The nation’s leading political fact-checker has debunked Hillary Clinton’s recent attacks on Bernie

[BigBearJohn]

Last edited Fri Jan 15, 2016, 08:05 AM - Edit history (1)

SOURCE: http://usuncut.com/news/bernie-sanders-healthcare-plan-would-save-the-average-american-family-1200/

According to Politifact’s recent analysis of Bernie Sanders’ proposal to expand Medicare to all Americans under his “Medicare for All” single-payer healthcare system, Sanders’ plan would save the average household between $505 and $1,823 per year — just shy of a $1,200 average cost savings. While this figure is lower than the Sanders campaign’s estimate of $3,855 to $5,173 in savings, it still means American families will pay less under single-payer healthcare than they currently do under the Affordable Care Act.

Sanders’ plan is modeled after single-payer legislation he introduced in 2013, which outlines how the plan would be implemented and paid for on a nationwide scale. First, Sanders would impose a 6.7 percent payroll tax on employers, along with a 2.2 percent healthcare tax on those making less than $250,000 per year. Sanders includes higher percentages for incomes above $250,000 in his legislation (the richest 2 percent of the U.S. population) and a 5.4 percent surcharge on the wealthiest Americans whose modified adjusted gross income is above $1,000,000 (literally less than 1 percent of Americans). Sanders’ bill also includes a 0.02 percent financial transactions tax on Wall Street trading.

So what are Americans getting in return for all these new taxes? As it turns out, quite a lot.

Bernie Sanders’ campaign claims the small amount of money Americans will pay in these new healthcare taxes will mean a $0 cost for all healthcare premiums, deductibles, and even copays. Using today’s median income of $50,000, the Sanders campaign made the below chart to illustrate how much the average family would save under both Sanders’ healthcare plan compared to Clinton’s plan:

[merrily]

1. Maddow debunked one of Hillary's claims to Hillary's face.

The claim is that Sanders' ad is a negative attack on Hillary. Maddow played the ad in Hillary's presence and said it didn't sound like much of an attack.

Seems more like the Hillary camp setting up to claim that Sanders attacked her first.

[cali]

3. Ding, ding. It's their slimy dishonest way of justifying their slimy lying attacks

She's the one who is engaging in lying negative attacks.

[merrily]

5. The negative attacks from the PAC and surrogates began months before Sanders ran a single ad.

They must think we all suffer from total short term memory loss.

[restorefreedom]

4. no doubt. they are not even trying to hide their sleazy motives

this way, when they unload a truckload of made up shit on sanders (or his family, nothing is beneath them), they will claim "he started it."

fortunately, people are tuned in to their con and the shit will blow right back onto them threefold.

[MADem]

2. There's a BIG difference between five hundred and five thousand bucks.

You need to provide a link so people can see what you are citing.

Saying "The math is all wrong" isn't a debunking....

[corkhead]

6. I was able to find them. here you go

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/13/how-much-would-bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-cos/

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/american-families-save-thousands-under-sanders-health-plan/

[MADem]

7. Your link says Sanders' 'plan' stinks on ice, basically--it doesn't add up.

Bitter pills

Even if we set aside the issue of a potentially unbalanced ledger, experts point out several other problems with Sanders’ simple promise of savings.

First, it’s not guaranteed that workers will have the same quality or amount of care under a Medicare-for-all system.

Most employer-based health insurance policies currently have more comprehensive coverage than traditional Medicare, pointed out William Hsiao, a leading health economist at Harvard University who designed universal coverage systems for Vermont, China, Sweden, and South Africa, to name a few.

While Sanders argues that single-payer will make the health system more efficient, "we have seen no evidence of this from the Medicare program, whose cost has grown substantially faster than the economy for most of the last 50 years," Antos said......And finally, experts expressed skepticism that lawmakers would ever pass Sanders’ single-payer system, which would require a tax increase of hundreds of billions.

"Keep in mind each dollar saved is a reduction in someone’s income, which is part of why this plan is politically untenable," said Don Taylor, a professor of health policy at Duke University. "But if you could wave your hand and do it, we could spend less."

[djean111]

8. And there we have it, and IMO the reason Hillary is now against Single payer - in a fucking nutshell

[div class="excerpt"]"Keep in mind each dollar saved is a reduction in someone’s income, which is part of why this plan is politically untenable,"

No need to say more. This is the crux of the matter.

[corkhead]

9. There's 2 sides to that coin. From the same article just before your snip:

Brighter views

Others, however, are more optimistic that Sanders’ plan could be actuarially sound.

"The tax rates are probably on the low side of what would be necessary, but not out of the ballpark," said Peter Hussey, a healthy policy analyst at the RAND Corporation, adding that they would work only with significant cost savings and lower benefits.

Hussey pointed to other financing models with higher taxes. In Sanders’ own Vermont, the proposed single-payer state system would require a payroll tax of 11.5 percent and a sliding income tax of 0 to 9.5 percent. A national single-payer system would require a payroll tax of 11.7 percent, according to the National Institute for Health Care Reform.

Gerald Friedman, a health economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, analyzed a different 2013 Medicare-for-all bill proposed by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and concluded it would be enough to cover everyone, upgrade benefits and save the country $5 trillion over a decade.

But beyond a 6-percent income tax and a sliding payroll tax of 3 to 6 percent, that would require a financial transaction tax (Sanders included this in his 2013 bill but has since committed the tax to free college tuition) as well an estate tax, a capital gains tax and a cap on high-income tax deductions. (Sanders has proposed these but hasn’t said they’ll be used to pay for health care.)

Friedman calculated that with the extra taxes and some tweaks, Sanders’ plan would provide ample coverage and even generate a surplus of $51 billion. Meanwhile, he said, middle-class families would still save thousands, inequality in care and costs would be dramatically reduced, and the overall population would be healthier.

See, I can do that too. If that "stinks on ice" I'll take some of that.

[MADem]

11. With EXTRA TAXES and 'some tweaks?'

In addition to all those other taxes mentioned?

I mean, come ON!

Sorry--that's a lead balloon right there. Americans do not like to be taxed onerously--they just don't. And finger wagging, appeals to the greater good, all that stuff...they don't care. They don't like onerous taxes--and these ARE onerous taxes he is proposing.


Bottom line: Politifact said Congress wouldn't pass it. The overwhelming arc of their analysis is that it's a pipe dream AND a turkey.

I believe them.

[corkhead]

13. It would be a net positive for most people and would be supported once that part is explained.

Bernie will have an incredibly strong bully pulpit to speak from because of his deep and enthusiastic grass roots support. Had President Obama chosen to take advantage of the similar support he had at the beginning of his first term we might have had single payer from the beginning. Instead he took single payer "off the table" as a wasted opening gesture in an unsuccessful attempt to seek bi-partisanship.

It was a good-willed reach across the aisle but all he got in return was a bloody stump. While I hold no illusions that things will be all Kumbaya with a Republicon held House and Senate, I would contend that Bernie has a better chance at working successfully with the assholes on the other side than Hillary, who is hated by the right even more than the current President is.

just my $.02

[MADem]

14. That's not what the vaunted POLITIFACT says.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/13/how-much-would-bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-cos/

His math stinks and he's not telling the truth about the costs involved, assuming he could get his half baked ideas past Congress--which will not happen.

Bernie won't get squat from the right--there's no incentive to please him. They'd let him twist in the wind, and he'd be a one termer, his effectiveness equated to guys like Pierce.

That's assuming he'd prevail in an election--and I wouldn't count on that, either.

Look at how many people here, on "cough" liberal "cough" DU, started screeching like angry banshees because they had to "cough" up some dough for Obamacare. Screw the Kumbaya, this is too much money!!! WAAAH, WAAH--my medicine isn't covered--it's Obama's fault!!!! A quick search of the archives turns up some of the nastiest comments about our sitting POTUS without any trouble at all.

[corkhead]

15. You are not going to be able to persuade me into believing that Hillary

has a better chance of winning in the general or will be more effective in working with Congress so I guess we'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[MADem]

16. Well, I am not trying to convince you of that. I'm just saying your

candidate's arguments are falling on their own wazzoo and they'll affect his perception by the voting public.

[Thinkingabout]

10. Who thinks Medicare does not have a monthly premium?

The Part A does not have a premium, Part B and D has a premium, so the chart showing $0 for Medicare for all is misleading. The Premium for Part A is $104.50 monthly and $15 to over $100 monthly for Part D. I also purchase a Medigap policy, free no, false perception.

[EndElectoral]

18. I wonder how many would buy into Medicare if able to, OR how many would leave it if able to.

[Thinkingabout]

19. One is not required to purchase Part B and Part D, if one chooses not to select these

portions at the time they become available and decide to later choose these parts there is a penalty which remains monthly as long as one remains in these two parts.

[CharlotteVale]

12. K&R

[EndElectoral]

17. K&R