home

Is Single Payer More Progressive Than ACA?

I'm honestly surprised to be asking the question in the title - thinking the answer would be "of course it is!" But the structure of ACA, with Medicaid expansion and means tested insurance subsidies makes this not so clear according to Austan Goolsbee:

2) Sanders is right that we shouldn't just think of his single-payer health plan as a $15 trillion tax increase. We should ask whether people would be better or worse off in total. But even by that measure, lots of low and middle income workers would, in fact, be worse off and paying higher taxes.

More . . .

Sanders' basic argument against the newspaper articles characterizing his health plan as needing a $15 trillion tax increase has been that we shouldn't think about tax rates alone but should ask the broader question of whether people are better or worse as a whole after the program goes into effect.

If a single-payer health plan lowers health costs overall then his reasoning says that the taxes we raise for the health plan will be less than what people currently spend on health care and if we concentrate those taxes on the rich, then a typical person could actually be better off after the tax than they were before.

As a theoretical matter, that's not wrong. We should try to make that kind of calculation when we think about government programs. The thing is, though, that argument does rely quite heavily on the economic notion of "pass-though". Oversimplifying here: the Sanders health essentially plan puts all current health costs onto the government but will pay for it with cost savings and with taxes including a payroll and income taxes around 9%. Doing that frees companies from their currently massive health care costs. The Sanders plan counts on the employers then passing all of that savings though to their employees in the form of higher wages (and not keeping part of it as higher profits). If the companies don't pass it on, then, for sure, workers will end up worse off because they will pay the 9% payroll and income taxes but not have higher incomes to compensate (remember that employers pay about 75% of the normal health insurance premium for their workers so their savings on the employee contribution for health care will not normally add up to anything close to the 9% tax hike they're paying. They need the employer to pass on the other 75% to them).

So you need to decide whether companies would pass through the savings to employees. Would they? Many economists trust that markets would pass it through. Ironically, many of the Democrats that, like Sanders himself, have called for a repeal of the "Cadillac Tax" on expensive health insurance plans have implicitly presumed the opposite. They fear that the Cadillac tax will lead companies to reduce or eliminate generous health care plans without raising employee's wages in return.

But even with complete pass through, there are some significant low and middle income groups that would face net tax increases under a Sanders health plan. Generally, people that currently pay less than 9% of their income on health insurance will be worse off under a plan with free health care but a 9% tax to pay for it. That makes me think the plan hasn't been well thought through.

Almost anyone with low or moderate income getting insurance through the Obamacare exchanges, for example, will have health premia capped at rates below the Sanders 9 percent tax. A typical non-smoking family of 4 making with an income of $50,000 per year would have to pay in excess of $1000 a year more in taxes under the Sanders plan than they pay now for health insurance in the exchange [. . .]

People on Medicaid have caps on their health insurance cost at around 5% of income. So the working poor would face a net tax increase of 4% of their income. Kids with jobs but that can stay on their parents' health care plans up to age 26 under Obamacare would have to pay 9% of their income in taxes with Sanders' plan but without getting any upside from the government paid health care (though their parents would get some part of it back, depending on what they pay for the incremental coverage for the child).

I'm sure there would be other groups, too, if we worked through the numbers. His plan seems likely to hit a lot of people with tax hikes that it probably didn't intend to hit. If the employers don't pass on their savings to raise wages, it will hit all workers.

Emphasis supplied.

Something to consider.

< Unimas Begins Airing "Ruta 35" | Selzer Poll: Iowa Tight >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Might be why there's some walk-back... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by magster on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 03:12:17 PM EST
    on Sanders' pledge to release a health care plan before the IA caucus.

    The debate on MSNBC is assuming his plan (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 07:33:17 PM EST
    is the plan he introduced in Congress in 2013. Is that not what he is campaigning on?

    Parent
    It seems (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 08:11:32 PM EST
    to not be what he's campaigning on but people are using it for discussion since he hasn't released a plan.

    Parent
    Apparenlty he is not releasinng (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:15:09 PM EST
    a health care plan prior to Iowa....

    Parent
    He introduced S. 1782 in 2013. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:32:14 PM EST
    It was based on HR 1200, introduced in the House by Jim McDermott.

    I've linked to summaries of Sanders' bill, and of Conyers' HR 676 (which I actually prefer).

    Parent

    The idea was that he (none / 0) (#96)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 10:08:19 PM EST
    would be releasing a new plan....and according to a diary at Big Orange, if the plan is the 2013 bill, then Chelsea's criticism is valid.....

    Not that I know much of the details beyond this....

    Parent

    And not that it's kept you, and (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 06:30:49 AM EST
    a few others here, from making comments about it as if you do.

    Pardon me if I don't take "according to a diary at Big Orange" as dispositive of the validity of any of the criticism coming out of the Clinton camp.

    Parent

    Just adding to the discussion (none / 0) (#178)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 11:13:03 AM EST
    Not every comment needs to be sourced and vetted, no?

    Perhaps someone else who has some objectivity could fill in the discussion.....

    Parent

    Where's the beer, Bernie? (none / 0) (#179)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 11:19:55 AM EST
    Funny Spelling Error (none / 0) (#183)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 11:36:59 AM EST
    Ha (none / 0) (#185)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 11:42:06 AM EST
    I saw that after I posted.  I do this on my phone, and I have a weird sensitive autocorrect  (which even corrects to things that aren't words sometimes)

    But Bernie can show us the beer too. ;)

    Parent

    Talk Left... (none / 0) (#186)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 11:56:22 AM EST
    ...is almost impossible to navigate through on my phone.  Are you using a reader of just the website ?

    Parent
    I just use the website (none / 0) (#188)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 12:05:16 PM EST
    But I could do a little more proofing before I hit post.  Sigh.  I really wish E had an "edit" function.

    Parent
    Disappointed you didn't cross-post at DKos (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by magster on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 03:22:44 PM EST
    I was all excited to see the Sanders supporters' response.

    As an authentic (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 04:00:59 PM EST
    Low income person enjoying the benefits the ACA the constant ragging on it bugs me.   I know many people who are enjoying life a whole lot more because they do not live in fear of getting sick.

    Personally I think a bird on the hand is better than pie in the sky.

    But that's just me.

    The problem I have with these kinds of (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 05:10:38 PM EST
    analyses is they don't address the current costs that include co-pays and deductibles, which appear to be on the rise; these are, for many people, significant to the point where, yes, they may have health insurance, but they still can't afford actual care.

    Last fall, my daughter was notified by CareFirst that the monthly premiums on the policy her family had were going up from around $650/month to nearly $1,000 - in addition to having the co-pays and a deductible.  She embarked on a search for something more affordable, but she found that if she wanted to keep her premiums somewhere in the same price range, they would come with deductibles she knew they would never meet - unless there was something catastrophic in their future.

    Yes, the ACA mandates would mean no co-pays and deductibles for some care, but even so, they were looking at premiums of $12,000/yr PLUS the out-of-pocket costs.

    They make too much money to qualify for subsidies, so there's no help there.  Neither has coverage available through their jobs.

    So, I think it's a little disingenuous not to make this part of the discussion, because paying for health care is more than just a tax issue.

    The irony of my daughter's situation is that she did find a good policy, slightly higher premiums but same deductibles and co-pays, but it's with United Health, which in two years will be pulling out of exchanges.

    I think the other thing people fail to mention in the discussion is that private insurance isn't going away; it will still be there for those who want to supplement, much like the plans that supplement for Medicare.


    Why do you think single payer will fix that? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 05:35:25 PM EST
    Okay (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 05:47:17 PM EST
    First of all the copays and the deductibles would be something that you would have to pay in single payer too I understand.

    However, the article makes good points in the costs to a lot of middle income families.

    I have been in your daughter's situation which is on the individual market and had the same problem. The premiums went from 350 to 800 in a few short years and then the deductible went from 350 to 5K with those prices. So I completely understand her frustration.

    To me the solution would be to get rid of the Hyde Amendment and open up Medicare for people like your daughter. A much simpler and less painful proposition for all.

    Parent

    Would you please provide a (none / 0) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 11:01:06 PM EST
    link to the actual single payer plan that requires deductibles and co-pays that is the basis for your understanding.

    Since the article leaves out a significant part of the cost of medical care under the current system how do you know that it would be more costly for the majority of middle income families. The components that make up the total medical costs of the average family of four were left out of the equation so there is no way to do an actual cost analysis.

    Parent

    She doesn't know, that's the problem; (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 06:40:13 AM EST
    or perhaps the problem is that even though she doesn't know, she makes statements as if she does.

    I don't think anyone who doesn't understand the basics of cost-sharing - co-pays, deductibles and co-insurance - who doesn't bother to do any research or fact-checking, has any business putting fingers to keyboard.

    It used to be that it was only the right-wing trolls who had to be constantly corrected and pointed to the facts, but that has now been extended to so-called progressives who carry on a regular disinformation campaign in the misguided assumption that it helps their preferred candidate.

    Maybe that's because now that Clinton is doing it, it's okay.  

    Parent

    Medicare (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 07:16:44 AM EST
    does not have copays and deductibles is what you're trying to tell me? My family members on Medicare have copays and deductibles.

    Parent
    I want French health care (none / 0) (#134)
    by Coral on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:28:21 AM EST
    They pay very large social insurance tax. After that all medical care is basically free. We were in France this summer. Husband needed some emergency care. Cost -- next to nothing (about US $25, and that was with two doctor visits and medical tests). And that charge was ONLY because he wasn't covered by French social insurance.

    Is anyone suggesting THAT kind of system in US? If they are, I will vote for them.

    Parent

    Remember (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:30:21 AM EST
    too that it took them 15 years to get there.

    Parent
    Remember also (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by fishcamp on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 01:17:23 PM EST
    In France if you earn one million euros in a year the tax is 75% to pay for that medical service.

    Parent
    I'm ok with that (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by sj on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:29:08 PM EST
    whether it were my million euros or yours...

    Just saying.

    Parent

    Except (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 05:23:22 PM EST
    This analysis DOES address the taxes AND what people are currently paying premiums and deductibles.

    Parent
    Really? Where? (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 05:59:59 PM EST
    I've read through Goulsbee's analysis twice, and I still don't see where he's addressed the impact of co-payments and deductibles under the current system upon middle-class households.

    If we're going to discuss this issue honestly, then we need to do so with a horizontal perspective relative to its impact across the board, rather than a vertical one through the silos of taxes and insurance premiums.

    I'm one of those persons who's been in a position of having to decide whether or not I really needed to see a physician, thanks to a high deductible. I can assure you that it's really not a very pleasant place to be in, regardless of circumstances.

    And for insurance companies to actually force people into that position, well, that's just unconscionable. For the amount of money we're spending on our health care coverage, we deserve more than an illusion that insurers are facilitating actual care.

    Aloha.


    Parent

    You didn't see it because he didnt address it (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 06:46:05 PM EST
    other than to say:

    (in real life, some of those people would have out-of-pocket expenses and deductibles when they get care, some of them would get help with those costs and we would need to weigh those against whatever co-pays they might have with a single payer plan but you get the idea).

    Weighing thousands of dollars against zero is not a particurly difficult mathematical equation.

    Parent

    Am in the middle of reading a (none / 0) (#30)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 07:45:43 PM EST
    fairly wonky, but enlightening, article about what people are spending on insurance and out-of-pocket costs, here.

    We show that despite the additional assistance available, individuals across the income distribution who are ineligible for Medicaid can still face very high expenditures. At the median, financial burdens can be reasonably high, particularly for those with incomes between 300 and 400 percent of FPL (Figure 1). As medical care needs increase, however, financial burdens grow appreciably across the income distribution. Even with federal financial assistance, 10 percent of 2016 nongroup marketplace enrollees with incomes below 200 percent of FPL will pay at least 18.5 percent of their income toward premiums and out-of-pocket medical costs. Ten percent of marketplace enrollees with incomes between 200 and 500 percent of FPL will spend more than 21 percent of their income on health care costs. Those in fair or poor health and those over age 45 are most likely to face high median financial burdens.

    Here's another article that's informative.

    There are essentially two single-payer bills out there: HR 676, John Conyers' bill (2011), and S. 1782, Bernie Sanders' bill (2013).  I'd suggest that those who are taking all their direction from the little bits being bandied and sniped about in the media would be well served to actually learn what the legislation provides, and get an appreciation of what is possible.

    I am not clear on whether Sanders' plan would eliminate deductibles and co-pays, but I know they are not a feature of the Conyers plan.

    And I also know that whatever Sanders' bill looks like, anyone who thinks it would come out of the process intact, unchanged, is nuts.

    Rather than waste time wallowing in the politics of which candidate supports what, I think perhaps it might be more beneficial for the people to figure out what they want, what works for them.

    One of the arguments against the ACA was that as long as private insurance was in charge, we were eventually going to end up in the same place: being strangled to death with the cost of insurance, co-pays and deductibles, and still not getting the actual care we need.  Hello - that day is already here for a lot of people.  Not all, but as the article I excerpted points out, it clearly is happening.

    I find it kind of ironic, I guess, that the same people who couldn't wait to tell us how the ACA wasn't living up to the so-called promise of affordability, are now knocking Sanders' efforts.

    Oh, well - la plus ca change, and all that.


    Parent

    Conyers bill is more (none / 0) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 11:36:30 PM EST
    detailed and clearly states that there will be no deductibles or co-pays.

    Single payer as outlined by PNPH is as follows:

    The program would be funded by the savings obtained from replacing today's inefficient, profit-oriented, multiple insurance payers with a single streamlined, nonprofit, public payer, and by modest new taxes based on ability to pay. Premiums would disappear; 95 percent of all households would save money. Patients would no longer face financial barriers to care such as co-pays and deductibles, and would regain free choice of doctor and hospital. Doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.
    Link

    One of the other components not addressed by Goolsbee's article is how private insurance companies are narrowing their network of hospitals and physicians. Several of my friends have encountered having their long term relationship with their physicians severed when their insurance company eliminated them from their provider network.


    Parent

    Narrow networks get narrower (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Coral on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:35:25 AM EST
    Daughter with insurance through ACA, just informed her doc, which it took her 2 years to find, will no longer accept her plan. She couldn't find an affordable plan that her doctor would accept. In some insurance markets with narrowing networks and docs jumping in and out of networks, you are in a nightmare musical chairs game of finding and replacing doctors and/or plans on yearly basis.

    If you are undergoing serious illness this is a very unfortunate scenario.

    Parent

    Many of the current plans (none / 0) (#198)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:23:17 AM EST
    Do not include one of the major cancer centers in this area in their network.

    Had I been in the middle of treatment with an ACA plan, I would have been required to change all of my doctors. This would have been disasterous for me.

    Parent

    Another opinion on Clinton's (none / 0) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 12:20:24 AM EST
    attacks on Sanders' single payer plan:

    But Hillary Clinton doubled down on her daughter's words on Wednesday, saying on "Good Morning America" that Sanders would "take everything we currently know as health care, Medicare, Medicaid, the CHIP Program, private insurance, now of the Affordable Care Act, and roll it together." As she knows, since she is well-versed in health care policy, that's a feature, not a bug of single-payer; the alphabet soup of insurance programs is one of things that makes American health care so confusing and inefficient. Instead of attacking the idea on the merits, she's choosing to make it seem as if Sanders has a callous disregard for people losing health insurance.
    ...
    There are certainly legitimate ways to question whether single-payer is feasible right now, particularly since the Republicans are going to be able to hold on the House for the foreseeable future. Or maybe Clinton thinks, like President Barack Obama did, that switching to single-payer would be too disruptive or too difficult considering the system we already have in place.

    But she isn't saying that. Instead, she's sliming Sanders with the accusation that he wants to take health insurance away from people. It's a garbage attack, and makes even less sense considering that she's going to need Sanders' supporters come November when she (as is still very likely) becomes the Democratic nominee. (Democrats, incidentally, really like single-payer, as do independents.)

    And, in the very long-run, a fundamental rethink of our health care system is going to be necessary; Obamacare is good for what it is, but it's not enough. When that time comes, single-payer will need to be on the table. It's too bad Clinton is tossing that all overboard because of a week of bad polls.

    link



    Parent
    She never made that specific accusation (none / 0) (#107)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 06:45:38 AM EST
    Not in those words.  But she does allow herself to be misinterpreted too much, her own darn fault really.

    Parent
    He discusses premis (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 06:17:26 PM EST
    And since Anne's point was this should be more than an issue of tax costs, my answer stands. No, he didn't specifically say the words deductible or co-pay, but that wasn't all of Anne's comment. (And there are indications, as GA says, that copay and deductibles would probably be part of single pay anyway).

    And, for the record, I appreciate you sharing, but I know what a pain it is too.  I am one of those people who had a decent individual plan until the passage of ACA, when my plan was canceled.  I then had to go through the nightmare of studying new plans, and I ended up with one that was ok, but not as good as the one I had canceled.  For that privilege, I got to pay about 10% more each month for premiums.  No subsidies.  This past year and found full-time employment with benefits, which was lucky because my preimum rates were going up another 14% in 2016, which would have been out of my budget, so I was looking at yet again having to change to a lesser plan.

    So yes, I understand that this stuff isn't fun.

    Parent

    Does it really? (none / 0) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 06:23:14 PM EST
    Per his statement and his published formula,  the math was not done on the co-pays and deductibles.

    Almost anyone with low or moderate income getting insurance through the Obamacare exchanges, for example, will have health premia capped at rates below the Sanders 9 percent tax. A typical non-smoking family of 4 making with an income of $50,000 per year would have to pay in excess of $1000 a year more in taxes under the Sanders plan than they pay now for health insurance in the exchange You can plug in different characteristics in the Kaiser Family Foundation premium calculator to see for yourself here http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/#state=&zip=&income-type=dollars&income=50 000&employer-coverage=0&people=4&alternate-plan-family=individual&adult-count=2& adults[0][age]45&adults[0][tobacco]=0&adults[1][age]=50&adults[1][tobacco]=0&child-count 2&child-tobacco=0 or you could look at the JAMA stylized examples here http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1738900 (in real life, some of those people would have out-of-pocket expenses and deductibles when they get care, some of them would get help with those costs and we would need to weigh those against whatever co-pays they might have with a single payer plan but you get the idea).

    Let me repeat this for you:

    (in real life, some of those people would have out-of-pocket expenses and deductibles when they get care, some of them would get help with those costs and we would need to weigh those against whatever co-pays they might have with a single payer plan but you get the idea).

    You may not be a financial person but if you carefully review the formula in his calculation, he is just calculating the premium. using Goolsbee's formula:

    Average cost for the second lowest cost silver plan:
    $276 per month ($3,314 per year)
    in premiums (which equals 6.63% of your household income).

    Average deductible for a family    $6,480

    If they received a 50% break on their deductible, the average would be $3,240.

     Premium plus deductible equals $6,554. (which equals 13.1% of household income. This does not include co-pays or other out of pocket expenses)

    9% increase in taxes on $50,000 equals $4,500.

    The only way a family of four making $50,000 would pay $1,000 more under single payer is if no one in their family actually needed health care.

    Parent

    His math (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 07:42:25 AM EST
    Also does not include the extra taxes of absorbing the hundreds of thousands of workers that will lose their jobs and all the ripple effects of that when most insurance companies are put out of business (which Sanders himself acknowledges would have to be paid out of more taxes).

    Of course, we could look to Vermont as an example of how single payer has worked.

    Oh wait, we can't, since in December 2014 the Democratic governor had to announce that single payer was dead, because he estimated it would take $2 billion annually to run (for a tiny state!) and paying for it would have required something like an 11.5% payroll tax plus other income taxes.

    Ruffian was right - the time to talk about this as more than an academic exercise was in 2009.  Would I like single payer?  Probably.  But there are lots of things I would like our politicians to do and to focus on.  And of course it's good to talk about new ideas and push for change and plan for the long term. But some of their ideas just aren't realistic - politically, economically, or both, so when we're done talking about magical things that have the same chance of passing as me winning the Powerball by myself (which I didn't), then it's time to get back to reality and discuss those things that just might have a chance of getting done in the short term.  Maybe that includes part of Bernie's plans - who knows?  

    But I'd rather deal with reality than fantasy. That goes for ALL the candidates.

    Parent

    When (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:06:55 AM EST
    I found out Vermont was not able to do it I kind of lost enthusiasm for the issue. That is probably the most favorable state to try that sort of thing in the country.

    Parent
    what makes you say that? (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by CST on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:19:56 AM EST
    Politically, that might be true, but functionally it certainly isn't.  It's a small, rural state with a (relatively) high cost of living.  If anything it would be one of the hardest places to effectively implement single payer.  Not enough people to pay into the system, the people are spread out and hard to reach, and a high operating cost.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:28:58 AM EST
    that's my point. Vermont is the most politically feasible place to start. In so many other places it's not even politically feasible.

    Parent
    got it (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by CST on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:33:05 AM EST
    I agree that it is one of the few states where something like this might pass the state legislature.  I don't think it's a great example or representative of the efficacy of such a program for other states or the country as a whole.

    My main reason for wanting to keep the ACA and working with that is that it's something that already exists, that half the country is already trying to get rid of.

    I can't count the votes to single payer, and I don't see how Bernie changes that math.

    Parent

    Speaking for myself (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:40:59 AM EST
    only I think Bernie's goal is more long term than anything. If people start talking about single payer and other things now then later on they will seem feasible.

    Parent
    Not exactly (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 06:28:33 PM EST
    You could use health care but only go to see the doctor. Usually the deductible is the issue when you go into the hospital. It would take a lot of doctors visits and testing to come up with the $1,000.

    Parent
    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by Coral on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:43:37 AM EST
    Deductibles kick in all over the place. Tests are big part of it. Many treatments in office. Physical therapy.

    The experts and politicians greatly underestimate medical costs for average consumer. Not to mention the financial stress of unexpected costs. Have one minor injury, or one relatively minor ailment that requires a test and the costs add up in a dizzying spiral.

    A regular, yearly tax that covers everything is the most financially manageable, from a consumers point of view.
     

    Parent

    Hmm .. You really think that deductibles (none / 0) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 07:55:27 PM EST
    only apply when you go into the hospital and it would be hard for a family with 2 children and two adults 45 and 50 years old (Goolsbee's formula) to spend more than $1,000 in medical bills during the year.

    High deductibles have been a sore point with some Obamacare enrollees. They have complained that they have to shell out thousands of dollars, on top of their monthly premium, before their insurance kicks in. Employers have also been raising deductibles, but they are generally lower than in many Obamacare plans.
    ...
    Even after they meet the deductible, enrollees in both Obamacare and work-based plans have to fork over a co-pay or co-insurance, a share of the bill, to see a doctor. Employers have been raising their co-pays in recent years, but those in Obamacare plans are still higher.

    When it comes to co-insurance, Obamacare policyholders have to shoulder a larger burden. Obamacare enrollees will have to pay 26% of the charge to see a primary care doctor or a specialist, while those in job-based insurance pay only 18% for primary care and 19% for specialist visits.
    Link



    Parent
    My point (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 08:01:52 PM EST
    being that going to the doctor you only pay a copay. However occasionally yes there could be a test. But it would have to be an expensive test or a whole lot of them to get into the 1,000 territory.

    Parent
    Here is a little bit of reality for you to digest (none / 0) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 08:14:11 PM EST
    In 2015, the cost of healthcare for a typical American family of four covered by an average employer-sponsored preferred provider organization (PPO) plan is $24,671 (see Figure 1) according to the Milliman Medical Index (MMI).1 The amount will almost certainly surpass $25,000 in 2016.

    Employees continue to shoulder an increasing percentage of healthcare expenses. The total employee cost (payroll deductions plus out-of-pocket expenses) increased by approximately 43% from 2010 to 2015, while employer costs increased by 32%. Of the $24,671 in total healthcare costs for this typical family, $10,473 is paid by the family, $6,408 through payroll deductions, and $4,065 in out-of-pocket expenses incurred at point of care.

    link

    What do you know. In these employee plans the average out of pocket expense for a typical family of four was $6,408 and their total health care cost was $10,473.

    A review...a typical family of four would incur $6,408 for the year in out of pocket expenses.

    Parent

    The problem (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 08:55:22 PM EST
    is "typical". No matter what there are going to be winners and losers. With single payer there are going to be winners and losers. Some people are going to get hit really hard while others are not and perhaps would be better off. The problem is selling that to people who are still struggling.

    The biggest problem I have seen though is sending it to the states to make it happen. With so many Republican governors you know that none of this is going to happen.

    Parent

    Wrong again. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:27:37 PM EST
    Which you would know if you ever bothered to take advantage of the many links, sources and references that others take the time to provide.

    Parent
    No the problem is your lack of understanding on (none / 0) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 10:36:36 PM EST
    how deductibles work. Here is a primer to help you understand the basic components that make up some of the out of pocket expenses.

    Deductible

    A deductible is the amount you pay for health care services before your health insurance begins to pay.
    Let's say your plan's deductible is $1,500. That means for most services, you'll pay 100 percent of your medical and pharmacy bills until the amount you pay reaches $1,500. After that, you share the cost with your plan by paying coinsurance and copays.

    Coinsurance

    Coinsurance is your share of the costs of a health care service. It's usually figured as a percentage of the amount we allow to be charged for services. You start paying coinsurance after you've paid your plan's deductible.
    Here's how it works. Lisa has allergies, so she sees a doctor regularly. She just paid her $1,500 deductible. Now her plan will cover 70 percent of the cost of her allergy shots. Lisa pays the other 30 percent; that's her coinsurance. If her treatment costs $150, her plan will pay $105 and she'll pay $45.

    If Lisa has a PPO plan, she has the option to see any doctor she wants. If she goes to an out-of-network doctor, her plan will still share the cost, but her percentage of coinsurance will be higher. And, if the medical service she gets is more than what her plan would pay for an in-network doctor, she'll have to pay the difference.

    Learn more about the difference between in-network and out-of-network benefits.

    Copay

    A copay is a fixed amount you pay for a health care service, usually when you receive the service. The amount can vary by the type of service. You may also have a copay when you get a prescription filled.
    For example, a doctor's office visit might have a copay of $30. The copay for an emergency room visit will usually cost more, such as $250. For some services, you may have both a copay and coinsurance.

    In the current system the premiums, the deductibles and the co-pays and co-insurance continue to increase with more and more of the cost for actual medical care being shifted to the patient with the insurance company paying less.

    The other problem is that you hear something that fits your anti-Sanders rhetoric and you don't read any thing about how the actual proposal works or any opinion that  disbutes the negative campaign attacks.

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:00:45 PM EST
    On HMOs you may only pay a co-pay for doctor visits, on PPOs and high deductible policies you must meet the total amount of the deductible before the insurance pays for anything. Approximately 74% of employee plans are now PPO or high deductible plans. Only about 26% are HMOs.

    Parent
    MO, you are correct (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:10:51 AM EST
    regarding the deductible costs, even with Medicare.  Yesterday I stopped by my doctor's office for a prescription refill, and had to pay an additional $68 since I hadn't met the required deductable yet this year.  But still Medicare has been very good for me over the years and I hope to vote for the candidate that doesn't plan to change it, if there is one.

    Parent
    Not all PPOs (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:03:17 PM EST
    I have one and I just pay a copay.

    Parent
    If you're interested (none / 0) (#115)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:02:59 AM EST
    Here's some background on Vermont's attempt at single payer.

    Parent
    If you're really interested in what (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:24:16 AM EST
    happened in Vermont, I'd suggest you read this, instead.

    There's way too much in it to excerpt, but I will leave you with this:

    Conclusion

    It's a misnomer to label Vermont's Green Mountain Care plan "single payer." It was hemmed in by federal restrictions that precluded including 100 percent of Vermonters in one plan, and its designers further compromised on features needed to maximize administrative savings and bargaining clout with drug firms, and improve health planning.

    But even the watered-down plan that emerged could have covered the uninsured, improved coverage for many who currently face high out-of-pocket costs, and actually reduced total health spending in the state - albeit far less than under a true single payer plan. A true single-payer plan would have made covering long-term care affordable, and allowed the elimination of all copayments and deductibles.




    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#120)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:29:34 AM EST
    So they went in with the idea of single pauer, studied it, along with other mwthids, and found it, or anything close to it, wasn't feasible.

    Thanks for agreeing with me.

    Parent

    No, that's not what happened, and (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:08:13 AM EST
    it's not why it happened.

    And I wasn't agreeing with you - but you knew that.

    I offered a more in-depth discussion of what actually did transpire, and I guess you missed the nut graph: it was never a real single-payer plan.

    Come on - did you really think you could get away with that?

    Parent

    Get away with what? (none / 0) (#132)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:22:44 AM EST
    The governor campaigned on single payer.  They looked at single payer.  When that wasn't feasible, they looked at a hybrid, which the plan you are talking about, it still wasn't feasible .

    What don't you understand about that?

    Even Sanders himself yesterday admitted on MSNBC that he wouldn't be able to get single payear through as his first order of business as president and said his plan was "a vision we must strive to."  That sounds like some who knows it's wishful thinking for the long term, but is not based on any reality.

    C'mon.  You're smarter than that.  If he can't even tell us how he's going to pay for it (for fear of scaring working people in Iowa), then how's he gonna stand up to the Republicans in Congress?

    Parent

    So...you didn't read the article I linked to, (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:23:32 AM EST
    did you?  Didn't think so.

    The reality is that people still need access to health care, they still need that care to be more affordable, and a majority of Americans still support a single-payer system.

    I don't think there's anything wrong with vision; I think it provides a way forward.  And Sanders, in case you weren't aware of this, very much believes that in an overall sense, we need to be working more from the ground up - with the people directing their representatives - rather than from the top down, which has kind of devolved to a "well, sorry, this is the best we can do and still keep the industry and the lobbyists happy" approach.

    He has broadly outlined how he would pay for it - you can find it in S. 1782 - but unless you think he's lying about how the costs would be allocated, I don't think the fine people of Iowa - or anywhere else -  making less than $150,000 have much to worry about.

    What we all currently have to worry about, though, is the continuing shift of costs onto our backs.  If a single payer plan means we have to pay a little more in tax, but we pay a whole lot less in health care costs, we win, don't we?  The dollars are all coming out of the same pockets, so as long as fewer of them are going out, we're ahead, aren't we?

    I am under no illusions that such a thing would be immediately doable, not just because the GOP would oppose it, but because the same private industry forces that were brought to bear the last time big changes were proposed will rain down on this like nothing anyone has ever seen.

    It just seems to me that if we can propose to cure cancer, we can cure the health system, too, or at least put it on a path to being viable, affordable and inclusive of all Americans.

    Or we can just give up.

    Parent

    I did read, thanks (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:37:24 AM EST
    Your logic is right.  It's nice to dream and to push for more, which is exactly why we need Sanders to stay in the Senate to keep pushing.  If he ever became president, that dream would die quickly  and would never be heard of again from him after election day because it wouldn't be politically viable.


    Parent
    I haven't given up on abolishing (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:48:33 AM EST
    the death penalty either, although I vote for people that do not advocate for that.

    Can we stop acting like thinking certain things cannot be accomplished over night or by the election of a certain candidate is the same thing as giving up?


    Parent

    Other costs (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 05:40:07 PM EST
    That Goolsbee doesn't address, are the costs associated with phasing most insurance companies out of business.  Sanders himself acknowledgrmes that more taxes will be needed to pay transition the hundreds of thousands of people that will lose their job:

    Economic changes, new technologies, and globalization have disrupted many industries. People in the United States have learned to live with fast-paced change, even if they don't like it. But rarely does the government shut down a major industry.

    That's basically what would happen to health insurance companies under Sanders' plan. Insurers would be relegated to selling supplemental coverage for services not covered under the single-payer plan.

    States could hire them to help administer coverage. But hundreds of thousands of jobs would disappear. Billions of dollars in shareholder equity would evaporate.

    Sanders has proposed a transition plan for workers displaced by the conversion to single-payer. That plan, too, would have to be paid for with taxes.



    Parent
    Speaking as a Clinton supporter, ... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 05:36:46 PM EST
    ... I echo Austan Goulsbee's applause of Bernie Sanders for not only proposing a single-payer system, but also for being upfront and responsible about discussing its costs.

    I'd note that Goulsbee says nary a word in his posts about the impact of health care insurance deductibles and co-payments upon middle-class pocketbooks. If we adopt a system of socialized medicine as presently exists in France, those out-of-pocket expenses are all but eliminated.

    My late cousin, who died of leukemia last November, was a registered nurse who had what was considered to be a very good health insurance plan. Nevertheless, upon her death she bequeathed to her family literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid medical expenses, most of which were incurred before she finally qualified for Medicare after being on Social Security Disability for the requisite two years. The total cost of her care over a four-year period was well over $2 million.

    So, in addition to losing his beloved wife, my cousin's husband now faces the very real prospect of having to declare personal bankruptcy at age 57. I would further add that he has two children in college, and another two still in high school and living at home.

    At some point in the future, each of us are eventually going to be confronted with the sort of health care issues and concerns faced by my late cousin and her family -- that is, if we haven't already had to do so.

    Therefore, if we're going to once again debate the nature of health care delivery in these United States and discuss alternative models, can we please get real here? Let's start with the fact that even with the enactment of the ACA, we're still treating health care as a commodity to be traded and bartered on the open market, rather than a right and benefit to be accorded to all of our citizens and residents.

    Yes, we have the best health care in the world, provided that you as an individual can afford it out of pocket when you actually need it. That's because we still have a system in place which is designed to allow carriers and providers alike to separate you from your assets to the maximum extent possible at a moment of real personal necessity, while simultaneously seeking to minimize to the same extent possible any expenditures they have to incur on your behalf.

    A truly socialized health care system means peace of mind during challenging times, when a family's attention should be focused like a laser beam on assisting their loved one's efforts at recovery and wellness, rather than arguing with insurance companies over the level of coverage and care to be provided (or not being provided, as the case may be), and / or pleading with providers and collection agencies alike to not further jeopardize their household finances.

    So, from my own perspective as a cancer survivor and speaking for myself only, I see the core questions as these:

    • What purpose is served by that additional layer of private bureaucracy provided by health insurance carriers, other than ultimately looking out for the company bottom line and protecting their shareholders' own immediate financial interests?

    • At what point in this debate do we finally realize and acknowledge the imminent peril posed by the commoditization of our peace of mind by those same insurance carriers?

    • At what point do we admit that the potential individual liability imposed upon us under our present health care delivery model far outweighs whatever personal and / or collective benefits we might derive from our increasingly regressive and antiquated federal tax laws?

    Anyway, BTD, that's my two cents. Aloha.

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 05:50:18 PM EST
    if we just mandated that insurance companies become non profits it would eliminate a lot of this pain. Tell them they're going to get out of paying a lot of taxes as a trade off. BCBS here in GA used to be non profit. When it became a for profit entity is when the disaster started to come down the pike.

    Parent
    Hear, hear (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Coral on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:03:21 AM EST
    That sums it up. I've always wondered how US politicians & taxpayers willing to pay anything for defense, but not willing to pay for protecting the lives of Americans within the country--through health care spending, public health spending, and other types of protections other than policing and prisons.

    Very militarized approach that doesn't really protect us against today's major threats.

    Parent

    Changing (none / 0) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:10:58 AM EST
    the minds of the voters is the key more so than politicians.

    Parent
    As if (none / 0) (#195)
    by sj on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:50:46 PM EST
    I concur with Howard Dean's assessment (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 07:37:44 PM EST
    Bernie Sanders is a great visionary and we should get to single payer some day, but he won't be able to make it happen.  Clinton is more practical and incremental and will work to improve the ACA. Dean is choosing the pragmatist.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 07:52:03 PM EST
    I pretty much agree but the main reason I think it's not going to happen anytime soon is that people are still struggling financially to come out of the recession and a pretty big tax hike right now is going to scare the dickens out of them. The majority aren't going to be thinking about getting healthcare. They're going to be thinking about how can I buy food or pay rent.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 07:56:55 PM EST
    It appears we never recovered, or at least, most of the country hasn't.

    Wall St Journal

    http://tinyurl.com/hbglcxo

    More than six years after the economic expansion began, 93% of counties in the U.S. have failed to fully recover from the blow they suffered during the recession.

    Nationwide, 214 counties, or 7% of 3,069, had recovered last year to prerecession levels on four indicators: total employment, the unemployment rate, size of the economy and home values, a study from the National Association of Counties released Tuesday found.

    The reality is slowing population growth and industry shifts mean some parts of the country will likely never fully recover. But by the end of last year, more counties had not recovered on any one of the four indicators, 16%, than had recovered on all of them.



    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 08:07:04 PM EST
    we are quite aware of that here in Ga. We have been in the top ten for unemployment for probably close to 7 years now. But the Republicans here keep getting voted in by the same people who are unemployed. Deal has let hospitals close down and people lose jobs. He's okay with it. The voters are okay with it. So there you go.

    Parent
    There just will not be the votes (none / 0) (#37)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 08:08:53 PM EST
    or support in the populace to do something so drastic, not so soon after the ACA. The time to go for medicare for all was in 2009, as most of us said at the time. I can see the people on the fence who reluctantly thought the ACA was worth a try saying hey, you told me this thing was a good deal...now you're switching it out on me again?

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 08:13:36 PM EST
    I don't see anyone trying to tackle something big on healthcare for quite a while. Some fixes on Obamacare certainly can be done and frankly I think maybe Medicare can be opened up.

    Parent
    Magical thinking (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 08:21:21 PM EST
    That we are going to get single layer.  Period.   Refighting the healthcare war from square one is exactly what republicans want.  Does anyone think the country or the congress is more "progressive" than it was in 2009?
    No one in touch with reality.
    The ACA is far from perfect.  But it's a beginning.  There's a lot more to do but starting from square one expecting single oayer as the outcome is a bad idea.  A very very bad idea.  
    It's IMO a empty campaign promise.  I don't believe Bernie believes it would ever happen.  At least in his lifetime.  Or if he does that honestly even more troubling.

    Parent
    I guess MoveOn (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 08:26:45 PM EST
    Decided who they were throwing in with.
     While I was typing that comment I got a Bernie Sanders MoveOn email.

    Parent
    Democratic Senators (none / 0) (#43)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 08:33:05 PM EST
    Have made their choice, mostly, and are pushing Warren to support Clinton as well

    Pressure grows on Elizabeth Warren to pick a side in Democratic race

    Washington (CNN)Sen. Elizabeth Warren is facing growing pressure from Senate Democrats to get behind Hillary Clinton as the former secretary of state suddenly finds herself struggling to keep pace with Bernie Sanders in early primary states.

    In interviews with CNN, Democratic senators are grumbling over Warren's refusal to pick a side, arguing that the populist liberal firebrand could help unite the party behind Clinton, whom they believe represents their only chance of winning the White House.

    "I think it would be important," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, said of Warren backing Clinton. "I think it would be helpful."

    Elizabeth Warren's career
    17 photos: Elizabeth Warren's career
    At least one senator, Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow, has asked Warren to endorse Clinton, according to other Democrats. Stabenow's office declined to comment.
    Warren, whose influence with core Democratic voters is rivaled only by Sanders himself, could provide the Clinton campaign the boost it needs after two polls suddenly showed her trailing to Sanders in Iowa and New Hampshire.

    "She's waiting way too long," said one Democratic senator who asked not to be named.

    Parent

    That comment (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 08:46:14 PM EST
    Was not intended to help CNN,MSNBC, FAUX et al whip up the idea that there is any chance whatever Bernie Sanders is going to be the democratic nominee.  I do not believe there is.
    IMO the fact he MAY WIN THE FIRST TWO STATES (but also may not) means exactly squat.
    I don't give much of a sh!t what Warren does.   I expect her to ride the fence as long as she can to stay the center of attention.  
    I'm glad Bernie has been in the race.  He has moved Clinon to the left and raised many important issues that needed more attention than they would have gotten without him.
    That is not to be confused with the idea I think he will or was ever going to be the democratic nominee.  Or do I think he should be.

    It was just to note MoveOn's continued slide into irrelevancy.

    Parent

    I am not (none / 0) (#46)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 08:56:25 PM EST
    Sold on the CLinton coronation, just yet.
    Especially after the reported Sanders surge in Iowa, the polling giving The Bern all demographics under 45.
    Certainly looks like both parties are really tired of politics as usual, and the usual politicians.
    Republicans have just had many more options, and a TV star to choose from.
    Hillary wisely cleared the field of most challengers, plus the Democratic losses in the House and Senate took out a large part of the Democratic bench.
    Although Van Jones coming out today praising the Sanders campaign (not endorsing) ....just maybe, The Bern...down South.
    Former Obama advisor and CNN contributor Van Jones said Tuesday that we are witnessing a "full-on rebellion" within the Democratic Party against Hillary Clinton, predicting that Bernie Sanders would win the first two primary states.

    Jones made the comments after New Day host Alisyn Camerota pointed out that polls show Clinton possibly losing in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Jones urged restraint, pointing out that Bill Clinton also lost New Hampshire and Iowa in his 1992 presidential run and went on to win.

    "But something extraordinary is happening here; there is a full-on rebellion at the grassroots level of the Democratic Party," he said. "MoveOn.org, or biggest progressive organization, endorsed Bernie Sanders last night. Overwhelmingly, 67%."

    Parent

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:01:25 PM EST
    Funny you are parroting both media memes - that there is a "coronation" under way AND she is losing.

    Congratulations had not seen them used in the same paragraph.

    Parent

    Nah (none / 0) (#53)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:04:25 PM EST
    Just losing in NH, trending poorly in Iowa.

    Coronation, I thought that was common knowledge.

    Van Jones pronouncement was unexpected though.

    His words, not mine

    "But something extraordinary is happening here; there is a full-on rebellion at the grassroots level of the Democratic Party," he said.

    Parent

    Unexpected enough (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:08:18 PM EST
    That you are talking about him.  And lots of other people.  Not that I think that played a part in his saying what he said or anything.

    Parent
    It does not look like a coronation to me (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 07:07:18 AM EST
    All sides are treating it as a serious primary season, as well they should.

    Parent
    Wake me (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 08:59:26 PM EST
    When wins a southern state

    Parent
    Or (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:04:05 PM EST
    a western state.

    Parent
    Or a big state (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:23:14 PM EST
    New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, California--all won by Hillary in 2008.

    No one, no one can compete with Hillary for Latino vote.  I know, as an Obama supporter I watched Hillary roll up 2-1 victories among Latinos in 2008 routinely versus Obama....

    Parent

    Shhhh (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:26:30 PM EST
    You are harshing Trevor's mellow

    Parent
    A crystalizing question (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:39:47 PM EST
    for me was what someone asked Bernie last night:  "Can you imagine yourself giving the State of the Union next year?"

    I can't.

    Bernie is a nice man of progressive ideas....I don't see him as head of state, let alone someone who can win a fight against the GOP.

     

    Parent

    The funny thing is (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:48:48 PM EST
    And please don't accuse me of comparing them,  I wonder if he OR Donald ever thought they would get this far.   I think he started it for all the right reasons.  
    But it's easy to believe when the media is telling you 100 times a day you could be the nominee and you are surrounded  sycophants it might get a bit heady.
    I agree.  He's a nice man.  A hero in fact.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 10:05:13 PM EST
    I think both are surprised they got this far...

    Donald said when he first got in the race that he thought he had a 20% chances of winning....

    Parent

    I think that means nothing. (none / 0) (#156)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:12:32 AM EST
    Just an observation. But, I've seen at least a dozen Bernie bumper stickers in my area (Susquehanna Valley) of PA. Zero Clinton stickers.

    Parent
    Nobody (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:02:24 PM EST
    cares about endorsements from other politicians. Warren was the first one to jump on the Ready for Hillary train. She'll endorse the nominee. Good grief you are a regular drama queen always trying to create some sort of drama or conspiracy.

    Parent
    Do you have a link to support (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 10:11:15 PM EST
    your claim that Elizabeth Warren was the first to jump on the Ready for Hillary train. Some actual statement From Sen. Warren that she jumped on the ready for Hillary train.

    Parent
    It was (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 07:33:58 AM EST
    on the Ready for Hillary site which has now been taken down and Warren was encouraging her to run. Like everybody else that was.

    Parent
    Warrens endorsement (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:04:47 PM EST
    Would help.  And be a good thing.  It's not existential.

    Parent
    It was pretty funny (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:10:08 PM EST
    How fast Crazy Uncle Joe walked back his feeing the Bern.
    Not even a complete news cycle.   Like pm to am.

    Parent
    I didn't know (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:16:41 PM EST
    that but it sure is funny.

    A friend has contacted some people in Iowa and say the state is literally crawling with Hillary supporters and that the energy is just amazing. However do not expect that to be reported by the news media.

    Parent

    Lol (none / 0) (#57)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:10:56 PM EST
    If Liz Warren endorsed The Bern,

    The ground would shake and rumble

    That would be a BIG endorsement,

    And if she followed it up with , I will run on the ticket.

    You are correct, most endorsements are worthless, but not from Liz

    Parent

    "I would run on the ticket." (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:48:04 PM EST
    A foolproof way to snag the VP nod.

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:13:20 PM EST
    Why hasn't she done it?  Times a wastin

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#61)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:15:23 PM EST
    She is staying out of it.

    I also think she favors The Bern....

    But the Clintons don't get mad, they get even

    Parent

    That comment is crazy (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:21:14 PM EST
    On so many levels.

    Let me just say this, if she endorsed Sanders, which who knows-she might, she would not piss off just the Clintons.
    That breathless CNN thing was right about one thing.  Her "colleagues" would be very unhappy.

    Parent

    Clintons keep a hit list (none / 0) (#70)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:28:21 PM EST
    The Clinton friends are very loyal, and rewarded.
    And they remember the enemies. She lined up those Senators , yea, her colleagues would be unhappy, cuz The Bern might be the one doling out the favors.
    All politics.


    For Hillary, whose loss was of course not the end of her political career, the spreadsheet was a necessity of modern political warfare, an improvement on what old-school politicians called a "favor file." It meant that when asks rolled in, she and Bill would have at their fingertips all the information needed to make a quick decision--including extenuating, mitigating and amplifying factors--so that friends could be rewarded and enemies punished.



    Parent
    This sounds melodramatic (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:31:48 PM EST
    Where is the link? (Please not in tinyurl)

    Parent
    POlitico (none / 0) (#76)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:33:55 PM EST
    magazine article from 2014.
    I only do tiny's
    Sorry.
    Google hillary hit list, it should show up

    Parent
    OH well (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:36:18 PM EST
    If it was in Tiger Beat On The Potomac it MUST be true!

    Parent
    Sounds (none / 0) (#86)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:44:09 PM EST
    More like the River Denial rather than Potomac,

    Sounds like if it might be bad news, it can't be true.

    I read them, and judge accordingly.

    A former President, with a Rolodex on who to reward, and who to punish, nah, never happen. Too Nixonian for any Democrat to do

    Parent

    You're (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:45:31 PM EST
    hysterical. You say "everybody does it" but then you say well, because the Clintons....

    Parent
    Oh. Politico. (none / 0) (#78)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:37:14 PM EST
    Well, in that case, thanks but no thanks. Beltway pundits with a history of thirsting for Democratic--particularly Clinton--blood.

    Parent
    They also kill people (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:32:01 PM EST
    Everyone knows this.

    Just ask Vince Vaugn, or Stephen Foster or whatever his name was.

    Parent

    Vince Foster (none / 0) (#83)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:40:00 PM EST
    Although I hear Vince Vaughn may be on that list now as well,

    Along with Kurt Russell

    Surprised you never heard of it, thought the Clinton enemy list was well known.

    Most politicians have a list, who to reward, and not.

    But most politicians have never had a husband President for 87 years, and then spend 6 years as a Senator, 4 more as SOS. And then potentially another 87 as President. Your list for rewards and  enemies can get quite extensive

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:15:08 PM EST
    trying to create drama where there is none. Isn't there enough insanity going on on the GOP to satisfy your love of drama for centuries?

    Parent
    I never expected (none / 0) (#63)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:18:46 PM EST
    The Democrats to have a race, at all.

    So this is surprising. And the Van Jones comment is very surprising.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:27:48 PM EST
    today it's a race. The day before it wasn't and the day before that it was.

    You need to read more about Van Jones to find what he is saying or doing is not surprising.

    And Republicans ran a smear campaign against the guy and now they are embracing him. You guys make me laugh my head off.

    Parent

    Who embraced him? (none / 0) (#72)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:30:12 PM EST
    You have to differentiate between quoting someone, and embracing them.
    I was just shocked, knowing his allegiance to Obama, and Democrats, that he would come out and say that.
    No, there was no Van Jones hug inherent in that comment

    Parent
    He has (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:37:19 PM EST
    no allegiance to Obama. Obama fired him in case you don't remember. So no, it is not surprising what he is saying.

    And I could bore you with a list of all the endorsements Hillary got this week but I won't.

    Parent

    Van Jones is just a guy (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:28:42 PM EST
    Let's see if the press starts to scrutinize Bernie.....

    At some point, Bernie will get real scrutiny.   The GOP is laying off hoping he becomes the nominee.....

    Parent

    He actually (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:37:53 PM EST
    is getting a whole lot of scrutiny today. It seems to have started.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:39:35 PM EST
    They won't.  If he got the nomination, THEN they would.   But no, sorry.  They won't.

    Parent
    The press can be so (none / 0) (#85)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:43:13 PM EST
    subject to fads and unthinking herd mentality.....

    And they are the Fourth Estate, Guardians of Democracy?

    Parent

    At the moment the press (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:50:49 PM EST
    is consumed with Bowie-mania.

    Parent
    The one thing the press has done (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:56:57 PM EST
    In eons that I fully approve of.  I have been very surprised by the coverage.  And pleased and happy.


    Parent
    No, I'm not (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:44:21 PM EST
    talking about the GOP. I'm talking about reporters actually asking questions like about tax increases etc.

    Parent
    Profit motive kills people (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by kdm251 on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:27:46 PM EST
    Healthcare econoomics works very differently than most most markets, Shannon Brownlee wrote a book called over treated that explained the situation very well, essentially there is no incentive for doctors not to overtreat patients, and most Americans seem to judge healthcare by how much of it they consume rather than if they have good health or not.  A single payer system might eliminate much of the profit motive and get doctors and patients to look at other measurements of "success" in healthcare.

    Trying to look at it in a dollars and sense fashion seems like an attempt to confuse and scare people rather than deal with the issue

    Yeps - regardless of how insurance is (none / 0) (#108)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 07:05:34 AM EST
    obtained - through medicare or private insurers - if treatment fees are not brought under control there are still gong to be skyrocketing costs.  

    Parent
    It's interesting that, for someone deemed (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:40:30 PM EST
    not to have snowball's chance of winning much of anything, much less the nomination, people here seem awfully threatened by him.  To the point where they can't even objectively discuss single-payer.

    Many of these are the same people who argued against Obama's industry-written/bargained plan that took 5 years to even go live.

    I don't get the belittling of Sanders.  He's the reason Hillary Clinton has inched to the left - he may be the only thing keeping her there.  Although as this thing heats up, I sense her reverting to where she's most comfortable - and that's not to the left.

    I get that it's very important to keep Republicans out of the WH, but ripping Sanders, closing your eyes to the dynamics, isn't helping.

    It's a good thing Sanders isn't (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 11:05:33 AM EST
    As sensitive as some of his supporters are :)

    Parent
    My problem (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:50:15 PM EST
    with the whole ACA thing was that Obama wouldn't even hear different opinions on health care. he should have let the single payer people in to sit at the table. If they couldn't sell what they had then that's that. But they were not heard nor given any relevance. So therefore I understand why people are still talking about it.

    You know there's been a ton of slings and barbs thrown at Hillary. It is just the way it goes.

    Parent

    I do feel threatened by the Bern (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 09:50:17 PM EST
    because he could win the nomination.  I think that would be George McGovern all over again.  At best Dukakis....

    Bernie has a lot of nice ideas....but no track record of winning fights....or even really getting in a fight.

    He is a nice professor.  He doesn't know how to throw a punch, and what he has faced so far has shown he can't take one either:  The BLM took him by surprise....and on guns he really has been left jaw agape....

    Four weeks of Trump style mockery would probably be enough to finish him. No, my liberal, idealistic friends, people and voters have not changed all that much to fully appreciate the Bern and eschew "nasty" politics...    

    Parent

    For Clinton, but agree with Sanders (none / 0) (#143)
    by Coral on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:52:21 AM EST
    on lots. Don't know details of his single-payer proposal, but agree attacking him on that basis not good for progressive agenda.

    I'd love to see proposal for public option or Medicare buy-in option added to ACA as a way to get from here to there.

    Parent

    Out-of-pocket costs with ACA (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Coral on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:20:58 AM EST
    May be very difficult to aggregate in any meaningful way. But when assessing the impact of replacing ACA with single-payer, they are of utmost importance.

    If you purchase care through the exchanges, the deductibles on even the best plans are several thousand a year. Narrow networks mean that many people find that they cannot access care they need without going outside network. Then they are not covered at all.

    The question of pass-through of savings from employers could be addressed by having employers pay a portion of the tax on workers, as is the case with Social Security now.

    My sense is that if you could pass a single-payer plan (absolutely impossible given current politics), it would be better than the hodgepodge we have now.

    But for immediate future, the best option is to focus on improving ACA -- regulating wider networks, lower deductibles, more coverage as part of basic care. Major complaint I see is that you are paying thousands a year for mandated premiums and getting nothing for it, other than 1 or 2 doc visits a year.

    The networks (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:23:50 AM EST
    are the real problem with the ACA as I understand it.

    Parent
    I have BCBS (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:43:22 AM EST
    There has never been a question of a doctor "out of my network".  Is this a regional thing?  
    Btw. Have used the coverage a lot with two fairly major episodes that include specialists  and a few smaller ones.

    Also as far as choices getting smaller, it was just the opposite here.  The choices more than tripled from lady year.

    Parent

    Probably (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:49:25 AM EST
    regional. All I can speak of here in GA. If you live in Metro Atlanta you have a plethora of choices. The rural areas not so much but then the rural areas never have had a lot of choices even before Obamacare.

    Part of the problem here is the legislature is held hostage by the AMA. The rural areas would be fine to be serviced by nurse practioners etc but the legislature will not approve them for writing prescriptions past a few basic medicines. And then doctors do not want to go to rural areas because in their opinion they do not make enough money there. Then you add all that in with rural hospitals closing in GA and it adds up to what we have now.

    Parent

    Yes in Houston... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:18:17 AM EST
    ...there is a lot of networks and doctors/hospitals jump and in an out continuously.  I think that is a big city thing in that there are some networks specific to certain regions in the handbook we receive for all employees.  My feeling is that when they have a billing dispute, they just stop taking that insurance, aka leave the network.  While I don't really know, it happens so often that seems like the only logical reason.

    Good example.
    A co-worker a couple of years ago has pulled or tore a ligament in his arm by of all things from being a pallbearer.  Anyways he needed surgery, lined up everything and made sure everyone was in his network.  Has the surgery and turns out the doctor or the hospital left the network a day before the surgery so he got saddled with a very large bill.  He tried for a couple weeks to get it cleared up, no go.  Fortunately for us, we have a full time person whose only task is clearing up crap like this with insurance.  It eventually got paid, but only because of that person.  She has a lot of influence in regards to the insurance companies in that she is also part of the team that recommends who the company uses as a provider in future years.

    For me, it feels like a crap shoot.  I absolutely can't stand insurance, so when a bill goes unpaid my tendency is just to pay it rather than deal with the what to me is a vast nightmare of people who have 1001 reason why they won't pay.  But it's generally for the tests, either the lab isn't in the network or they no longer take the insurance, so it's never anything substantial so far.

    I think it should be illegal to make people sign forms stating they are liable for all costs, who cannot possibly know who is going to pull out of what and how it relates to the person signing these forms.  Of all consumer laws that protect customers, that is a huge gap, it's like going to a mechanic and signing a form that says while I have a warranty, I agree that no matter what they do or how works on the car, I am liable for all costs.  It's absurd and it's what allows these networks to remain in a permanent state of fluidity where decisions about your liability are made without notification.

    I mean seriously, how am I liable when I go to my in network doctor for tests and they send them to the lab that is not in my network, but I am because in order to get treatment, I have to sign the GD form.  To me they should validate if my insurance is going to excepted by the third party they choose and if it they choose not to, it's their liability, not mine.

    Parent

    Rural hospitals (none / 0) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:54:54 AM EST
    Are closing in GA because of the refusal to accept the Medicaid expansion.  This has been extensively reported.  I suspect that is the root of many ACAproblems.  Hardly something the law can be blamed for.

    I live in a more rural area than anything near Atlanta.  I lived in Atkanta for three years.  There's plenty of hospitals doctors and choices here.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:58:07 AM EST
    Deal decided that having them close was okay. Actually I think he wanted them to close so then he could blame Obamacare for it happening.

    But since the only thing available to rural Georgians is one plan it's a problem.

    Parent

    I just checked healthcare dot gov (none / 0) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:19:20 AM EST
    For a rural county in GA.  with an income of 18000 a year.

    There are multiple plans.  I saw three different companies including BCBS offering multiple plans on the first of three pages of companies.

    Parent

    Here's (none / 0) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:23:48 AM EST
    a link

    Nit sure it will work without going through the process but it's easy to see the number of plans in a specific area.  You can skip all questions.

    Parent

    Okay. (none / 0) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:53:22 AM EST
    It's changed since the last time I checked. At one time southwest GA was only being offered plans one gold, one silver and one bronze and only by BCBS.

    Parent
    I have the silver (none / 0) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 11:04:51 AM EST
    BCBS plan. I had it last year.  It worked fine.

    Parent
    Definitely regional (none / 0) (#145)
    by Coral on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:56:32 AM EST
    If you are in NYC area, for example many plans, many narrow networks, and many docs who won't take ANY plans offered on the exchanges.

    In NH, very few plans available and the networks are wider.

    Both places, deductibles very high. In NH, with very low income population, that precludes health care unless you are covered by recently enacted Medicaid option.

    Parent

    The crux (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:59:25 AM EST
    of the problem is leaving it to states.

    Parent
    It makes no sense that NY. (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:00:35 AM EST
    Would make t more difficult than AR.  Why would that possibly be true?

    Parent
    it might be something as simple as (none / 0) (#158)
    by CST on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:17:54 AM EST
    more competition.  You have more options, and so the doctors/hostpitals/health plans can pick and choose each other as well.

    Parent
    See my comment (none / 0) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:20:17 AM EST
    On GA plans

    Parent
    I was referring more to (none / 0) (#162)
    by CST on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:23:25 AM EST
    NYC and other big cities that are having these problems.

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:25:22 AM EST
    In rural no where I have more options than NY?

    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#166)
    by CST on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:27:38 AM EST
    In rural nowhere your fewer options work seamlessly together.  In NYC, you need specific insurance for specific doctors and hospitals because you have so many options but none of them work with each other, because they pick and choose each other too.

    Parent
    There are doctors (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:32:47 AM EST
    Or institutions that do not accept Blue Cross Blue Shield?  Really.  That's surprises me.

    Parent
    Not all (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by CST on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:52:16 AM EST
    Blue cross plans are created equal.  I would also assume that not everyone has Blue Cross Blue Shield.  And while it might be available on the exchange, if your employer is paying for part of your insurance through work, my sense is you will be staying with them.  That's probably when you are more likely to run into these kinds of problems.

    There are certainly doctors who don't take medicaid/medicare, or whatever, because they don't have to.

    Parent

    I thought we were (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 11:01:58 AM EST
    Talking about the ACA.  You are correct.  I have found I have better and more reliable coverage than some relatives who have employer insurance.  That s a different issue.  
    One that needs to be addressed.  I'm talking about the ACA.
    I would bet however that all plans available on the exchange have similar coverage.  If someone has coverage through the exchange that is not doing these things I suggest switching to BCBS.  I have found them to do exactly what they say they will do.  I also suspect it's the most widely available company on the exchanges.

    Also a lot f this stuff is a friend of a friend or my neighbors cousin etc etc.  I use this.  I know how it works.

    Parent

    I think a lot (none / 0) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 11:05:42 AM EST
    of people do not understand insurance. They look on what doctors are on BCBS and just assume that that means all BCBS plans like my friend in Ohio I mentioned.

    Parent
    the linked article (none / 0) (#177)
    by CST on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 11:09:31 AM EST
    Is specifically talking about changes made to the blue cross plan offered on the exchange in Illinois.

    Parent
    I read it (none / 0) (#181)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 11:28:26 AM EST
    It's talking about possible changes to a specific popular plan and that people would be automatically enrolled n a plan with different coverage.
    First there are dozens of plans.  I'm fairly confident, without confirming it, that a plan could be found that would offer the same coverage.  And even if not 78 hospitals were included.  Not a bad choice.

    Second anyone who allows themselves to be "automatically enrolled" is an idiot.  I started getting calls in the summer from the ACA warning about allowing that to happen.  It's a terrible idea for several reasons.  The main being it assumes the company has your best interest at heart.  

    I made that mistake in the first reenrollment year.  It more than doubled my premium for the same coverage I could get for exactly the same price by enrolling myself through the website.  When I learned that I pitched a fit, reenrollment and ended up in a six month battle with BCBS that I  eventually won with the help of the exchange and the AR insurance commissioner.


    Parent

    I will (none / 0) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:54:37 AM EST
    have to tell you that a friend of mine in Columbus, Ohio, had BCBS, a plan off of the exchange, and while her doctor took BCBS they would not take the BCBS plan she had off of the exchange.

    Parent
    But that's not what Sanders' plan does. (none / 0) (#180)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 11:25:30 AM EST
    I see you have still not done any further reading or research on this.

    The federal government would collect and distribute all funds to the states for the operation of the state programs to pay for the covered services. Budget increases would be limited to the rate of growth of the gross domestic product.  Each state's budget for administrative expenses would be capped at three percent.

    Each state would have the choice to administer its own program or have the federal Board administer it.  The state program could negotiate with providers and consult with its advisory boards to allocate funds.  The state program could also contract with private companies to provide administrative functions, as Medicare currently does through its administrative regions.  State programs could negotiate with providers to pay outpatient facilities and individual practitioners on a capitated, salaried, or other prospective basis or on a fee-for service basis according to a rate schedule.  Rates would be designed to incentivize primary and preventive care while maintaining a global budget, bringing provider, patients, and all stakeholders to the table to best determine value and reimbursement.

    Finally, the Program also relieves businesses from the heavy administrative burdens of providing health care coverage, puts all businesses on an even playing field in terms of healthcare coverage, and increases the competitiveness of American companies in the global marketplace.  Every other industrialized nation has been able to use the power of a public authority to provide universal health care.

    Given the ease with which this information is available, I have no idea why you keep insisting on misrepresenting what Sanders has proposed.

    Oh, wait...I guess it's the whole "well, Clinton said..." thing.  Or, I know, you have a friend somewhere who heard something.

    Okay, then.

    Parent

    Here (none / 0) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 11:36:32 AM EST
    from your link:

    The federal government would collect and distribute all funds to the states for the operation of the state programs to pay for the covered services.

    It relies heavily on people like Nathan Deal and our insurance commissioner who made up fake stories about Obamacare.

    To me the last paragraph is the best selling point of the plan. The implementation though is a completely different story after what we have gone through with the Medicaid expansion.

    I believe it has to be a federal program just like Medicare to have any punch and the states need to be left out of it.

    Parent

    But it is a federal program. (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 12:01:58 PM EST
    Perhaps you should have read the entire synopsis and not just the excerpt I posted:

    The cornerstones of the Program will be fixed, annual, and global budgets, public accountability, measures of quality based on outcomes data designed by providers and patients, a national data-collection system with uniform reporting by all providers, and a progressive financing system.  It will provide universal coverage, benefits emphasizing primary and preventive care, and free choice of providers.  Inpatient services, long term care, a broad range of services for mental illness and substance abuse, and care coordination services will also be covered.

    A seven-member national board (the Board) appointed by the President will establish a national health budget specifying the total federal and state expenditures to be made for covered health care services. The Board will work together with similar boards in each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia to administer the Program.

    I am not in love with the states administering the plan under the auspices and guidance of a national board; I just think it's too heavy on the administrative side.  I much prefer the Conyers HR 676 plan.

    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 12:36:50 PM EST
    setting up a board is great but that still doesn't mean that people in a state like Georgia will get anything. Nathan Deal and a lot of other governors have left money on the table saying "we can't afford it" in the future. It would be tied up in court for eons and with the supreme court decision on Medicaid they could use that as a precedent to not go along with any of this.

    Parent
    In which case, it would be taken out (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 01:05:37 PM EST
    of their hands and administered by the feds.  If stupid GOP governors don't want to administer the plan in their states, they don't have to - but they aren't going to be block-granted money and left to make their own decisions about what to pay and not pay for.

    And "we can't afford it" isn't going to be an excuse, because the states won't be using state dollars to pay for it.

    Parent

    That worked so well (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 01:08:56 PM EST
    With the Medicaid expansion.

    Parent
    That's (none / 0) (#194)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 01:17:30 PM EST
    pretty much my point.

    Parent
    Lots of the word "could" in there (none / 0) (#184)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 11:40:16 AM EST
    The state COULD negotiate...the state COULD run...

    Between thone and assuming all those businesses are going to give the workers  higher wages on what they save by not paying insurance premiums....lots of magical thinking  going on...

    Parent

    Larger IF (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 12:22:31 PM EST
    if doctors and hospitals go along w/the cuts to their revenues.....

    Parent
    Is Blue Criss Blue Shield (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:59:26 AM EST
    Not offered on the exchanges?   That would seem incredible to me.

    Parent
    Plans differ according to market (none / 0) (#152)
    by Coral on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:06:25 AM EST
    even if offered by same company.

    Parent
    I would be very net rested to know (none / 0) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:10:56 AM EST
    Exactly where this is
    Exactly what plane they have
    Exactly what the deductible is
    Exactly what the premium is.


    Parent
    Deductibles (none / 0) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:03:56 AM EST
    Depend on the plan you get.

    I simply don't believe that the costs and a ailiblity would be that different than the national exchange I use.  I am just above the line for getting food stamps.  My insurance is extremely affordable.  It did increase  this year from last.  14 bucks.

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:07:55 AM EST
    That is not the Medicaid expansion.  My income is above that that is Blue Cross Blue Shield.   It has been very good coverage.  


    Parent
    Good discussion (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Coral on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:13:36 AM EST
    Can't wait for Hillary/Bernie wars to be over. Voting begins soon, and then we shall see.

    Most worried about who will be GOP nominee. For sure they wouldn't do anything to improve health care situation.

    lol; I skipped 98% (none / 0) (#197)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:39:26 AM EST
    I read a few comments, watched the rage build and couldn't stand watching my friends yell at each other.  So I scrolled down here.

    Parent
    In Hillary's defense of Chelsea's comments . . . (5.00 / 4) (#201)
    by markpkessinger on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:39:35 PM EST
    . . . she made the point that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was the signature achievement of the Obama Presidency, and one of the major achievements of the Democratic Party.  And she's right, so far as that goes.  I was very pleased when the ACA passed also.  That said, however, the ACA is FAR from perfect.  For those of us who live with chronic diseases (I am a diabetic), our out-of-pocket costs from larger co-pays and higher deductibles have shot up significantly.  I am a diabetic, and as such I need to monitor my health closely on an ongoing basis.  That means testing my blood glucose 4 times a day (and the test strips cost about $1.50 each, so there's $6/day, every day.  And there's the cost of the medications, for which the co-pay percentage has gone up considerably since the ACA was enacted.

    Fortunately, I have fairly decent insurance through my employer.  But for those who must rely on the exchanges, it can be particularly tough -- especially if you don't earn a lot of money and are trying to manage a chronic disease.  The so-called "bronze" plans, which poorer folks might be able to afford, have enormously high deductibles and co-pays, and offer little by way of the kind of ongoing health maintenance coverage a person with a chronic condition needs.  And the ones that do offer that kind of coverage, as well as lower deductibles and co-pays, carry a premium that these folks likely won't be able to afford.

    Sure, the ACA was a major achievement of the Democratic Party.  I supported it because it is certainly better, overall, than the private insurance free-for-all that existed before it was enacted.  But is not, and should not be, considered as some kind of sacred cow that cannot be touched.

    Hillary went on to imply that by even opening the debate about single-payer, Sanders was somehow putting the ACA (and Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP) at risk.  That's utter nonsense.  If Sanders pushes for single-payer and is unable to get it passed, then the present system (i.e., the ACA) remains intact.

    This (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 03:03:02 PM EST
    The Sanders plan counts on the employers then passing all of that savings though to their employees in the form of higher wages (and not keeping part of it as higher profits).

    Assumes a whole lotta trust that I think is misguided.

    lol - or it could be distributed in the form (none / 0) (#2)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 03:09:37 PM EST
    of executive bonuses!  

    Parent
    Yeah...that's not going to happen. (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 07:39:35 PM EST
    Aligns with something I posted (none / 0) (#5)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 03:49:05 PM EST
    yesterday.  Regarding Bernie being beholden to independents and the impact to his legislative agenda should significant numbers move to him.  The reality of "there's gold in them thar hills" is not always as rosey as predicted.

    You never addressed the fact that (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 05:14:04 PM EST
    Sanders' message has been undeniably liberal, so if he is getting support from independents, it isn't because they think he's going to morph into a conservative.

    Independents run the gamut from conservative to liberal; independents who support Sanders do so because his positions align with theirs.

    Parent

    If independents run the gamut (none / 0) (#23)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 06:30:19 PM EST
    It seems to me my point is still valid. Unless you know from what side of the spectrum the independents that are supporting Sanders come from.

    Parent
    If you were a conservative independent, (none / 0) (#31)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 07:50:41 PM EST
    would you support Sanders?

    Can you tell me why it is unreasonable to conclude that independents who support Sanders are doing so for the same reason anyone supports a candidate, that what he supports aligns with what they want?

    What perhaps is worth noting is that Clinton isn't getting the same level of support from independents as Sanders.  If she is the nominee, will they shift to her?  Better hope so, but in the meantime, might be worth trying to figure out why the very-liberal Sanders has more appeal to independents than the centrist Clinton.

    Parent

    I followed your (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 05:51:29 PM EST
    twitter feed on this BTD and some good discussion has come of it for sure.

    Heh (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 05:59:44 PM EST
    I must have missed it.

    I just go a lot of insults from Sanders folks.

    Parent

    Many of them (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 06:18:29 PM EST
    Remind me if Obama supporters circa 2008.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 06:18:44 PM EST
    I missed the insults then but it brought up some conversation and some points that I had not thought about. But not surprised about the insults.

    Parent
    I demand a mean tweets podcast! (none / 0) (#176)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 11:09:01 AM EST
    Youtubing it would be even better

    Parent
    Bottom 50% don't pay income tax (none / 0) (#25)
    by thomas rogan on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 07:09:21 PM EST
    The single payor would be paid for by federal income taxes.  The plain fact is that the bottom 50% of earners pay about 3% of all income taxes.  If single payor replaced medicare and repealed the 1.65% tax that ALL people pay, so much the better.

    Nope 6.7 percent payroll tax (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 07:16:23 PM EST
    Great Analysis Above (none / 0) (#102)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 01:31:46 AM EST
    Clinton is just trying to .... well I wish Clinton would stop the sort of messenging that can be easily twisted by people, and misrepresented.... And just make the obvious point that's being made above... Simply put:  Bernie himself knows he can't do what he's proposing so as a bit of an overton window gesture it's a very nice visionary thing....

    But...  And this is an important point, can you advertise a VISION as a election campaign PROMISE?   If I was running for president I could say I believe in the income tax brackets that we had during the second world war but if I advertised that was my plan, well, even if that's a lovely vision and it makes a 10% increase in tax rates the least extreme plane, here's the thing I'm lying if I call that a plan or a promise.  I know I can't do it and yet I'm looking at you square in the eye and telling you I will.

    It's lying if you say you're planning/promising to do something you know you can't do.

    But let's be clear....

    It's not lying if you say you believe in something you know you can't do.  That's visionary.

    Please tell me what part of Hillary's (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 01:46:59 AM EST
    health care plan can she actually get done and how will she get it done.

    Parent
    Not why I posted that (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:03:04 AM EST
    Ive given up on the primary, the media hates Clintons it's over.  Only saying that cause these discussions are reduced to candidate fan wars.... My post wasn't about that.

     One thing any president can do, even president Bernie, even with a divided congress is implement legislation to reduce the price of prescription drugs and that would have a pretty significant positive impact on people with fixed incomes.  Id like to see republican law makers tell their constituents why they need to have super high priced prescription drugs.  

    Parent

    So according to you (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 07:35:57 AM EST
    "the media hates Clintons it's over."

    That sounds like you are predicting that Sanders will win the nomination. That is interesting.

    But back to the subject of health care plans that each of the candidates are proposing. If in your opinion, the only thing either candidate can accomplish is to reduce the price of drugs, then since Hillary calls her proposals a health care plan according to your previous criteria she is also lying about all the other components that are contained in her plan.

    IMO, your comment contained a very distinct double standard. All candidates call the policies that they advocate plans. They come out with a health care plan, an economic plan etc. You set a standard for Sanders for truth telling and not for Hillary.

    Parent

    One thing was asked for (none / 0) (#114)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 07:55:46 AM EST
    I provided one example.  Not going to take the time to go point by point, I think Clinton's proposals are doable plans because they are logical extensions of what Obama already accomplished.  And I think Clinton thinks that too.  lowering prices on prescription drugs was one thing, you had asked for one thing. Ok.

    And I also think her proposals will provide great benefits to people.

    Parent

    If she thinks she has a way to improve (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:15:16 AM EST
    and expand the ACA, let's hear about that, so we can judge which plan or approach is better - that would be infinitely more honest than what Clinton is actually doing, which is sliming Sanders' ideas by falsely representing what those ideas are.

    "His plan would take Medicare and Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program and the Affordable Care Act health care insurance and private employer health insurance and he would take that all together and send health insurance to the states, turning over your and my health insurance to governors," Clinton said. "We had enough of a fight to get to the Affordable Care Act. So I don't want to rip it up and start over."

    Clinton's daughter Chelsea got in on the act, too, in an even worse manner, claiming that Sanders wants to "dismantle Obamacare." She said: "I worry if we give Republicans Democratic permission to do that, we'll go back to an era, before we had the Affordable Care Act, that would strip millions and millions and millions of people off their health insurance."

    [...]

    Chelsea Clinton's attack is even worse, making it sound as if Sanders is like the Republicans who call to "repeal and replace" Obamacare without actually drafting a "replace" plan. As former Obama administration adviser David Axelrod said on CNN last night, "Bernie Sanders is proposing single-payer, universal healthcare. You can hardly say he is trying to take health care away from anyone or retreat from Obamacare. He's trying to exceed it. And so it's not really an honest attack."

    But Hillary Clinton doubled down on her daughter's words on Wednesday, saying on "Good Morning America" that Sanders would "take everything we currently know as health care, Medicare, Medicaid, the CHIP Program, private insurance, now of the Affordable Care Act, and roll it together." As she knows, since she is well-versed in health care policy, that's a feature, not a bug of single-payer; the alphabet soup of insurance programs is one of things that makes American health care so confusing and inefficient. Instead of attacking the idea on the merits, she's choosing to make it seem as if Sanders has a callous disregard for people losing health insurance.

    Maybe Clinton is still running away from the disaster her own efforts on a new health system were, I don't know; I just find it disturbing that she is more or less playing the role Republicans usually do, tearing apart an idea that something like 60% of all Americans support.

    It makes no sense to me, and it frankly ticks me off that who even knows if she really believes the nonsense she's putting out there, or if this is just Hillary willing to say anything to change the direction of the polling.  But I find it utterly craven that she is willing to damage the future of a better health system - and alienate millions of single-payer and Sanders supporters she is going to need if she is the nominee - because of a few polls.

    Parent

    Bernie will win (none / 0) (#125)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:39:09 AM EST
    I see campaign rhetoric like "Hillary's disasters" and we know what that's about it's all good, you're a good soldier.  Soldier on.

    Parent
    Or (none / 0) (#127)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:53:04 AM EST
    Chelsea is actually correct.  Implementing a single payer plan, by definition will dismantle the ACA, CHIP, and Medicare plans and replace it with a brand new plan.

    He's already gotten Two Pinocchios for the tap dancing.

    Sanders has said repeatedly that he wants to build on the health-care system created under the Affordable Care Act and to expand it to provide health insurance regardless of income or age. It's clear that the provision in his bill to "repeal" ACA state exchanges was not just for the sake of repealing the law, in the way critics who oppose passage of ACA use the term "repeal."

    But the language of his legislation -- all three times he introduced it -- clearly stated that existing federal programs would be replaced with a new program that he sought to create. It wouldn't simply increase current levels of coverage but would create a whole new health insurance system with new quality-control methods, a new standards board, and more.

    We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios. Sanders makes it sound as if he would tack on some additional provisions or coverage to ACA -- when, in reality, his new single-payer health system would replace the ACA and all other existing federal coverage. He employs political wordsmithing by calling the criticism of his bill "old-fashioned political gimmickry." However, he did "help write" ACA by pushing for an alternative (community health centers) to his single-payer system, making an important contribution to help get the law passed. So that tipped his rating to Two Pinocchios.



    Parent
    Of course you are not going to go (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:25:41 AM EST
    point by point because you can not do so.

    Obama barely got ACA passed when the Democratic Party had a large majority in both houses of Congress but somehow Hillary is going to get her insurance regulations and $5,000 addition premium support through the Republican house.

    You claim that both candidates can get legislation to reduce drug prices through Congress because the Republicans would not stop legislation that would help their constituents. Nice thought. Whether or not your assumption is fact or fantasy, is a subject for another time.

    That is something that according to you they can both do. They are now even on what they can accomplish in the current environment.

    Parent

    Knew that would be your response (none / 0) (#121)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:37:33 AM EST
    Bernies going to win you can drop out of campaign fight fight fight mode .... or not, my point stands about the bigger picture topic of, in context of a campaign, advertising an Overton window shift as something you'll actually do ..... when you know (and everyone knows this really) youll just implement the best change you can (like Obama did).

    And it's not a double standard cause I believe Hillarys plan is actually doable.

    Parent

    You believe that Hillary's plan is doable (none / 0) (#128)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:04:22 AM EST
    Well belief is a wonderful thing.

     Obama believed and convinced his supporters that he could bring in an era of bipartisanship and end the racial divide.

    Sanders plan advertises an Overton window shift that would actually do more than give people $5,000 to pay to the insurance industry so that they can increase the premiums and deductibles even more.

    BTW, those increased subsidies do not actually reduce the cost of insurance, they just have the government increase the insurance industries bottom line.


    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:38:32 AM EST
    just in case you missed it, the Republicans have tried to repeal Obamacare somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 times.

    They have no interest in passing improvements. They do not want to pass natural extensions to Obamacare. They want to repeal it. They have and are campaigning on repealing it.

    Parent

    Bur (none / 0) (#126)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:45:08 AM EST
    A president can still argue for improvements to something that exists, putting republicans on notice about something like prescription drug costs.....

     a discard and replace, inclusive of tax increases to everyone without bridge monies, is likely to not even to get all Dem support in congress.  It's an order of magnitude different in terms of not being very doable. But it is an awesome overton window gesture.  Very cool!

    This will be my last reply in a campaign argument, I've already conceded Bernie will win.  

    Parent

    It is amazing to me... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:37:39 AM EST
    ...that we will attempt to consider this program a success after such a pitifully, comically short period of time. As if we consider the human mindbody just another broken part in an auto-repair assembly link. It is helping some people, it is hurting just as many, that is simply the ugly irony nobody wants to face. The ACA props up the private insurance paradigm, and, as I have predicted, will KEEP us further from a more progressive approach that actually provides care every time it is needed. To suggest the ACA is the way to go is to suggest private companies should be in control of private lands. See Oregon for that paradigm.

    Pfft.

    oops, private companies in control of public lands (none / 0) (#124)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:39:01 AM EST
    egad, nice typo there, halfwit.

    sheesh.

    Parent