to anyone that supported such a measure.

fund single payer by cutting the military budget in half over 10 years.

Look! The unemployment rate just skyrocketed thanks to Democrats over healthcare! That would have immediate and irreversible political consequences that would last for generations.
 

Violet_0

Banned
Jul 26, 2011
17,349
1
0
I believe Canada outlaws private insurance. It's to increase the negotiating power of the state. The state becomes the only major buyer of services and drugs. No deal with them then no deal with anybody. Gives the government tremendous leverage to lower prices.

Those cheap medications in Canada don't just magically happen. They happen because the system is designed to give the people all the negotiating power instead of the big corporations.

if this is true, then I respect Canada even more than I already do
I hate private insurance companies, and I hate how the system works here in Germany
 
May 13, 2008
40,275
1
0
Markham, Toronto
Fighting to not lose has continuously been a shit strategy for Democrats and it's frustrating how they continue to follow the playbook in hopes that one day voters will realize they were right.

Fighting not to lose is all they can do right now you know since Republicans hold all three branches or did folks already forget that?
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Jun 8, 2004
28,904
1
1,645
how did other countries sell it?

By having a far more liberal electorate with a strong socialist bent and Europeans moving into the cities during the industrial revolution while Americans largely expanded West and spread out?

That and many European countries managed to pull off massive works before the rise of the sort of Randian "fuck everyone else" style of conservatism took strong root and enacted massively popular opinions. FDR and LBJ made massive strides but never got as far as their European counterparts and we lost tons of momentum coming out of those periods.

The UK system would be much worse off if it was designed in a post-Thatcher England. We're late to the game and the other side basically hates all forms of government, taxes and has a real social darwinian bent when it comes to the plight of minorities and poor people.. and unfortunately that sort of thought has taken real root in our moderate voters as well who have a very "up by your bootstraps" mentality to lots of welfare programs.
 

The Wart

Member
Dec 23, 2005
690
0
0
Who would it be disastrous for?

Health care is one of the fastest growing parts of the economy. Abrupt, massive changes to the entire system would throw it into chaos.

You know what Congress will look like in 2018? 2020? Do you allow for the possibility that moves like this are done to help influence what Congress looks like in 2018 and later, rather than just assuming we're a static country that can never be changed by movement politics?

And what evidence are you using to determine that this puts "dems at a disadvantage"? Is there any actual evidence available that Democrats have lost massive amounts of legislative power over the past 8 years and the presidency to Donald Trump because they were "too left-wing on health care"? Or is this just one of those "anything I consider too left-wing is automatically a non-starter" viewpoints?

The dems literally lost massive amounts of legislative power pushing through the ACA, which didn't even establish a public option let alone anything resembling single-payer. A lot of this is due to vociferous lobbying and hysterical misinformation from the right, but a) that will happen again, and b) those arguments found traction because the american public is on average fairly skeptical of large-scale government intervention (outside of law enforcement).

Either way, the "base" is literally the majority of Democrats, majority of the country, and even a non-insignificant minority of conservatives. And if Sanders is actually the most popular politician in the country, as numerous evidence has shown, maybe "playing well with his base" is actually a good thing going forward?

Of course, this is where everyone usually mentions that "well, but when you frame any single-payer policy in the worst possible way without saying any of the benefits, support goes way down!"

Well, sure, I 100% agree that when you start talking about potential shitty parts of single-payer, people are less likely to support it, and polling shows this. So um, let's make sure we're not crafting a message that emphasizes all the shitty things, focus on the massive amounts of good, organize people from the ground up and in numerous communities to support the goals of this bill, and we fight back against negative messages when it does come up?

Polls on the popularity of single payer, like those on Bernie Sander's, are basically meaningless because the overwhelming majority of the people being asked have no real understanding of the issue and are totally uninvested in one side or another. This is not a criticism of the public. They're just answering based the phrasing of the question of the last sound bite they heard, because, well, what else do they have to base it on? So no, I don't think there's any reason to think that the supposed popularity of single payer will survive contact with the political process, and I think if you do believe this you are being willfully naive.

And of course, the whole point of politics is to increase your base, and part of that is done by offering things that would materially improve the lives of the vast majority of people.

Do you think it's bad policy because it would actually lead to worse health outcomes and financial ruin for people in the US, or do you think it's bad policy because it might (possibly at some point in the future) scare people away?

I feel like these two things often get conflated. People often end up making arguments against policy based on cynicism, not because the policy is actually harmful to a large amount of people. It would help to clarify which argument is being made, because those are two related, but completely different things

I don't think single-payer would be ruinous, but I also don't think it would be as good in terms of outcomes as having a public option. Moreover, when the people pushing single payer indicate their disinterest in "the details" of how something like single payer would be implemented and payed for, that makes me much more skeptical of single-payer because I don't think the politicians pushing it are remotely capable of executing it.

Ideally, you have agitating firebrands with out-there ideas on one side who pave the way for more reasonable, carefully-designed interventions later. But that doesn't seem to be how American politics works any more. Instead, politicians simply promise their bases more and more ridiculous things and get elected on the theater of it. I'd rather the democratic party not go further down that road.
 

old

Member
May 11, 2013
4,962
177
475
if this is true, then I respect Canada even more than I already do
I hate private insurance companies, and I hate how the system works here in Germany

It's not. I was corrected. Quebec used to ban private insurance to prevent doctors from refusing to service the public sector. But the law got overturned by the courts. So it did happen and it worked but the courts overturned it.
 

Nista

Member
May 29, 2007
1,513
0
0
Irvine, CA
With all of this, obviously I'd still support single-payer. But saying "Medicare will obviously just solve your problems better" is...not obvious to me. My healthcare setup is quite complicated and involves half a dozen different doctors, a lot of different diagnoses and prescriptions, and a lot of various forms, appointments, and rules. It was not easy or straightforward to get to where we are now. Please don't tell me that it will be easy to do it a second time, only with a government program instead of a high-value insurance provider which uses in-house referrals and prescriptions to simplify the process (Kaiser).

I can look at what my parents have to deal with for my Dad's healthcare, and know that without private supplemental insurance on top of Bernie's plan, I would not be getting as good of care as I do now on a big employer PPO plan. It would be cheaper for us overall, but a lot more hassle.

And they are lucky that he's a Vietnam veteran, and a lot of things for him are covered through the VA. But as we're all aware from the news, the government's handling of the VA system is not always great, and can lead to problems for people with serious chronic health conditions.
 

1.21Gigawatts

Banned
Nov 24, 2012
8,436
234
675
munich
Since this is part of the broader idea of Bernie Sanders to bring northern European style social services to the US, I thought that a few numbers might help.

Germany, with its population of 82 mil people, has an annual volume of social services of 918 billion euros. (2016 numbers)
That includes everything. Healthcare, retirement, unemployment etc.
918 billion euros are on average 11200€ per capita per year.


Imagine these per capita expenses in the US. That would total to about 3.6 trillion Euros or 4.31 trillion US dollars per year.

The entire budget of the US in 2016 was 3.9 trillion US dollars.
While the entire revenue in that year was 3.3 trillion US dollars.
(so a 600 billion deficit, not exactly sustainable)


Just to get a sense of the scope of the welfare state in northern Europe:

If the US wanted to have something similar it would require at least a budget of about 5-5.5 trillion, which would then require an revenue increase of around 2 trillion, which is a 60% increase.
To achieve an increase like that you have to raise taxes.

Can you imagine what kind of tax increases we are talking about when you want to raise revenue from 3.3 trillion to at least 5 trillion?


Call me crazy, but I just don't think that Americans are up for that. Not even the left would be up for that.
Ideology in the US needs to gradually change before a system like that can work there and that process will takes many, many decades.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Nov 13, 2011
16,594
0
0
The GOP tried to pass legislation dismantling the ACA over 50 times.
I want to see the Democratic party trying to pass M4A 100 times. Fuck this defeatist attitude. If they vote down, use that vote to show how little they care about the American people in their respective primaries.
Passing legislation to repeal Obamacare and making Obama veto it plays well to a base that both hates Obama and the government in general, and thinks it's useless. Also, not sure who you're primarying.
By having a far more liberal electorate with a strong socialist bent and Europeans moving into the cities during the industrial revolution while Americans largely expanded West and spread out?

That and many European countries managed to pull off massive works before the rise of the sort of Randian "fuck everyone else" style of conservatism took strong root and enacted massively popular opinions. FDR and LBJ made massive strides but never got as far as their European counterparts and we lost tons of momentum coming out of those periods.

The UK system would be much worse off if it was designed in a post-Thatcher England. We're late to the game and the other side basically hates all forms of government, taxes and has a real social darwinian bent when it comes to the plight of minorities and poor people.. and unfortunately that sort of thought has taken real root in our moderate voters as well who have a very "up by your bootstraps" mentality to lots of welfare programs.
Well, that and the history of racial animosity vs racially homogenous yurop paradise. Since it's been shown that racial animus is a strong predictor of opposition to government support programs.
 

UnObtainium17

Member
Jan 4, 2012
4,900
1
495
I got a pretty shallow understanding of US health insurance industry. I work full time and use a private insurance for $220 a month and I'm healthy as fuck. ..

Anyway, I'm finding it hard to believe this would cost $3 trillion per year? What the fuck. Who came up with this number? If that figure is around the ballpark of what it's true cost then i think Bernie should start first with regulating pharmaceutical and hospital corporations. Those two pretty much run a racketeering operations with how much they charge patients and states.

This is gonna be a battle. I doubt it will pass but the collective support of American s on this would have a positive effect on the current ACA. Shit.. i want universal HC but I'll be ok to settle on an improved ACA too.
 

soul creator

Member
Mar 31, 2006
17,053
3
1,530
www.soulcreator.com
I got a pretty shallow understanding of US health insurance industry. I work full time and use a private insurance for $220 a month and I'm healthy as fuck. ..

Anyway, I'm finding it hard to believe this would cost $3 trillion per year? What the fuck. Who came up with this number? If that figure is around the ballpark of what it's true cost then i think Bernie should start first with regulating pharmaceutical and hospital corporations. Those two pretty much run a racketeering operations with how much they charge patients and states.

This is gonna be a battle. I doubt it will pass but the collective support of American s on this would have a positive effect on the current ACA. Shit.. i want universal HC but I'll be ok to settle on an improved ACA too.

We already spend 3.2 trillion a year. I strongly doubt a 100% universal health plan that's more progressively taxed, has stronger negotiating power and cost controls would cost more (I could maybe see increases in the short-term when getting things up and running - and covering every person - but I doubt it would remain that way in the long-term). And even if it did cost more overall, it doesn't have to actually cost more for the vast majority of people in the country, since that's the whole point of progressive taxation. It would be redistributing wealth (except it would be downward, instead of upward for once)
 

Mr.Mike

Member
Jul 4, 2013
3,361
0
0
The Sanders plan is extremely generous and even if they managed to fund it at some point that money would be better spent on other issues like affordable housing, education, the environment etc.
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Mar 31, 2005
11,818
0
1,310
36
Arlington, VA
Plus, our money is already being spent on healthcare. Just in a wildly inefficient manner.

Too much money being spent to produce mediocre to poor outcomes compared to our peers is the entire reason why people want change.

We're being robbed, there are too many companies with their hands in the cookie jar. And that includes a ton of companies that aren't even based in America. We are slowly but surely bankrupting ourselves to subsidize prescription drugs for people in wealthy countries throughout Europe and everywhere else.

It's too bad Trump is full of shit and an idiot. Otherwise, maybe he'd realise America first badly needs to be put into practice when it comes to prescription drugs. Really everyone in this country should be fucking outraged at what we pay.
 

Mr.Mike

Member
Jul 4, 2013
3,361
0
0
Plus, our money is already being spent on healthcare. Just in a wildly inefficient manner.

You can make the system more efficient without offering as generous a package. The generous benefits of this proposal are not a necessary condition for a single-payer system that more efficiently uses money spent on healthcare.
 

Not

Banned
Jun 7, 2012
17,579
1
0
You can make the system more efficient without offering as generous a package. The generous benefits of this proposal are not a necessary condition for a single-payer system that more efficiently uses money spent on healthcare.

Y'know, it beats a wall.

Let's start with achieving universal healthcare and work from there.
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
Jul 26, 2014
26,221
2
0
America
The GOP tried to pass legislation dismantling the ACA over 50 times.
I want to see the Democratic party trying to pass M4A 100 times. Fuck this defeatist attitude. If they vote down, use that vote to show how little they care about the American people in their respective primaries.

it pays to be self defeatist, that gives you cover so you don't have anyone expecting you to deliver anything. it was a core theme of the election and personally a big reason why clinton lost.

The dems are wavering between a weakness of conviction, corruption in their ranks, and complete demoralization of their base, because that's how they have been running things since bill clinton atleast with his "third way" strategy, and its slowly gotten to this point. Its only now come back around, and the result is that they have no power in the US government while a madman and his cohorts reign

Instead of admitting to mistakes or looking inward for policies that help people, a real soul searching to investigate why they are so unpopular, they smash their base and tell them to take what they are given, and then act confused when they don't have anyone rooting for them.
 

chaos789

Banned
Nov 21, 2012
784
358
505
I wish the public option never got removed from the ACA. Can someone remind me why it got gutted out of the ACA to begin with? Considering you had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate at the time, there should have been no reason for it being removed.

In Nov. 2012 I became sick and since I had just recently left my job lost my health insurance. In Jan and Feb of 2013 I applied for Health Insurance from three different providers and got denied by all of them. The reason was pre-existing conditions even though I had no diagnosis at the time. In March of 2013 I found out about a form of insurance provided by the government for people with pre-existing conditions. It was open for the reminder of that year until the marketplace opened up in 2014. I had to send the denial letters to qualify, it cost 200.00 a month. I forget all the details about the coverage options but I liked it. I thought that might have been what a government option plan would have been like.
 

pigeon

Banned
Feb 14, 2011
19,361
1
0
I wish the public option never got removed from the ACA. Can someone remind me why it got gutted out of the ACA to begin with? Considering you had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate at the time, there should have been no reason for it being removed.

Lieberman.
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
Jul 26, 2014
26,221
2
0
America
I wish the public option never got removed from the ACA. Can someone remind me why it got gutted out of the ACA to begin with. Considering you had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate at the time, there should have been no reason for it being removed.

Ben nelson, the guy who obama put in charge of crafting the bill, in addition to joe libermann were in close contact with the insurance industry. Obviously they would not want a public option to compete against them in any form.

its pretty obvious to see how powerful the insurance lobby is when they can influence policy from the start and make it go how they want. i dont actually think the public option was seriously considered to be in the final legislation even to this day.
 
Aug 17, 2006
7,687
0
1,055
The GOP tried to pass legislation dismantling the ACA over 50 times.
I want to see the Democratic party trying to pass M4A 100 times. Fuck this defeatist attitude. If they vote down, use that vote to show how little they care about the American people in their respective primaries.

.
 
Apr 14, 2008
10,656
1
0
New Orleans
I wish the public option never got removed from the ACA. Can someone remind me why it got gutted out of the ACA to begin with? Considering you had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate at the time, there should have been no reason for it being removed.
Ted Kennedy got hospitalized, Lieberman wouldn't vote for the ACA with it included, etc.

The votes were never there.
 

pigeon

Banned
Feb 14, 2011
19,361
1
0
Ben nelson, the guy who obama put in charge of crafting the bill, in addition to joe libermann were in close contact with the insurance industry. Obviously they would not want a public option to compete against them in any form.

It had nothing to do with Nelson, nor was he "in charge of the ACA." He wasn't even on the Health committee!

Why do you comment on topics you know nothing about?
 

sonicmj1

Member
Dec 2, 2007
8,973
0
0
The GOP tried to pass legislation dismantling the ACA over 50 times.
I want to see the Democratic party trying to pass M4A 100 times. Fuck this defeatist attitude. If they vote down, use that vote to show how little they care about the American people in their respective primaries.

And we can all see now how effective the GOP's strategy was in achieving their policy objectives. Why would we want to copy it?
 

SolarPowered

Member
Feb 17, 2009
25,573
0
0
Seems far more sensible than his longtime approach and I like how many senators have stepped forward in support. I'm sure cost issues and more will be addressed as other senators dip their toes in and offer their input. This bill could probably pick up quite a few more democrat senators if it greatly reduces the size of private insurance instead of completely outlawing it. Even socialist bastions in Europe still have private options peppered here and there.

It is also very smart politically and optics-wise to start the first phase off by including the 18 and below group with the 55-65 age group democrats were considering with a medicare buy-in option. Someone think of the children!
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
Jul 26, 2014
26,221
2
0
America
It had nothing to do with Nelson, nor was he "in charge of the ACA." He wasn't even on the Health committee!

Why do you comment on topics you know nothing about?

ben nelson was one of the hold outs and libermann, and they were the ones who ultimately got to decide what was kept in the bill and what was taken out.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Heal...roves-health-care-bill-obama/story?id=9381054

Ben nelson even got a key position on dealing with the insurance companies afterward because of his input

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/nelson-from-60th-vote-to-acas-implementation-086646

I remember obama taking kucinich aside and talking him down about holding out, yet he allowed those two to do whatever they liked in holding provisions hostage. i remember being pissed off at kucinich at the time, but now i think he should have leveraged his position more
 

Spoiled Milk

Banned
Jun 7, 2013
6,878
3
0
The GOP tried to pass legislation dismantling the ACA over 50 times.
I want to see the Democratic party trying to pass M4A 100 times. Fuck this defeatist attitude. If they vote down, use that vote to show how little they care about the American people in their respective primaries.
No thanks. You can keep your race to the bottom.
 

digdug2k

Member
Apr 11, 2014
1,940
0
0
(As Vox’s Sarah Kliff notes, Sanders hasn’t yet tackled the biggest question about the plan: how to pay for it.)
Wait... what. There's seriously nothing in here about how to pay for this. Isn't that the hard part of single payer? Like, every country in the world that has it is still struggling with that question.
 
Nov 23, 2010
4,618
506
950
Since this is part of the broader idea of Bernie Sanders to bring northern European style social services to the US, I thought that a few numbers might help.

Germany, with its population of 82 mil people, has an annual volume of social services of 918 billion euros. (2016 numbers)
That includes everything. Healthcare, retirement, unemployment etc.
918 billion euros are on average 11200€ per capita per year.


Imagine these per capita expenses in the US. That would total to about 3.6 trillion Euros or 4.31 trillion US dollars per year.

The entire budget of the US in 2016 was 3.9 trillion US dollars.
While the entire revenue in that year was 3.3 trillion US dollars.
(so a 600 billion deficit, not exactly sustainable)


Just to get a sense of the scope of the welfare state in northern Europe:

If the US wanted to have something similar it would require at least a budget of about 5-5.5 trillion, which would then require an revenue increase of around 2 trillion, which is a 60% increase.
To achieve an increase like that you have to raise taxes.

Can you imagine what kind of tax increases we are talking about when you want to raise revenue from 3.3 trillion to at least 5 trillion?


Call me crazy, but I just don't think that Americans are up for that. Not even the left would be up for that.
Ideology in the US needs to gradually change before a system like that can work there and that process will takes many, many decades.

I don't get it. Why should this information prevent the US from doing what needs to be done? Why is it relevant?



The US is currently projected to run deficits 24 years straight. The US has north of 20 trillion treasuries outstanding. And its Federal Reserve has struggled to hits its inflation target of 2% on average. Most people who are concerned about solvency should know what interest rates the US is facing. So simply put, if the US is faced with real problems like healthcare, infrastructure, or something new like hurricane disaster relief....blah blah blah then why can't the country afford to do something about it? Whatever is holding folks back is all in your head.

Sure this new bill that many within the Dem establishment and Bernie Sanders stand behind isn't the greatest. However, it's not as if the US is wasting money dropping bombs, invading countries, building beautiful walls or trash like UBI. In this case, some people want to "truly" fix US health care with single payer or whatever it is instead of subsidizing power players. The US is in dire need of something better because your health care is killing people and its killing business. That's an initiative worth spending money on.
 

lenovox1

Member
Feb 13, 2009
7,921
0
740

That covers about $16 trillion in additional revenue. None of which would ever get passed in this Congress, but neither will this bill. Regardless, the Urban Institute projected that Sanders' original 2016 campaign proposal of Medicare for All would cost an additional $32 trillion over 10 years.

Of course, projections are... Just that. They're projections. And this new plan slows the speed of the rollout down. But let's also not pretend that the US Government is efficient when it comes to healthcare rollouts.

https://www.urban.org/research/publ...-our-analysis-sanders-health-care-reform-plan
 

Neoweee

Member
Oct 8, 2014
4,739
0
415
The GOP tried to pass legislation dismantling the ACA over 50 times.
I want to see the Democratic party trying to pass M4A 100 times. Fuck this defeatist attitude. If they vote down, use that vote to show how little they care about the American people in their respective primaries.

It will never even get brought up for a vote. Do you not understand how the House works, or who controlled it in the past, and who controls it now?
 

1.21Gigawatts

Banned
Nov 24, 2012
8,436
234
675
munich
I don't get it. Why should this information prevent the US from doing what needs to be done? Why is it relevant?

That wasn't my goal at all. I'm german and a social democrat at heart.
I obviously want the US to implement social democratic policy.

I just wanted to give people some kind of perspective of what they are up for when they want to have a sustainable welfare state similar to the ones in northern Europe.

These systems are very efficient, but they won't pay for themselves.
Taxes will have to increase dramatically(not only for rich people, but for everyone) to finance these systems and by that I mean that if people are making more than 50-60k a year they will have to pay close to 50% in taxes + insurances on top.

And in my experience that even scares off left wingers in the US.

But most people obviously don't think about what kind of expenses would be eliminated in return: All education costs, all healthcare costs, insurance for retirement and unemployment and much more.

But lets not kid ourselves, these systems are rooted in solidarity. Bottom line is that everyone who is doing well will be worse off under a system like that then they are currently doing, because their money is used to support people who aren't in such a good position.
These systems are about helping people in need and insuring some basic rights for everyone: Healthcare, education, a home etc.


For these systems to work the entire population needs to get behind the idea and in the US you are far from that. Which is why I think it will take many decades before the US will be ready for it.

In Europe the welfare state has been built over the last 100 years. If democrats in the US think they can copy that within a couple of years they are dead wrong.
This isn't just about policy, its also about mentality and ideology.

And there will also be much more practical problems:
Neither the healthcare nor the educational infrastructure in the US is fit for a universal/free system.
It relies way too much on private institutions.
Before the government can even think about making college education free and give healthcare to everyone, its critical that investments make sure that at least 90% of healthcare and educational institutions are public.
You can't have profit based private institutions leeching on a public welfare system. That simply doesn't work. In Europe people aren't being sent to private hospitals or universities for free either. The government only pays for services in public institutions.

A development like that is directly at odds with US mentality which is tilted towards privatization and small government.
I think democrats are greatly overestimating the publics will to change its mentality, or greatly underestimating the challenges that come with a northern European style welfare state.

I neither see the necessary political expertise to implement it in the US, nor do I see the necessary public support on an ideological level.
 
Nov 18, 2016
1,541
854
560
fund single payer by cutting the military budget in half over 10 years.

Jobs lost + nowhere near enough to cover the damn thing = Profit?

That's really the big problem, ain't it: You kill the private insurance market and millions of people are out of a job. Between that and trying convince middle class families to give up the one vacation they might get a year to pay for this thing, you already have a stillborn bill.
 

Ziltoidia 9

Member
Jul 1, 2013
5,451
0
430
Lewisville, TX
Has someone calculated what the tradeoff will be for the average person after factoring in no more insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays?

Average person comes out better. I don't have the direct amount but I know its better.

This is a breakdown of his plan he ran on last year -

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ch-would-bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-cos/

Sanders' campaign says his Medicare-for-all plan would save the average American family $3,855 to $5,173 in annual health care costs.

Instead of an insurance premium, a family making $50,000 — roughly the median family income — would only pay $1,100 in health care income taxes. That's $3,855 less than what it would pay out-of-pocket for the average premium ($4,955, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation) and $5,173 less if a deductible ($1,318, for individual coverage) is factored in.
 

pigeon

Banned
Feb 14, 2011
19,361
1
0
Well, this is sort of important, right? I mean, most people seem to be under the impression "but mah taxes will be raised" without understanding the broader implications.

What percentage of Americans do you believe pay their insurance premiums out-of-pocket?