"Crazy Bernie" to introduce socialized medicine bill

[heatcharger]

Ugh this is such a dumb idea if we want to win stuff in 2018 and 2020

Agreed. A single-payer healthcare system would be so difficult to sell to middle-class people. Why? Republicans would very, very easily characterize it as levying a 40% tax increase. Democrats would get slaughtered with those kinds of figures.

We also just saw how rushed and overly simple healthcare reform might not pass even with majorities in both houses and the White House. Do you guys remember when Bernie's campaign claimed his plan would save the country more in drug costs than what the whole country spent, and then he had to go amend it and add $100 billion dollars to the budget? Saying "we'll make Wall Street pay for it" is almost as disingenuous as what Trump says about his wall, which is why I don't trust Sanders on healthcare.

Democrats should just go all in on a public option and move closer to a multi-payer system like what they have in Germany or the Netherlands, since I think most people, especially those in states where they are losing insurers, can get on board with the idea of having a permanent, more affordable option in the market. Then they need to make an online calculator and market the sh*t out of it so everyone can see how they would be affected by the Democratic plan. In my opinion, this is an easier sell to make than full-on socialized medicine.

[Hermit For Peace]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/sanders-to-introduce-single-payer-health-care-plan-236516

Great move. I love Bernie when he's not running for president!

Me too.

[Lief 🗽]

Ugh this is such a dumb idea if we want to win stuff in 2018 and 2020

Agreed. A single-payer healthcare system would be so difficult to sell to middle-class people. Why? Republicans would very, very easily characterize it as levying a 40% tax increase. Democrats would get slaughtered with those kinds of figures.

We also just saw how rushed and overly simple healthcare reform might not pass even with majorities in both houses and the White House. Do you guys remember when Bernie's campaign claimed his plan would save the country more in drug costs than what the whole country spent, and then he had to go amend it and add $100 billion dollars to the budget? Saying "we'll make Wall Street pay for it" is almost as disingenuous as what Trump says about his wall, which is why I don't trust Sanders on healthcare.

Democrats should just go all in on a public option and move closer to a multi-payer system like what they have in Germany or the Netherlands, since I think most people, especially those in states where they are losing insurers, can get on board with the idea of having a permanent, more affordable option in the market. Then they need to make an online calculator and market the sh*t out of it so everyone can see how they would be affected by the Democratic plan. In my opinion, this is an easier sell to make than full-on socialized medicine.

Yeah, singlepayer is great on paper, but the actual implementation of it would be a political disaster that would destroy the Democratic Party for generations. It would require huge tax increases, and yes, most of those tax increases would just be replacing monthly premium payments, but people are too dumb to understand that.

Democrats need to run on expanding and strengthening Medicaid, a public option to bring down costs and increase competition in the exchanges, and dropping the Medicare age to 55 or so.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Lots of Very Serious People in this thread.

[Maxwell]

You don't have to support single payer to support Bernie doing this.

[Ebowed]

Democrats need to run on expanding and strengthening Medicaid, a public option to bring down costs and increase competition in the exchanges, and dropping the Medicare age to 55 or so.

Opening the conversation with single-payer is a negotiation tactic that enables these policies to move through.

Obama started with a public option and the Republicans were able to kill that even though they never had any intention of supporting a health care bill at all!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Guys, it's not getting passed anyway.

But Ebowed is correct.  From a negotiating standpoint at least, it's better to set your demands high and work your way down.  That is the art of the deal.  If I had the power to single-handedly arrange our healthcare system, I'd probably move for something identical to what Lief is suggesting.  That's not how it works in politics, though.

[Deblano]

Anyone who supports total government control of  healthcare is crazy

I'd much prefer a German multi-tier system than single-payer.

[politicallefty]

Democrats need to run on expanding and strengthening Medicaid, a public option to bring down costs and increase competition in the exchanges, and dropping the Medicare age to 55 or so.

Even as a single-payer supporter, this is what I've long believed. I think the two biggest failures of the ACA were the failures to adopt a public option and to start reducing the Medicare eligibility age, especially the latter. The more people we can get on to government-sponsored health insurance, the more people will see it as a virtue over a vice. I want to incorporate as many as I can into Medicare through expanding eligibility.

I think lowering the age to 55 would be a good start (maybe even go lower to 50), but I'd also like to see the program start including those otherwise uninsured under 18.

And to the OP, assuming you can understand nuance here, single-payer is not socialized medicine. It's socialized health insurance. In other words, the government pays the bills. It doesn't control the pharmaceutical industry, hospitals, or doctors or nurses. The UK has socialized medicine wherein the NHS (as I understand it) controls the entire healthcare system. I think the system in the UK is more analogous to the VA system. The single-payer (Medicare-for-All) system that many progressives argue for is based on the Canadian system and essentially an expansion of Medicare as we currently know it.

[Shadows]

Yea, it shows how ignorant people are when they talk about socialized medicine. There is a big difference between "Payer" & "Provider". Would a Public option would likely involve approval from respective states like the Medicaid expansion? Most GOP controlled states may not approve it defeating the whole thing. It will be an immensely complex situation but still much better than now.

As the previous poster said you have to go for a Single Payer by expanding Medicare first to 50/55 & then 30 & then ultimately 0 by covering everyone. That has to be the goal of the Demcrats, a Medicare for all, not a right wing conservative Heritage foundation plan like version (the ACA).

Also all this Dems can't win, taxes etc were made for years to get any big thing passed & it was thrown into the garbage can time & again. For Social Security & else, FDR expanded government massively, raised taxes etc & some even called him a "Communist". When LBJ started Medicare, not only was it called "Socialized Medicine" but a senior killer & what not with ads & jingles & St. Raegan doing his thing to mislead people. We had all this arguments - Tax hikes, Big Government blah blah !

Everyone of them lasts today & massively popular programs, strong & big welfare programs are notoriously hard to get rid off. 18% of GDP on healthcare if so f***ed up when UK spends 6%, Canda like 8-9%, France 12% odd. You have to do better & expand Medicare !

Bernie's earlier Single Payer bills were in many ways similar to Paul Wellstone's one introduced in 1993 - The S. 491. A fitting tribute for a remarkable Senator & a progressive hero!

Btw Bernie in the CNN Interview clearly said the short term plan is to allow drug imports, lower the Medicare eligibility age & introduce a Public option. So I don't think he is planning to introduce a Medicare-for-all type now but will first try & work out something !

[courts]

nothing wrong with this

[Famous Mortimer]

Since the GOP's attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare with their god awful bill failed, I think that the next Demcratic wave won't push for single payer but will instead try to transition the us healthcare system into a multi payer system like Germany or the Netherlands. Now if the GOP healthcare plan had actually passed, then single payer would almost certainly be on the Democratic Party platform going into the 2020's.

I have no doubt the Democrats would be stupid enough to do this. Pushing a multi-payer system is a horrible idea politically. You have to realize that in every country that has adopted single payer, the healthcare debate is over. Once you have single payer, that's it, everyone realizes it's good. You might have a few people on the libertarian right who want to turn back time but no one takes them seriously. Anything short of single payer just prolongs the debate. Just get it over with and have single payer. Plus multi-payer is way harder to sell because it's way more complicated. Single payer is very easy "You pay taxes and then you get stuff for free".

By the way, Henry Jackson supported single payer.

[Shadows]

Since the GOP's attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare with their god awful bill failed, I think that the next Demcratic wave won't push for single payer but will instead try to transition the us healthcare system into a multi payer system like Germany or the Netherlands. Now if the GOP healthcare plan had actually passed, then single payer would almost certainly be on the Democratic Party platform going into the 2020's.

I have no doubt the Democrats would be stupid enough to do this. Pushing a multi-payer system is a horrible idea politically. You have to realize that in every country that has adopted single payer, the healthcare debate is over. Once you have single payer, that's it, everyone realizes it's good. You might have a few people on the libertarian right who want to turn back time but no one takes them seriously. Anything short of single payer just prolongs the debate. Just get it over with and have single payer. Plus multi-payer is way harder to sell because it's way more complicated. Single payer is very easy "You pay taxes and then you get stuff for free".

By the way, Henry Jackson supported single payer.

The Multi-payer thing is actually much harder to sell to conservatives & it is way more government control. For one in Germany, the system is like anyone earning 50K or less (or some similar figure) & the unemployed & others have to get public insurance which covers 80% + of the population.

How do you do that in US - Force people earning less than 50 or 75K etc to get public insurance ? Can you imagine forcing this & the political narrative? Secondly, even if the GOP embraces this idea after coming to power, they will decrease this 50K number with time (reform blah blah) & essentially covert into a Medicaid or a Block grant program. And you have to increase taxes for subsidizing for Multi-payer otherwise Co-pays etc will be too high !

It is incredibly complex, more expensive than Single payer & will have even more problems while implementing !

[Famous Mortimer]

Any program that involves means testing is garbage politically and police-wise.

People don't want to fund programs for poor people. They might be willing to fund programs for everyone (including themselves) though.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Single Payer is socialism, enough said. It's unamerican, and should not even be allowed to be discussed in this country as a serious proposal. Multi-Payer, public option, repeal of various provisions of ObamaCare - let's have that discussion. But single payer - No. Pelosi said it best: "We're capitalists, and that's how it is!"

[Ebowed]

Single Payer is socialism, enough said. It's unamerican, and should not even be allowed to be discussed in this country as a serious proposal. Multi-Payer, public option, repeal of various provisions of ObamaCare - let's have that discussion. But single payer - No. Pelosi said it best: "We're capitalists, and that's how it is!"

Such a strange hill to die on.

[Phony Moderate]

I'd advise the Democrats against this. It could harm them to the extent that they might even lose the presidency an obnoxious political novice, lose both the House and Senate and decline to controlling only 1/4 of state legislatures, say.

[rafta_rafta]

How exactly are the dems planning to push this through without control of the House, Senate and WH?

Single Payer is the logical progression from Obamacare but it needs a dramatic increase of taxes. UK does this through the national insurance which is partly used to fund the NHS along with Income Taxes. And while there is a lot of fixes needed for the NHS, it incredibly simplifies healthcare in the country. Across the ideological spectrum there is minuscule support for rolling back to a more privatised system.

[Anna Komnene]

How exactly are the dems planning to push this through without control of the House, Senate and WH?

They aren't.  It's just political theater.  The opposition party always introduces bills that are just destined to die in committee.  It's not necessarily a bad thing either, but it'd be nice if they focused more time on finding ideas that might actually get through congress.

[Ebowed]

Being told by snot nosed 21 year olds that you need to pay 60% in taxes to fund their college tuition and their free health care is enough to make any adult vote Republican.

*sigh*

I suppose you'd rather pay lower taxes and higher premiums.  I get that there is some kind of psychological appeal to that, sure.  It makes you think you have more control over your income.  Really you don't, but whatever.  I don't see why other people should have to die just so that you can pretend to have more "choice".  The jig is up, friend.

How is it that the USA spends a higher proportion of its GDP on health than other countries with actual effective, universal systems?

[Chief Justice Keef]

For anyone who thinks a single-payer healthcare system would be unpopular in America:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/16/most-americans-want-to-replace-obamacare-with-a-single-payer-system-including-a-lot-of-republicans/

Even 41% of Republicans support it. Policy implementation aside, it's a winning issue.

[Santander]

Even 41% of Republicans support it. Policy implementation aside, it's a winning issue.

Now ask them to define single-payer.

[Ebowed]

Being told by snot nosed 21 year olds that you need to pay 60% in taxes to fund their college tuition and their free health care is enough to make any adult vote Republican.

*sigh*

I suppose you'd rather pay lower taxes and higher premiums.  I get that there is some kind of psychological appeal to that, sure.  It makes you think you have more control over your income.  Really you don't, but whatever.  I don't see why other people should have to die just so that you can pretend to have more "choice".  The jig is up, friend.

How is it that the USA spends a higher proportion of its GDP on health than other countries with actual effective, universal systems?

The only change Democrats have made is Obamacare.  It raised my taxes about $3,000 a year and I derived absolutely no benefit from it.  If Democrats want to start winning back voters, taxing them more isn't going to do it.

Nope, people are sick of the HMO death panels.

Instead of rationing care to people like you who can already afford it, it makes more sense to look after everybody.

Charities clearly can't keep up with economic dislocation, homelessness, and unemployment.  So unless you think the status quo is fine (because you aren't negatively affected by it yet), your argument doesn't really make sense.

[Ebowed]

OK, so how much more do you think I need to pay in taxes for spending programs?  Should I pay lets say 50% of my income to the Federal Government?  60%?  Where does it end?

I agree with you that giving the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries a blank check is an inevitable recipe for rising costs.  Clearly the current system is ludicrously inefficient since basically every other industrialized country has figured out less expensive ways to cover everybody.  The ACA's strengths are in its expansion of public programs and its regulation of those bloated industries.  Its weakness is that it did not go far enough in that direction.

That being said, you will end up paying for the catastrophic care of the uninsured either way as they continue to end up in emergency rooms with problems that would have cost less to address (not to mention provided better health outcomes) before it got to the point of emergency.

I can't speak to what your tax rate "should" be, but I remain unconvinced that you deserve medical care more than someone who works harder than you but gets paid less.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Yea Medicare for all is supported by most Americans so I really don't see how this is controversial or crazy as some right wing hacks call it. Republicans hate it because their donors tell them no and more than half the democrats have the same donors as well. Catch up you guys, every other civilized country basically has this. History will not be kind to people openly opposing this.