home

Selzer Poll: Iowa Tight

The gold standard for polling in Iowa is the Selzer Poll for the Des Moines Register. And its latest poll of the Iowa Dem caucus shows a very tight race = it's now 42-40 Clinton. In their previous poll it was 48-39.

A couple of interesting points - (1) the tightening is due to some Clinton supporters moving to undecided. Sanders support has not moved up (up a point which is statistically insignificant with a MOE of 4.4.) (2) Sanders support is very concentrated in college towns and thus may not translate into a delegate win even if he prevails in the popular vote.

Iowa is a very strange state for reporting results. It is actually very hard to get a popular vote read out of Iowa. So watch for how the results in Iowa are reported.

But the reality remains the same - Sanders has to win to have a chance. A split of Iowa and NH (Sanders leads there) leaves an unchanged landscape with the primaries moving to South Carolina and Nevada where Clinton's dominating leads among PoC put Sanders in a very tough spot.

Of course it would be uphill for Sanders even if he sweeps Iowa and NH, but without that I see it as basically ending the race.

< Is Single Payer More Progressive Than ACA? | El Chapo's Crush >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It doesn't strike me as a good thing for (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:16:40 AM EST
    Clinton that her support is softening, that some who were in her corner are now undecided.

    Does anyone think that support is going to end up with O'Malley?  I don't.  There's still time for her to close the deal and move those people back to her side, but the question is, why after all this time have they gone undecided?

    No one's ever claimed it wouldn't be an uphill battle for Sanders, but Clinton has to have some concern that the it's become somewhat less steep a climb than it was.

    Be interesting to see the internals, wouldn't it?  Given the increase in Clinton's attacks, one wonders if those internal numbers aren't more troubling than what we're seeing in the aggregate.

    And if there's one thing we know about Clinton: she is notoriously bad at pivoting/adjusting her strategy.

    It's better to have the spport (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:22:00 AM EST
    but moving to undecided is better than moving to Sanders.

    Undecided mostly come back actually.

    Parent

    And Iowa voters (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:28:56 AM EST
    Love to have their butts kissed, along with all the attention.

    Parent
    Yea. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:04:11 AM EST
    ...moving to undecided is better than moving to Sanders.

    Unless, of course, one is interested in Sanders, as many progressives are...

    And unless, of course, one is convinced that Sanders has a much better chance of defeating a Republican opponent such as Trump or Cruz.

    It's wild to me that Sanders is painted as the enemy by so many on what remains of the "left" and the "democratic" party. What a strange collation.

    Parent

    More or less (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:33:29 AM EST
    it seems his support has maxed out at around 40%. The interesting thing is going to be what happens in the places where he doesn't garner enough support to make the cut.

    Yes, Iowa is so strange and yes, I still hate their caucus.

    Parent

    Hillary's campaign (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:19:58 AM EST
    Told reporters last July that she was at risk of losing Iowa to Sanders.   Gamesmanship?  Probably some. But since the caucus goers of Iowa and New Hampshire are very white and very liberal  (unlike most of the rest of the country), this wasn't too far fetched a statement, so, it's not necessarily shocking about the polling we're seeing now.

    Parent
    Interesting numbers from the same poll (none / 0) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 11:09:04 AM EST
    which may go hand in hand with the Sanders support being concentrated in college towns:

    Definitely caucusing: Clinton 45, Sanders 36

    Parent

    Ad buys by Sanders' campaign (none / 0) (#65)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 06:31:31 PM EST
    Recent ad purchases, etc. outnumber HRC ads in Iowa ... substantially.  Despite what people claim, wall-to-wall positive screenings about a candidate (here: Sanders) does translate to increased percentage of support.  Note: The timing of the ad buys--i.e., in these weeks after the holidays when Iowans pay closer attention to their upcoming caucuses--was quite astute on the part of the Sanders campaign.

    BTW, I personally believe that HRC needs to continue peppering the attack on "how do you pay for this, Bernie?" as to health care (9% payroll hike?) and education totality (4years total or partial?) ... in doing so, of course, Clinton should continue to stress even more what she has proposed on TV and in writing vis-à-vis paying for cost increases.  I would also be interested in hearing further about Sanders' positions on earlier immigration reform packages ... e.g., is it true that he used the claim of purported effects on American workers as reason to stymie earlier immigration reform attempts by the late Sen Kennedy, etc.? That is an important issue. In short: Some Dem back & forth on specific issue claims is called for without shouts of "that hurts."

    Parent

    There (none / 0) (#72)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 07:26:42 PM EST
    is no question that Hillary can not out "dream" Sanders so she must try to out "wonk" him, it is her strong point after all.

    These are the kind of debates that this country needs, serious discussions, not about what direction to move this country but how. Let's not blow it by getting all butthurt when two strong candidates start saying, predictably, I'm right and you are wrong.

    Parent

    Slings (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 07:59:54 PM EST
    and arrows are going to be slung. The only annoying thing is Bernie has been doing attack ads and if Hillary answers it apparently is the end of the world. Just gives me little faith that he would survive a GOP onslaught.

    Parent
    Thats the one thing we know (none / 0) (#3)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:21:12 AM EST
    If we didn't know anything else, that would be it.

    Parent
    Forgive the OT (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:46:00 AM EST
    And resist starting an OT sub thread but just wanted to pass along that Alan Rickman has died.

    By Grabthars Hammer, you will be missed.

    Nate Silver (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:13:04 AM EST
    You can read about his methods and his terminology here;

    Iowa Democrats.

    Because public opinion can shift rapidly in the primaries, our models put a lot of emphasis on the most recent polls. That's good news for Sanders, who has been neck and neck with Clinton in Iowa polls published this month after trailing her for most of last year. In fact, the race is nearly a tossup: He now has a 45 percent chance of winning Iowa according to polls-only, although the polls-plus model, noting Clinton's dominance in endorsements, is more skeptical of Sanders, giving him a 27 percent chance instead.

    Then, there's this:

    New Hampshire Democrats.

    Here, there's a split between the models. Sanders is a 73 percent favorite according to polls-only, while polls-plus -- noting Clinton's advantage in endorsements and that she's favored in Iowa -- gives Clinton the slightest edge, with a 53 percent chance to Sanders's 47 percent. Essentially, she'd be following the path that Al Gore took over Bill Bradley in 2000, when an Iowa victory propelled him to a narrow victory in the Granite State. But the polls-plus model is designed to lower the effect of the endorsements variable to zero by election day in each state. So if Clinton keeps falling in New Hampshire and Iowa polls instead of rising, the establishment may not be able to bail her out, and she'll have to contemplate the possibility of being swept in both states.



    I would (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:33:33 AM EST
    go with the 27% chance in Iowa knowing the variables here. Especially since Sanders' support seems to be concentrated in a few areas.

    As far as NH who knows? NH has not always followed what goes in Iowa.

    Parent

    I do not see that the (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 03:18:20 PM EST
    Clinton interpretations of Senator Sanders' universal health program, in light of ACA provisions, is an attack or slimming.  It may well be a wrong interpretation, but is not only one similarly offered by the WSJ, but also, one that engenders questions among some advocates of universal health care, such as me.

    Senator Sanders has not been attacked: a position of his and how to get there from here is what is more rightly questioned. A reasonable question in a Democratic primary in which a Democratic administration has expended substantial effort in getting to the here and now.

    In my view, this gives Senator Sanders an opportunity to present and defend a program of his, and, in more than qualitative terms, such as his basic statement that the US is the only major nation that does not provide health care for all.

     Senator Sanders, it seems, has not had to defend his positions of the past with the rigor that is being expected of him now and which will come if he is the nominee. The senator has not responded, to date, as well as some of his supporters here at TL. Indeed, his program seems to have retreated to a vision.

    Mrs. Clinton, or Chelsea, did not frame their questioning as Senator Sanders having a good vision, but that even more difficulties exist now than when a good chance for Medicare for All existed prior to ACA. I would have liked that better, but, then, it is now incumbent on the senator to make his thinking clearer. With about 17 percent of the economy in the health care sector, disruptive measures of such dimension are no small matter.

    It would be more instructive for debates to center on putting our existing health insurance programs on a glide path to universal health care. Starting with transporting the Medicare expansion from a means-tested, needs-based social welfare program to a social insurance program.

     And, to lose the state participation, both the administrative and financial control--picking up the full costs, jettisoning the 10 percent state contribution as of 2020. Such critical matters as the health of a large segment of poorer citizens or the future of rural health facilities should not be at the political whim of governors.

    It is one offerered by the Wall Street Journal (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:37:20 AM EST
    The WSJ piece on the cost of Sanders proposal was debunked prior to being picked by Hillary and Chelsea. I would suggest you read this article in its entirety.

    An Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal on Its Bernie Sanders Hit Piece

    by Gerald Friedman, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Economics at the University of Massachusetts. Financial analysis of the costs and benefits of a single-payer national health plan.

    Summary of 10-year projections

    Because of the nearly $10 trillion in savings, it is possible to fund over $4.5 trillion in additional services while still reducing national health care spending by over $5 trillion. With these net savings, the additional $14.7 trillion in federal spending brings savings to the private sector (and state and local governments) of over $19.7 trillion.

    Link



    Parent
    Very interesting (none / 0) (#83)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:08:28 AM EST
    A 2013 study, based on a bill introduced 3 years ago, not the exact bill Bernie is going to release. I'm sure he's right in much of his analysis, but not all.

    But gee, it seems then it would be so easy to release the costs of the plan he is currently proposing.... Wonder why it's taking so long? I mean, Freidman's already done the work....


    Parent

    Gee (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:42:48 AM EST
    I find it really interesting that you are advocating for maintaining Obamacare. I really never got the idea that you liked the system in your numerous posts against it and it's ever increasing costs.

    Also, I don't recall reading the costs of Hillary's proposal for additional $5,000 tax credits so that people can afford the ever increasing deductibles, co-pays and coinsurance. Would you please provide me with a link to the costs of her proposals.

     Under this private insurance model, the more the government pays for people to get health care, the less the insurance industry has to pay in benefits. But with the government picking up more and more of the tab of actual health care, the insurance industry still gets to increase what people pay in premiums, deductibles, co-pays and coinsurance and reclassifing generic drugs etc and narrowing networks. How long will it be before that family tax credit of $5,000 will no longer be enough? One year, maybe two? This is the system that Hillary supports. One that literally takes tax payer money, hands it over to the insurance industry and then uses tax payer money to pay for actual health care so that the insurance industry does not have to cover care until after deductibles are met.

    This is the 42 trillion dollar system you are supporting now that ACA is becoming HRC's health care system.

    Parent

    I'm not donating FOR Obmacare (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:49:53 AM EST
    I don't want to spend 4 years of our lives refighting a losing battle that will paralyze every other possible piece of policy getting attention - like a jobs bill or something.

    Parent
    ACA is basically a bandaid to (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:20:36 AM EST
    prop up the overpriced private insurance system in this country.

    By using tax payer money to pay overpriced premiums that people cannot afford and now proposing tax credit to pay for deductibles that people cannot afford, the government is proping up the bloated insurance industry, medical industry and Pharma. They have not reduced the costs. The costs keep accelerating. We do not have an affordable system.  We just have the government picking up the tab for an overpriced system and giving the industries more room to continue to raise prices.

    I find it sad that HRC and her supporters are attacking single payer systems and distorting the actual costs of that system. IMO, in just a few short years, the average person will once again not be able to afford health care.

    Where do we go from there if Democratic candidates and their supporters demonize single payer so that it never will be an option? What is left? Vouchers or back to the old stand by of "Don't get sick and if you do, die quickly."

    Jobs are important. Health care is important. Education is important. I don't think talking about the best options will paralyze the country. Quite the opposite, the Dems have an opportunity to energize the country by outlining what we can do that will improve their lives.

    IMO, with a Republican House, little if anything worthwhile can be accomplished on many fronts. What we can do is spend the time promoting the systems we want.

    Parent

    I agree, it is a bandaid (none / 0) (#90)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:04:27 AM EST
    However, you must have an incredibly short memory when it comes to the debate and passage of ACA.  Obama came into office with an incredible amount of political winds at his back and the goodwill of the American people.  The Republicans were on the mat.  Yet, over the next year or so, we talked about various iterations of a health care plan.  It was at that time that a single payer option should have been brought to the table, even if not feasible, but it still should have been in the mix.  It was not.  After many months, we got the ACA.  Yet in that same time period, we didn't get other things like a jobs package  (when it was needed even more so than today). And the rancor increased towards the president and his agenda.

    All of this happened before the rise of the Tea Party, so no, I don't feel confident about the fact that, at anytime during a Sanders' administration  (even in the unlikely event of gaining a full Democratic Congress), that a single payer option discussion, even one taken seriously, would allow for anything like a Sanders' jobs bill or education bill or anything else, to be discussed, let alone passed.

    And if you want to talk distorting numbers, I suggest you look at your own posts.  A plan, whose advocates are relying on a 2013 study of a single bill (not even necessarily Sanders own bill) should not be taken seriously, when that analysis (and others like it) do not account for things like the costs of a displaced industry and it's workers, the fact that the proposed taxes in said bill are now also being proposed to cover other ideas by the same candidate, such as paid family leave and free college tuition, and the fact that many of his supporters can't even distinguish between universal coverage and single payer to have a discussion.

    Since you can't address those, you obviously agree that's a problem with your cites.  And the campaign must agree as well because they can't put their costs an out just yet -if all these analyses of a single health care bill are correct, then there shouldn't be much work to do, aside from updating the numbers to reflect 2016, right?  I mean, it should been all done three years ago.  But it is interesting that Sanders supporters, those who like to throw data around, don't seem to care that there isn't updated, full, and correct....data.

    Anyway, go ahead and respond away.  I'm done for now on this topic because I realize I'm arguing about something that is never going to happen with people who think (like Obama supporters before them) that the pure awesomeness of Bernie Sanders will make this happen. Hey,  I don't blame the candidate - I like Bernie and think he's an important voice. I just think it's incredibly sad that his supporters are going down the road of free ponies and rainbows for all.  Too bad.  They're supposed to be smarter than the rubes.

    Parent

    To me it is starting to feel like I am being asked (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:42:30 AM EST
     how I want my steak prepared on Mars.

    Parent
    Yet, what seems to satisfy you (none / 0) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:16:10 AM EST
    Is to be asked how you want your ground chuck prepared on Mars.

    Parent
    Or (none / 0) (#158)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 10:57:25 AM EST
    maybe more accurately, how would we prefer our CAN-D

    Parent
    No, I dont agree (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:59:36 AM EST
    and I remember the debate on health care very well. I also remember all of your posts over the last year or two on the failures of ACA. But back to the articles I cited.

    What is the title of Dr. Gerald Friedman article? It is:

    An Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal on Its Bernie Sanders Hit Piece

    What is the date of Dr. Friedman's article? It is 9/16/15. A day or two newer than the Wall Street Journal article that Chelsea and Hillary are citing as the basis of their claims.

    Who is Dr. Friedman? Dr. Friedman is  Professor and Chairman of the Department of Economics at the University of Massachusetts.

    The article by John Geyman MD titled Misinformation About The Cost of Single-Payer National Health Insurance was posted on Monday, Sep 21, 2015 several days after the WSJ article that the Clintons used to distort the cost of single payer. The WSJ, like the Goolsbee's formula left several variants out of their equations which seriously distorts their final results.

    When you leave important variants out of an equation it distorts the end results. That is a fact no matter how much you choose to spin it.

    Now let's talk about the so called awesomeness of the candidates. The HRC supporters are the commenters that continue to claim that she can get her proposals through a Republican Congress. She can accomplish all these things where Sanders cannot. Once again, how is she going to do this? Is she going to charm the Republicans into improving ObamaCare by her sheer awesomeness?  This question is never answered.

    I, and other Sanders supporters here, for the most part don't think either candidate will get good health care proposals through a Republican House. What we would like is to have a president selling a single payer system to the public?

    What are you selling when demonizing single payer. You are basically selling ACA and a continuation of a private insurance system that costs Americans more money for less care.  Now that it is Hillary's plan, can  I expect to see future posts from you attesting to the sheer awesomeness of the ACA?

    Parent

    Clinton is not saying the current system is (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:16:39 AM EST
    awesome..she does want to make some changes to reduce cost and expand coverage and affordability.

    I object to the false choice between replacing Obamacare altogether and doing nothing.

    Parent

    I object to the distorted statements (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:44:13 AM EST
    made by Hillary and her supporters regarding the costs of a single payer system.

    Now you may think that adding a few more means tested dollars to cover the ever increasing costs of the private insurance system is a major improvement. I think that the dollars will be absorbed by the industry in a couple of years and we will be right back where we started from. Our health care system costs more than other countries and it keeps getting worse. Shifting the costs onto people who need health care or having the government use more and more tax payer money to absorb the exorbinent costs that people cannot pay does not give you an affordable health care system. It just takes money out of people's pockets and the federal and state budgets to continue to pay more and more for less and less.

    Also, if we are talking about false premises, let's talk about the premise that HRC will be able to get her improvements to ACA  through a Republican House that has voted to repeal ACA about 60 times. Hillary can get these things done where Sanders will be powerless. Talk about false choices. Since we are in the objection mode, I really object to people claiming that her health care proposals are more doable in the current environment.


    Parent

    How will Clinton do these things? (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:57:58 AM EST
    She doesn't say - at least in the link you provided.

    One of the things many of us objected to when the ACA was under construction was that it was being built on the same private insurance foundation that had brought us to a crisis point, and many of us believed that it would not be long before a new crisis point was reached with the ACA.

    So...while it's all well and good to propose changes to the existing structure, those changes don't address the structural problems inherent in a system built on a dysfunctional and broken foundation.

    What would be nice is for people to acknowledge that whatever impossibility exists for Sanders to get a single-payer plan through Congress, that impossibility also exist for Clinton to get enhancements/changes to the ACA through that same Congress: the GOP that has repealed the ACA over and over and over again is NOT going to fall to its knees before the awesomeness that is Hillary Clinton in order to save, improve or do anything that ensures the existence of the ACA, anymore than it will bow to whatever it is that Bernie Sanders would propose.

    The idea that Clinton will be able to get the House to authorize increases to subsidies in order to blunt the effect of rising premiums and out-of-pocket costs approaches the delusional, in my opinion.  The fear is, I think, that she'd be much more likely than Sanders to offer something that might be acceptable to the GOP, and given what we know would be acceptable to them, we know that (1) it isn't going to do anything but speed up the demise of what we currently have toward something worse, and (2) there is no current treatment for the head explosions that Democratic heads will experience.

    What we are facing, regardless of which Democrat is in the WH, is a GOP that thinks we can solve the health system problems with things like HSA's, block grants and vouchers, which we all know will not do anything but make matters worse.

    While the GOP is waging a battle to buy us all a first-aid kit as a substitute for a real health system, I would like a president who will be gathering forces for and growing an impossible-to-ignore groundswell for a single-payer, universal system that covers everyone from cradle to grave.

    I can see Sanders doing that; I can't say the same for Clinton.

    Parent

    The conversation liberals should be having (none / 0) (#113)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:24:42 PM EST
    My bold for emphasis.

    The real issue is something else entirely. Single-payer systems save money by squeezing health care providers -- doctors, hospitals, and ultimately everyone who works for them -- which would be very difficult to accomplish ex post facto. If the political consensus did exist for enacting large, across-the-board cuts in doctors' fees and hospital charges, then there would be no need to shift to a single-payer system in order to accomplish the cuts. In the absence of such a consensus, the switch to single-payer actually wouldn't save money, and the costs would become exorbitant.

    This doesn't mean single-payer advocates are wrong that such a system would be a good idea. But it does mean that their current rhetoric totally evades a central issue -- should the federal government massively slash payments to health care providers, and how on earth do they plan on winning the political fight to make that happen?

    SNIP

    In policy terms, the Sanders-Clinton dust-up over Medicare for all is pretty clearly meaningless. Whether Sanders or Clinton sits in the White House, Congress isn't going to enact a Medicare-for-all bill. And whether Sanders or Clinton or Ted Cruz or Donald Trump or whoever else sits in the White House, liberals aren't going to stop fighting for one.

    But if they ever want to get such a bill passed, liberals are going to have to start being more honest with themselves about what their vision entails -- a sharp 20 percent cut in doctors' pay rates, alongside comparable cuts for other kinds of health care providers.

    SNIP

    That's why cautious, pragmatism-oriented politicians like Clinton don't want to embrace it. An oddball senator or House member here and there is no big deal, but a major party presidential nominee running on a single-payer platform would run into a buzzsaw of opposition from the American Medical Association and other health care providers.

    Right now, Sanders and other single-payer proponents' main strategy for dealing with this problem is to talk around it. Medicare is extremely popular, so "Medicare for all" is a popular slogan, and that's what they talk about. But you can't get major policy change enacted on this basis. At some point, to get the savings of their dreams liberals are going to need to win a straightforward argument over the merits of cutting doctors' pay.

    Link


    Parent

    Gotta love (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by sj on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:03:41 PM EST
    a self-described centrist advising liberals about what they should be doing.

    Or not.

    Parent

    Next, we'll get Howard Dean, who's (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    now lobbying for health care industry interests...

    Parent
    Only if you want to be honest (none / 0) (#123)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:07:11 PM EST
    From some of the comments here, I don't think that's really the goal.  We support Sanders, please don't give us all the facts!

    Parent
    The trouble (none / 0) (#125)
    by sj on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:10:53 PM EST
    is that some people think opinion pieces and analyses constitute facts, while opposing opinions and analyses are called pipe dreams and derided as unicorns and butterflies.

    Some people calling for facts wouldn't know a fact if it hit them in the nose.

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#126)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:17:33 PM EST
    Your comments are Exhibit #1

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#137)
    by sj on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 03:09:36 PM EST
    that MUST be true because I am in the habit of posting analyses and then calling the contents facts. But only if they agree with me.

    You're right. I always exhibit that lack of critical thinking in my inability to see the difference between analysis and facts in opinion pieces. When I like them.

    Oy.

    While the analysis and opinion pieces you link frequently offer interesting perspectives, your peevish tendency to call the contents "factual" is actually a discredit to them.

    Parent

    President don't have time to deal with (none / 0) (#151)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:11:27 PM EST
    grassroots groundswell campaigns. How much time has Obama spent doing that, and that was supposedly his specialty too? If that is Sanders' goal he would be better off not being POTUS.

    Parent
    Senators with strong followings like Sanders and (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:21:38 AM EST
    Warren can also sell a single payer plan to the public while improvements are being made to the ACA in areas where there may be some GOP support, like lowering deductibles or lowering prescription drug costs.

    Parent
    You really think that the Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:01:59 AM EST
    will actually past legislation to reduce deductibles and drug prices. Since I have never seen any indication that they want to improve ACA, I don't share your optimism. But for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct. This bipartisan agreement to improve ACA can be accomplished under President Sanders as well.

    A President selling single payer has more influence than a Senator. Also, selling a single payer system to the public has now become harder due to the assertions of Chelsea and Hillary and their supporters and it will be even harder still to sell the idea with a president (HRC) who has come out strongly against it.

    Parent

    So now Pres Sanders will push to improve Obamacare (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:16:59 AM EST
    at the same time he is selling single payer? That will indeed be interesting. Looking forward to it.


    Parent
    The whole (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:57:54 AM EST
    argument at this time seems to have become moot. It seems Sanders is backing off his support of single payer.

    Parent
    A link to support your (none / 0) (#130)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:39:59 PM EST
    Statement would be nice.

    Parent
    Here (2.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 04:51:56 PM EST
    link

    Sanders agreed that single payer should be the vision for health care in America, but conceded that he would not get anything like this passed out of the gate.

    So if you're admitting it's not going to get passed right out of the gate when you have the best chance to get it passed you're pretty much admitting that it can't be passed.

    Parent

    Has Hillary guaranteed that all of her (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:15:01 PM EST
    proposals are going to passed on the first day, the first week, the first 100 days of her administration? If not, then using your logic she has backed away from her proposals pretty much admitting that she can't get them passed.

    I'm sitting here shaking my head in disbelief at what you consider support for your statement.

    Parent

    That statement does not, in my opinion, (none / 0) (#140)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:16:57 PM EST
    equate to "backing off support for single payer" as you claimed Sanders was doing, so I have no idea why you provided it.

    And admitting that it's not going to be passed right out of the gate is not an admission that it can't be passed.

    Your logic, such as it is, leaves a lot to be desired.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:39:37 PM EST
    let's end it with him releasing a plan or saying he's going to use the 2013 plan he wrote and then have the CBO score it and go from there. We'll have real legitimate numbers to go on.

    Parent
    Let's have the CBO score (none / 0) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:45:20 PM EST
    Hillary's plan while we are at it. Hopefully, when they score it they will project the anticipated increase in premiums, deductibles, co-pays and coinsurance , the total costs of the subsidies and additional tax credits as well as the projected costs of all the other individual programs that make up our mish mash of health insurance system over a ten year period. Once the CBO scores the total projected costs of both systems, we can do an actual cost/benefit analysis and compare the system in a fair manner.

    Parent
    I have (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:46:51 PM EST
    no problem with that.

    Parent
    Good (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:44:42 PM EST
    When is Hillary going to come out with the cost of her plan?

    Parent
    Downrated (none / 0) (#147)
    by sj on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:36:28 PM EST
    because I am so tired of Teh Stooopid. How old are you? Ten?

    Parent
    Duh (none / 0) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:59:47 AM EST
    Contrary to the scenario depicted by Chelsea, Sanders could not and would not dismantle the current systems on day one, so of course he would try to negotiate drug prices. He is a strong supporter of negotiated drug prices and that is part of the many cost savings that he has campaigned over the years.

    Just think, an added benefit to Sanders becoming president is that Bill Riley has promised to move to Ireland if Sanders is elected. Ireland has a 40% tax rate on a portion of your income. Something called earned income remainder- 40%    all categories. Not real sure how that would work out for him but I'm all for him moving.

    Parent

    So is Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#108)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 11:38:37 AM EST
    He is a strong supporter of negotiated drug prices and that is part of the many cost savings that he has campaigned over the years.

    Link

    Parent

    O.K. (none / 0) (#110)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 11:52:08 AM EST
    they both say they want to negotiate drug prices.

    Parent
    So (2.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:01:12 PM EST
    Wanna talk about people who don't read things or argue based on facts, again?

    This has been out for months, but apparently you couldn't be bothered to educate yourself before you commented.  Weird, since that's what you like to accuse others of.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:51:30 PM EST
    Talk about you making stuff up out of whole cloth. I read her plan when it came out and a few times since then. I never said that her plan did not contain rhetoric on negotiating drug prices. I did say her plan was to tweak ACA. Sorry to disappoint you.

    You on the other hand did not read Goolsbee's formula and falsely stated that his analysis included deductibles when his formula clearly was only calculating the insurance premium.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#96)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:55:36 AM EST
    When you leave important variants out of an equation it distorts the end results. That is a fact no matter how much you choose to spin it.

    As do your sources.

    Yep, it's objectionable.

    Parent

    I love it that the WSJ is now considered (4.00 / 3) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:10:03 AM EST
    most reliable source for health care analysis and the ACA now is being defended by our very own jb.

    42 trillion dollars was a variance left out by the Wall Street Journal. Pretty big variance but very convenient for Hillary.

    Parent

    Even Bigger... (none / 0) (#102)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:50:39 AM EST
    ...to see JB behind a candidate.

    Last cycle she couldn't go after Obama enough, so much so that BTD claimed she supported Romney.  While she didn't, I miss the the evenness in which she commented on both candidates.  She was often the voice of reason in a place that can sometimes be too pro-my/our candidate.

    But not this cycle, it's HRC or bust, which as mentioned, includes promoting ACA which is, and I will not use the idiotic term, a 180 in regards to something she has spent a lot of 'ink' tearing to shreds.  I would have never thought JB would be against an alternative to ACA because her candidate doesn't support it.

    Parent

    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by sj on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 11:16:10 AM EST
    Even Bigger... (none / 0) (#102)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:50:39 AM MDT

    ...to see JB behind a candidate.

    jb has publicly and vehemently supported HRC for years. So vehemently, in fact, she spent several months being accused as the kind of supporter that hurts her candidate. That happened right here in this very blog. It was unjust and it was ugly.

    Now she is just on the other side of that dynamic.

    Parent

    I have to agree with sj on this (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 11:41:59 AM EST
    jb has always been a HRC or bust supporter. By the same token, up to this point she has also been a person that never missed an opportunity to strongly critisize ACA.

    Before, anyone wastes bandwidth pointing out that I don't think ACA is the system we need, I will acknowledge that I have always been a strong supporter of single payer and not ACA. It might be better than nothing (with some winners and some losers) but it iMO the current private health insurance system will not produce affordable universal health care. Shifting costs to consumers and the government do not make a system cost effective or affordable. It just realigns the chairs on the deck of a sinking ship.

    Parent

    Since I'm not using the WSJ (none / 0) (#105)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 11:14:33 AM EST
    You're just making more crap up, as usual.

    I'm asking my own questions - and since Dr. Friedman didn't address them or those costs, you can't either.  I guess I'll wait for the cost of the plan to come out -after Iowa and New Hamoshire.

    You also obviously can't read - better get some new glasses. I'm not defending the ACA.  I think it was a horrible bill hobbled together that caused a lot of political capital and cost a whole lot of money. Some of the plan has worked itself out. That's good, although I think that is also a product of the economy starting to improve and people getting jobs.

    But unlike you, I live on a planet called "reality", so it seems like we need to work with what we have and fix what we can to help the most people NOW.  Note that, despite your ludicrous assumptions and Trumpian talk, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have people like Bernie Sanders continually pushing for more and dreaming big.

    Sanders' plan cannot guarantee that workers are going to have the same quality or amount of care under his plan. Next, his plan is based on the idea that doctors, hospitals, and Big Pharma are just going to throw up their hands in surrender and proclaim, "YES!  We WILL take lower fees for our services/goods!  All for the greater good!!" Add the fact that is double and triple counting tax increases to pay for multiple things is just bad math . And finally, the fact that it assumes companies will pass on the savings to employees in the form of wages hikes is stunningly naive.

    No, I don't need the WSJ to tell me that doesn't add up.  But, you should go work for his csmpaign, as you are becoming a master of spin.

    Parent

    Pot calling the kettle black (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:27:37 PM EST
    Talk about spin.

    The Clinton numbers are straight out of the WSJ article.

    Actually Friedman did address the cost of the current system vs the cost of a single payer system. Your constant attempts to say otherwise is just disingenuous.

    I don't think Sanders is intending to duplicate the care given under ACA. He wants a universal system where everyone gets more and better treatment than what they are getting now at a price they can pay. He does not want to duplicate something which you state is a horrible plan

    Maybe you chose to live in a reality where millions of people still do not have health care. Maybe you want to live in a world where millions have high priced health insurance but cannot afford to access health care.  That is your choice.

     I would like to change that reality. Can it happen overnight, no. Will it ever happen when we elect people who want to maintain our current private insurance system, definitely not.

    Parent

    So Mo (none / 0) (#107)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 11:32:06 AM EST
    you admit Single payer is a pipe dream
    I, and other Sanders supporters here, for the most part don't think either candidate will get good health care proposals through a Republican House.

    Hold the presses a politician making undeliverable promises, and here we've been told Bernie is different.

    I agree that any Democratic president will be facing a tough hard slog to get anything useful. The point being that Hillary's, much maligned, "baby steps" are a least an order of magnitude more possible than Bernie's grand dreams and the consequences of failure are relatively minor.

    What do you expect from President Sanders. Will he expend a huge chunk of political capital on this Quixotic quest, probably impeding efforts on other important issues and maybe taking the possibility of SP off the table for another political generation? Or do you expect him to throw his hands up and say never mind and immediately disappointing millions of his supporters and surely taking much of the steam out of this "revolution" you speak of.


    Parent

    Here's the deal (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by sj on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:00:57 PM EST
    As BTD stated repeatedly during Obama's first administration, when negotiating you have to give yourself room to move. If your starting position is at the baby step level, you have effectively pre-negotiated yourself and are now directly at the concession step.

    If that's where you wanted to be in the first place then good for you. You saved face and got the deal you wanted. On the other hand, if you really wanted more you just shot your own foot.

    And yes, President Sanders should absolutely use his political capital as he would see fit. That would be much better than the early Obama model of "keeping the powder dry" for ... something.

    To be frank, I have a major problem with the idea of only fighting battles "you can win". I think a series of smaller "skirmishes" can be quite effective.

    That's why one of my personal heroes is Cesar Chavez. I started listing a bunch of others as well, but found they were actually diluting my point.

    And Sanders has said from the beginning that effort and momentum had to come from the electorate. He could provide the bully pulpit and the Executive support, but he knows full well that he would be neither King nor Mage.

    Parent

    This is not a used car deal (none / 0) (#115)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:32:01 PM EST
    Any negotiation depends on the buyer being willing to buy and the seller willing to sell. The Republicans are neither, they want to drive the car off a cliff.

    Parent
    Oh, okay (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by sj on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    so no reason to try then. Just take the path of least resistance and call it a day.
    This is not a used car deal (none / 0) (#115)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 11:32:01 AM MDT

    Any negotiation depends on the buyer being willing to buy and the seller willing to sell. The Republicans are neither, they want to drive the car off a cliff.

    Ugh. No leadership, no inspiration, no results. No thanks.

    Parent
    Not (none / 0) (#128)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:29:17 PM EST
    necessarily the path of least resistance, but the best path determined by a serious risk/reward/probability analysis. Any path that focuses only on the reward factor is dangerous in my book.  

    Parent
    When you play small ball (none / 0) (#129)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:37:45 PM EST
    With the Republicans you normally wind up with a less than you had to begin with.

    Parent
    and when you (none / 0) (#131)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:42:15 PM EST
    swing for the fences you strike out more often then not.

    Parent
    Yea but you get runs when you connect (none / 0) (#132)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:42 PM EST
    rather than than losing 15 to nothing.


    Parent
    exactly (none / 0) (#118)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:54:14 PM EST
    my point
    I think a series of smaller "skirmishes" can be quite effective.


    Parent
    Effective doing what? (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:08:18 PM EST
    In one statement you state the fact that the Republicans don't want to negotiate they want to drive the car off the cliff and here you somehow think that they will be willing to give HRC a win on small things.

    Effective in improving ACA?  Effective in funding her means tested tax credit to pay for the expensive private insurance deductibles, co-pays etc. that people cannot afford? Effective in raising taxes on corporations and the super rich?

    I understand that is your story and you are sticking to it but really?


    Parent

    Of course you need room to move (none / 0) (#153)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:35:26 PM EST
    But you also have to stay within the reality of the situation to be taken seriously - know the other sides limits as well as your own and work to bridge the gap. In reading Clinton's book about her SoS tenure- I admit I had not finished yet - it is a long slog as she walks you through every conference and every negotiation  - she seems to have learned a lot about how to work with widely divergent people and find common ground. As I'm sure she also did as a lawyer and first lady.  

    Maybe Bernie also has those skills - I just have not watched him in action for the last 20+ years and do not have as much confidence.

    Parent

    Just out of curiosity, Joe, what makes you (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:26:30 PM EST
    think the GOP is going to allow a President Clinton to take any of these baby steps?  

    And if you think they'd let her do that, why wouldn't they let Sanders?  

    I don't think Sanders has promised to deliver universal health care.  He has been very vocal about his belief that it's wrong that we don't treat health care as a right, and that a universal system, which works very well in many countries, is the way to ensure that people have cradle-to-grave care.  I don't think it's wrong for someone to promise to work toward that goal, but maybe you don't agree.

    You seem to be setting this up as Sanders having an all-or-nothing approach, leaving Clinton as the reasonable one who is at least willing to go slow.

    I think that's a false choice.

    I don't know what happened to Clinton's desire to have a universal system; she used to be quite a vocal and strong champion for it.  But I guess she had to go quiet about it when the president whose administration she served came out with the ACA, and she couldn't say much about it after because it hasn't been in effect all that long.

    So, what's stopping her now?  Has she just resigned herself to it not being possible?

    I don't have any objection to whoever is president fighting to improve whatever health system we have; what I do object to, what I will object to, is whoever is president conceding and accommodating the GOP in the belief that it will get them on board.  It won't, but it will allow them to shape the legislation so they get more of what they want without having to vote for it.

    As I stated somewhere else in one of these threads, I want someone who's going to work to build a groundswell of popular support for single-payer; I think Sanders will do that, but I don't think Clinton will, not after she's made the kinds of arguments she has lately.

    Parent

    Do you mean (none / 0) (#119)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    Single payer or universal coverage?  You keep interchanging them and they aren't the same thing, although a single payer plan is a former of universal coverage.

    Hillary was for, and IS for, universal coverage - that's the ultimate goal of the ACA and a Democratic Party principle, is it not?  (Yes, universal coverage has been of the party's platform, not single-payer.)

    I can't remember her EVER saying she was for a single payer system. Maybe you can show us a link if you know differentky.  You, abd the Danders supporters are holding her to a standard that she herself never supported.

    Parent

    Sanders believes everyone has a right (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 02:02:57 PM EST
    to health care - that's the "universal" part.  He believes single-payer is the best way to make that happen.

    What I said about Clinton was:

    I don't know what happened to Clinton's desire to have a universal system;

    So, does she still support a universal system, or doesn't she?  Maybe you could enlighten us.

    The ultimate goal, I believe, of the ACA was to structure something so that everyone would have access to coverage, right?  With Medicare for the over-65 crowd, Medicaid for the poor, and an ACA with more mandates, no refusing coverage for pre-existing conditions, no kicking sick people off their insurance, subsidies to help people pay for it, the idea was that everyone could get coverage.

    As many barriers as the ACA was designed to remove to obtain and pay for coverage, millions of people still have no health insurance.  The ACA isn't "the" reason, it's just that that's the system we have, and there are numerous factors at play.

    And it demonstrates why Sanders believes - as I do - that the only way to make this really work, to ensure that everyone is covered from cradle to grave, is to have one, single-payer system.  Sure, there are always details, but that is the foundation, it's where it starts.

    I have pointed, and do so once again - to the excellent work of the folks behind Physicians for a National Health Program.  These people have been working on this for years, they have a wealth of knowledge, they freely discuss the pitfalls, don't run from opposing points of view.  If you've never taken advantage of their site, and the many resources there, I cannot recommend it highly enough.

    I do not want to make this a battle between Clinton and Sanders; what I want is a better, more workable, fairer, more affordable, health system.  We don't agree on who has the better approach, but I think ultimately, we want the same things.

    Parent

    Yes (2.00 / 1) (#135)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 02:37:04 PM EST
    The ultimate goal, I believe, of the ACA was to structure something so that everyone would have access to coverage, right?  With Medicare for the over-65 crowd, Medicaid for the poor, and an ACA with more mandates, no refusing coverage for pre-existing conditions, no kicking sick people off their insurance, subsidies to help people pay for it, the idea was that everyone could get coverage.

    Exactly.  That is universal health coverage in a nutshell.  That's her position - she wants universal coverage by improving Obamacare.  She does not support single payer, even though the Sanders people like to conflate the two and try and make the argument you just made "She USED to be for it." No, she's ALWAYS been for it and still wants it.

    From her site

    And to distract from all this, they're launching false attacks on Hillary Clinton, claiming she no longer supports the goal of universal health care by wrongly conflating it with a single-payer system and arguing that her support of the hard-won victory of Obamacare represents a flip flop.

    Hillary Clinton has fought for universal health care her entire career. That's exactly why she wants to build on the progress we've made with the Affordable Care Act, which has already cut the uninsured rate to its lowest point in the country's history, rather than tearing it up.

    Now you can take it for what it's worth, coming from her own site, but until someone can actually show us that she is actively against Obamacare and argues that we don't need coverage for everyone, no one gets to make the argument that "she USED to be for it." OR call her a flip flopper, because it shows they don't understand what universal coverage actually is. Someone can argue that her position is not what they'd like to see, or it doesn't go far enough, but no one gets to say she's against universal coverage.  

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

    Would I like single payer?  Like I said yesterday- probably, although there are some legitimate questions still out there as to coverage, quality of care, and wait times in countrues with pseudo single payer like Canada (not truly single payer, as you have to buy private insurance for things like dental, vision,  and specialty medicine).

    But this was the opening the Clinton-hating media was waiting for -to play on the ignorance of the masses.  I get this is politucs, but Sanders knows better than this.  Too bad many of his supporters don't.


    Parent

    No: I said Clinton used to be for (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 02:46:45 PM EST
    a universal system; I did not say she supported single-payer.

    If the ACA is intended to be the universal system, how does she intend to move us closer to 100%?  

    Parent

    Somewhat off topic (none / 0) (#157)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 10:24:11 AM EST
    Thanks for providing a link to the analysts titled

    How Much Do Marketplace and Other Nongroup Enrollees
    Spend on Health Care Relative to Their Incomes?

    Finally finished reading it all. Very informative with a lot of detailed information on why so many are still struggling to get health care even with ACA.

    Parent

    Also from Hillary's site (none / 0) (#156)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 10:12:55 AM EST
    As a candidate for President, running in 2008, Hillary Clinton put out a specific proposal for universal coverage. And throughout this campaign, she has called repeatedly for building on the successes of the Affordable Care Act, which has already cut the uninsured rate to its lowest point in the country's history. She has laid out detailed plans for lowering out-of-pocket health care costs, for reducing the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs, and for ending Alzheimer's by 2025, among other things.

    Yes, in 2008 Hillary did put out a proposal with a goal of universal coverage. But her 2008 proposal was never adopted. What was signed into law was Obama's ACA legislation. As we all know, ACA does not provide universal coverage.

    Hillary has stated that she plans to build on and improve the current ACA system. In the quote above, it states several areas where she has laid out detailed plans to achieve desired improvements but what is missing are the detailed plans on how she intends to move the current ACA system to an universal system. I have read several write ups on her health care plan and I have not been able to find that information.

    If you have a link to such a plan, I would be very interested in reading it.

    Parent

    No that is not what I am saying (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:39:45 PM EST
    Sanders is the first to tell those who support him that he cannot do any of the things he proposes on his own. That for his plans to happen people have come out in force after the election and work to achieve these goals.

    I think that any chance for a single payer system to be implemented will require a lot of work by Sanders and like minded people. I think achieving that goal is best accomplished by a president who wants it to happen rather than one who wants to maintain the current private health insurance system and has come out strongly against a single payer system.

    What I do think is a pipe dream is that the Republicans are going to roll over and help Hillary improve Obamacare. Quite frankly, I don't see that as a realistic expectation from a party that is on record that they want to repeal it not improve it. A party whose base wants them to repeal Obamacare and who have tried to repeal it 60 times or so.

    Hillary and Chelsea's rhetoric is trying real hard take to single payer off the table for the immediate future.

    Actually I think that a President Sanders would be capable of working on more than one issue at a time. I don't think his supporters will be any more disappointed when he can't get good legislation through a Republican Congress any more than HRCs supporters will be when the Republicans block any attempt to pass good legislation. I trust Sanders to try. IMO, a president is judged by what he does not do as much as by what he does do. I, personally, trust him not to do certain things that would i would strongly disapprove.  i do not have the same level of trust in Hillary

    Parent

    Advocating for (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:50:11 AM EST
    Some facts (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:45:41 AM EST
    These analyses are missing, specially when based on the 2013 plan introduced by Sanders.

    From the Politifact article I linked to yesterday (so I'm not re-linking):

    Health policy experts say, however, that listing the health care income tax as the only cost to families is misleading.

    SNIP

    It's unclear whether Sanders would eliminate deductibles and co-pays. These costs currently exist under Medicare, and his 2013 bill makes no mention of changing the system. But the breakdown from his campaign lists both as $0.

    The 6.7 percent payroll tax should also be counted as a worker cost, since it most likely would come out of wages rather than employers' pockets, experts said. That's because the sticker price of employer-based insurance isn't what employers are actually spending.

    Employers "pay nothing for insurance in reality," as health care is a fringe benefit of a total compensation package, said Gerard Anderson, a professor of health policy at Johns Hopkins University. So when employers stop providing insurance and are required to pay into single-payer, less money will be available for paychecks.

    With this adjustment, the average family would save $505 to $1,823 a year.

    Like a free lunch, of course, there ain't no such thing as free health care. So where is the money to provide universal coverage coming from?

    The optimists' view (my bold);

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

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

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

    The big problem with Friedman's analysis is that he looked at a health care bill 3 years ago in isolation.  Since Sanders is now apparently planning to use those same raised taxes, not just to pay for single payer (which is different than universal coverage, by the way - the ACA had as its goal, to provide universal coverage), but now to cover free college tuition, paid family leave, etc., how accurate is this analysis?  And he still also doesn't account for job loss in the insurance industry, which would add a other tax on top of all of this.

    So, it's a good starting point for a discussion, but it certainly isn't definitive, much as dkos and Rachel Maddow would have you believe.

    Parent

    Here is another well written article (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:41:55 AM EST
    Misinformation About The Cost of Single-Payer National Health Insurance
    Posted by John Geyman MD on Monday, Sep 21, 2015

    In a front-page Wall Street Journal article a few days ago, the projection was made that a single-payer national health insurance program (NHI), as part of the presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), would cost $15 trillion over ten years. Accurate though that figure is, this under-researched article conveys disingenuous misinformation to a broad readership that might be inclined to dismiss such a program as too expensive to even consider.

    This article is irresponsible in what it doesn't say-- what the savings would be of reining in our current wasteful, overly bureaucratic profit-driven medical industrial complex, and the benefits that NHI would bring to our entire population compared to what we have now or have ever had.

    Thanks to a landmark study in 2013 by Gerald Friedman, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, we have a solid financial analysis of the costs and benefits of a single-payer national health plan. With NHI, $592 billion would be saved annually by cutting the administrative waste of some 1,300 private health insurers ($476 billion) and reducing pharmaceutical prices to European levels ($116 billion). These savings would be enough to cover all of the 44 million uninsured (at the time of his study) and upgrade benefits for all other Americans, even including dental and long-term care. A single-payer public financing system would be established, similar to traditional (not privatized) Medicare, coupled with a private delivery system. Instead of having to pay the increasing costs of private health insurance, so often with unaffordable deductibles and other cost-sharing, patients would present their NHI cards at the point of service without cost-sharing or other out-of-pocket costs. Care would be based on medical need, not ability to pay. (2)

    Link



    Parent
    You do know that Sanders is talking about (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 02:10:46 AM EST
    phasing in single payer and not just saying on Jan. 1st. all of this will end abruptly and we will have single payer. We were able to go from a private insurance system to the Medicare system without the world as we know it in the U.S. coming to an end.

    Mrs. Clinton's ideas tend to lean towards introducing more means testing and need based, welfare elements into existing programs including existing social insurance programs. Part of her current tweak to ACA is to provide an addition $5,000 tax credit to a select group of people based on need to help them pay their ever increasing deductibles, co-pays and coinsurance. This does nothing to reduce the ever increasing cost of insurance or ever increasing deductibles, co-pays etc but only creates another avenue for the government to pick up more of the tab for some.

    Part of her stated tweak to Medicare is to find a way to increase benefits only for people at the very lowest level of the system. Once again, a means testing, needs based method of addressing a problem.

    Parent

    Here is a less academic rebuttal (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 02:18:34 AM EST
    of the WSJ article.

    No, Bernie Sanders is not going to bankrupt America to the tune of $18 trillion

    The answer isn't quite so dramatic: while Sanders does want to spend significant amounts of money, almost all of it is on things we're already paying for; he just wants to change how we pay for them. In some ways it's by spreading out a cost currently borne by a limited number of people to all taxpayers.
    ...
    ... At the moment, total health care spending in the United States runs over $3 trillion a year; according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, over the next decade (from 2015-2024), America will spend a total of $42 trillion on health care. This is money that you and I and everyone else spends. We spend it in a variety of ways: through our health-insurance premiums, through the reduced salaries we get if our employers pick up part or all of the cost of those premiums, through our co-pays and deductibles, and through our taxes that fund Medicare, Medicaid, ACA subsidies, and the VA health care system. We're already paying about $10,000 a year per capita for health care.

    So let's say that Bernie Sanders became president and passed a single-payer health care system of some sort. And let's say that it did indeed cost $15 trillion over 10 years. Would that be $15 trillion in new money we'd be spending? No, it would be money that we're already spending on health care, but now it would go through government. If I told you I could cut your health insurance premiums by $1,000 and increase your taxes by $1,000, you wouldn't have lost $1,000. You'd be in the same place you are now.

    By the logic of the scary $18 trillion number, you could take a candidate who has proposed nothing on health care, and say, "So-and-so proposes spending $42 trillion on health care!" It would be accurate, but not particularly informative.

    Link



    Parent
    He did (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 03:39:02 PM EST
    seem to back away from his plan once the tax was mentioned. However he's running ads in Iowa stating that he'll pay for it with a Wall Street transaction tax which wouldn't be enough money first of all and secondly I thought that was what was supposed to pay for free college.

    Parent
    The fact it is being called (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 03:57:06 PM EST
    An attack is great illustration that he has not been attacked at all in this process.  Which is not great because if he a
    got the nomination he would actually, in fact, be attacked.

    Big time.

    Parent

    Correction: (none / 0) (#60)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:22:56 PM EST
    meant to write: ...transporting Medicaid expansion..

    Parent
    This just feels like a repeat of 2008 (4.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:32:11 AM EST
    The same polling trends actually.  Total groundhog day feels.  One thing that might be different though is, just in one persons opinion, I think Clinton's ok with losing this time. I think in 2008 she took it personally, but then at some point just had to realize if the media doesn't like you, everything you do, no matter what it is at all, will be considered a bad move. (so like look at this health care kerfuffle, she criticized Obama in 2008 for Obama taking a more incremental approach -- and she got killed in the media .... and now she criticized Bernie for not adopting a more incremental approach, -- and she gets killled in the media... At some point you relaize you could say "bernie is the candidate i give up" and youre still gonna get killed in the media.... )  You just can't take that all that stuff personally and you move on.  At least I hope I'm right about her learning that lesson, the amount of things she can accomplish thought the foundation remains.

    Nah (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:34:10 AM EST
    Obama had a natural constituency waiting for him plus Edwards supporters.

    Not 2008.

    Parent

    Hey I'll say it (none / 0) (#12)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:02:22 AM EST
    Even though it's ageist to say it, Obama was sexy too.  That's somebody you want to see deliver speeches for next 8 years, Bernie maybe not so much... All hands and well... I'll get myself in trouble....

    But really the issue we are dealing with is, for most of the media, she can't win for trying... and it's really just brutal...

    She doesn't attack, media says "she's too passive!"

    She attacks, "that vicious attack."

    It's just become a game at this point anything Clinton says or does it can be framed poorly somehow... And yes the media does want a close race and Hillary being defeated by the scrappy underdog "visionary"... Yet again... Is a great headline or I believe they call it clickbait these days.

    Let me put it this way, carry on, I'm just telling myself all this so as to ease the blow later on and not get so steamed every time she does or says anything only to find out oops thats the wrong thing too!  it's just an opinion, if you're right that works too! Ha!

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:36:15 AM EST
    when you realize that the media thinks a Republican should be in office because it's "their turn" it all makes sense.

    Parent
    I wrote in Hillary's name in November 2008. (2.00 / 1) (#68)
    by AX10 on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 06:58:29 PM EST
    I will do so again if she is not the nominee.
    The far left is as bad as the far right.

    Bernie or Trump will be one term losers.
    Their ideas are not going to be implemented and they will be declared losers.

    She is going to win ... (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:10:29 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:14:53 AM EST
    it looks like she is going to squeak out a win in Iowa.

    IMO Sanders stays in until his money runs out win or lose.

    Oh he is in until the Convention (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:22:56 AM EST
    But not to win if he loses say, Iowa, South Carolna nd Nevada.

    Parent
    No... (none / 0) (#17)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 12:09:51 PM EST
    the gold standard now, as it was when I was running the phone room back before Gannett took over the Register and we did it in-house, is the Iowa Poll.

    The fact that Selzer conducts it now does not change its name.  

    I just read (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 12:25:54 PM EST
    This at a site that's following the Iowa Caucuses:

    The last Selzer poll, widely regarded as the most able to detect whether new caucus-goers are going to show up....

    Link

    Parent

    The Nation endorses Sanders, (none / 0) (#19)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 12:38:11 PM EST
    here.

    Well worth a read.

    What kind of brain trust does Hillary have (none / 0) (#20)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 01:26:32 PM EST
    working for her here in 2016? Did she not learn anything from 2008?

    Which genius thought it was a good idea to send out daughter Chelsie as the designated attack dog, ripping Sanders over his proposals on healthcare and college affordability, arguing the White House hopeful wants to "dismantle" ObamaCare and Medicare?

    Not sure (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 01:37:20 PM EST
    because it seems to have started people discussing what Sanders actually wants to do and the cost of the plan.

    Parent
    That is the question (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 01:54:44 PM EST
    Who the heck is advising her? Answer: the same crew from 2008. It's still the John Podestas of the world.

    I keep hearing how Clinton is geared up and ready for the attacks destined to come at her from the GOP, which is why she's so electable and Sanders isn't. But, why then, can't she challenge Sanders' health care plan without flinging silly accusations? It's the smell of desperation from the Clinton camp all over again, which does, indeed, bring to mind 2008. It makes her act without thinking it through, behavior we don't usually ascribe to her. And all because of a few polls putting Sanders in contention for Iowa.

    She could have challenged his plan point by point, or even just summarized and dismissed it by saying it's not politically realistic with an intransigent GOP in congress. But she didn't. The ill-crafted attacks on Sanders' single payer plan had one result: it netted his campaign $1.4 million in contributions--in just one day.

    She's incredibly smart and capable, but she's not good at pivoting. And this flat-footedness is what makes me very nervous for when she wins the nomination. And I say "when" because I full expect it.

    Parent

    Look, we all know that image and optics (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:55:42 PM EST
    are extremely powerful factors in political campaigns. I know that I, as a somewhat Clinton supporter, cringed when I saw that it was daughter Chelsea making these charges against Sanders. Very few voters are going to slog through the minutia of competing health care proposals. But, I'm pretty sure the visceral reaction many voters will have regarding this privileged, married to Goldman Sachs, daughter attacking (and, disparaging) Bernie Sanders will be very negative. Like Bernie's followers don't hate Hillary enough already. And, from what I've read so far, most Hillary backers think it was a really dumb thing to do also.

    Just remember what I said..... "image and optics." It's just these kinds of self-inflicted, unnecessary, and, hurtful moves she seems to be prone to make that reinforces those "unlikeable" poll results we keep seeing.

    Some of the comments I see, saying, "but, Chelsea was right," miss the point completely. Hillary Clinton, should she become the Presidential Candidate, will need all the votes she can get. Why does she do something that will only further alienate Sander's supporters?

    What would have been wrong with her responding something like this:

    "I have been actively studying how to improve our health care system for many decades. It has been one of my most fervent passions for over 40 years. I believe I have designed a program that will greatly improve, and, build upon what we have already started. And, yet, I'm not so self-absorbed as to believe that others may not have good ideas also. I have no doubt that Senator Sanders has the best interests of all Americans at heart with his health care ideas. And, should I be so fortunate as to be your next President, I would like nothing more than to sit down with the Senator and listen to whatever he feels could be done to make our health care system even better."

    "Kill'em with kindness" always works better than a stick in the eye.

    Parent

    Let (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 03:01:11 PM EST
    me tell you what is annoying about all this. Hillary is supposed to be able to take all the slings and barbs but Bernie is not to be touched. I have to say though judging by some reactions it appears that Bernie cannot handle the slings and barbs. Does not encourage any kind of faith in him as the nominee.

    It's politics and it can be ugly at times.

    Parent

    One of your funnier comments today. (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 03:07:15 PM EST
    [I'm trying to laugh at them instead of being annoyed by them; I don't always succeed.]

    By all means, let's put our faith in someone who has to distort the facts to stop leaking support.

    I'm sure Hillary will be just fine with you out there with your disinformation campaign.

    Parent

    Okay. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 03:08:45 PM EST
    Ignore the crux of my argument about handing barbs.

    Parent
    If we adopt your reasoning and apply it equally (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 02:35:32 AM EST
    When Hillary or one of her staff disbutes false or misleading information about her or her positions it is a sign that she is not able to handle the barbs and accusations that will thrown against her.

    Or when you, a Hillary supporter, disbute false or misleading information about her, that also is a sign that Hillary will not be able to handle the accusations that the Republicans will throw at her.

    Maybe, both candidates need to give up now since according to your logic neither will be able to handle the accusations in the general.

    Parent

    Certainly. (2.00 / 3) (#69)
    by AX10 on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 06:59:49 PM EST
    Bernie can do no wrong, Hillary no right.
    Bill should not lift a finger for Bernie if
    he is the nominee.

    Parent
    "And yet I'm not so (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 03:01:19 PM EST
    self-absorbed ...."    Good thing you don't write her copy

    Parent
    The audience for Chelsea is (none / 0) (#67)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 06:44:04 PM EST
    the university/college, etc. populace primarily in 3 Iowa counties.  It wasn't meant for the died-in-the-wool political aficionados such as many in our TL audience ... imo.

    Parent
    The university populace who (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 07:02:44 PM EST
    hopefully have mentors happy to point out Chelsea's deep roots in the culture of the hedge fund manager-Goldman Sachs status quo..

    Parent
    That is a point ... but, (none / 0) (#74)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:07:18 PM EST
    one that doesn't appear responsive to the healthcare financing/funding issue that she addressed.

    Parent
    That's ridiculous (3.50 / 2) (#24)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:12:12 PM EST
    and it's absolutely the truth what Chelsea said.  Why can't Sanders just own it if it's such a great idea?

    If we go to single payer, what happens to existing programs?  Do they still exist?

    Medicare would be gone, Medicaid would be gone, CHIP would be gone - all replaced by a new program why is that hard to grasp?

    You can call it whatever you want Medicare for all, single-payer, national health insurance, whatever.  With CMS gone, it would certainly not be the same Medicare people have today.

    If you try to

    Parent

    Technically true, perhaps... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:16:08 PM EST
    but also intentionally misleading...the exact type of politics people are f8cking tired of.

    The existing programs are band-aids, Bernie wants to fix the system so band-aids are no longer required to limit the bleeding. He wants to close the wound.

    Parent

    For reasons that are not entirely self serving (2.00 / 2) (#33)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:21:50 PM EST
    I don't think it'll close the wound.  I think it'll three-card-monty the costs around.

    Root cause is us.  All of us unhealthy f*cks who don't eat right and don't exercise enough.  It's smokers like you and I, or people who drink.  It is America.

    The sooner we accept that-or mandate P90x for everyone the better.

    Parent

    Maybe moreso... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:28:40 PM EST
    the "healthy" mother*ckers livin' to 90 and seeing doctors and taking meds all the time.

    Anecdotal comparison...my smoking and drinking dear departed old man never cost the health care system a nickel...my 93 year old "healthy" great uncle has soaked the VA for more treatments and drugs than you could possibly imagine.

    Parent

    And at 55... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:35:58 PM EST
    I've cost health insurance companies millions and millions from the time I was 7.

    Parent
    And may you keep on.... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:01:47 PM EST
    getting claims paid for many years to come, old friend...without too much bureaucratic hassle.

    Parent
    Yeah, but there are just as many (none / 0) (#43)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:33:32 PM EST
    cases of smoking, drinking folks who met their end much too soon, from lung disease, kidney disease, heart disease, liver disease, neurological disease...all directly related to the smoking and drinking.

    Like my mom.

    It's a horrible, debilitating way to go.

    Parent

    You know what Bro (none / 0) (#44)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:33:38 PM EST
    I'm sure that is probably a lot of it too - a whole lot.


    Parent
    Wow Europeans have (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 03:54:51 PM EST
    UNIVERSAL Health Care systems which costs considerably less than the bloated private insurance system we have here which leaves millions of people without health care. How about a little research on one of the items you used to place the blame on the people who need Health Care.

    According to a report released in early December by the World Health Organization, 28 percent of European adults smoked daily in 2011, compared to 31 percent of French adults. Only 14 percent of American adults smoked daily in the same year.Feb 9, 2014

    Whoops, a real fail there, Europeons have universal health care and it costs considerably less than the U.S. Even though their citizens smoke more than Americans.

    Parent

    Ya know what... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:07:22 PM EST
    may be a big part of Europeans living healthier lives at lower cost...less f#ckin' stress!

    They work less, smoke more, and don't have the worry that a serious illness will bankrupt them.  Three big stress relievers right there.

    I thereby propose further health care reform include 4 weeks minimum paid vacation!

    Parent

    Actually Europeans don't smoke more (none / 0) (#63)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:48:42 PM EST
    There may be more people overall in the EU smoking, but the difference between the U.S and EU in the rates of smoking related disease and death is likely this: while a higher percentage of Europeans smoke, they smoke fewer cigarettes per day than Americans.

    Heavier smokers (those smoking 20 or more cigarettes per day) are much more likely to get smoking related diseases, and die from them.

    The idea that smoking is healthy for you is...well, there's no point in me finishing that sentence.

    Parent

    My doctor (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 06:00:30 PM EST
    Says the same about them and alcohol.  That it's about moderation.

    I recently asked him about my pretty much daily cocktail hour.   That was his response.  And I actually do it in moderation.  Usually every day and usually one. Sometimes two.   He says that not a problem.

    Happily.

    Parent

    IN fact (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 07:11:46 PM EST
    On the sheet of dietary do's and don'ts I got after my kidney stone distilled spirits was in the DO list.  Beer even more so.

    Parent
    You know (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:21:55 PM EST
    though if Bernie feels that way he should own it. Say, yes, I want to get rid of all of those because my plan is superior but he's not. He's trying to dance around the issue. he's saying oh, I'm going to get rid of Obamacare but I'm wanting to instate single payer which does not compute.

    Parent
    You work in the insurance industry (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:19:03 PM EST
    and have a vested interest in the status quo, for-profit health care system. That is why I routinely ignore your comments about single payer.

    Parent
    good for you (2.00 / 1) (#36)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:22:12 PM EST
    Why would you need all those separate (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:22:28 PM EST
    programs if everyone is covered?  The only reason we have them now is because the existing private system was leaving out too many people.

    I'd expect more from someone who purports to be in the health insurance industry; the only phrase that comes to mind is, "and you want to be my latex salesman."

    Seinfeld reference
    .

    Parent

    Why am I the focus ? (none / 0) (#39)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:27:20 PM EST
    We're talking about your boy Bernie.  I make my living the way I do and am proud to be a working American.

    You agree then things would be dismantled -

    Why would you need all those separate  (none / 0) (#38)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:22:28 PM EST

    programs if everyone is covered?  



    Parent
    Yes, and they "dismantled" private (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 03:03:44 PM EST
    insurance for the over-65 crowd, too, didn't they?

    Did something take its place?  Well, yes: Medicare.

    Those bastards!

    Parent

    d@mn small touch screen buttons (none / 0) (#29)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:17:55 PM EST
    if you try to sell me a 2000 Mercedes and I say no I want the 2016, yeah you can call them both Mercedes, but reality is they are not the same.

    Parent
    Note the age separation in terms of (none / 0) (#66)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 06:40:34 PM EST
    preferences in the Iowa Selzer poll.  Big gap ... with those under 45 strongly supporting Sanders and those over 45 strongly supporting HRC.  I'm wondering if the designation of Chelsea as opening spokesperson on the healthcare issue served as an attention-getting/focus device not only in the broader discussion/debate sense but in the sense of the younger generation reaching across the divide to the Iowa younger cohort.  Why? It may be something as simple as even opening the ears to one with whom you might perceive at least the commonality of a younger generation.

    Parent
    So the solution to opening the ears (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:24:30 AM EST
    Of young voters is for Chelsea to distort the truth?

    I think you really believe that is a good strategy.

    I think that those distortions, and yes, they were intentional distortions, will turn the majority of young voters off.

    What Clinton and Chelsea's attacks have accomplished so far is that they have raised a great deal of money for Bernie Sanders.

    Parent

    Well, it annoyed me enough (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Zorba on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 02:05:21 PM EST
    (and I am very, very far from a young voter) that I just sent more money to the Sanders campaign.
    And so did Daughter Zorba, BTW.  Not that she is quite as young as Chelsea Clinton, but she's certainly much younger than I am.

    Parent
    We need to clarify the costs (none / 0) (#139)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:03:16 PM EST
    of Sanders' healthcare proposals ... the practical reality that cannot be avoided as we go further down this election road.

    Look, saying something is "distortion" doesn't make it so.  Let us evaluate it from all sides.  I hope the moderators pursue the healthcare process issue in terms of positions, costs, and clarifications.  We shouldn't be afraid to trade challenges and questions during a significant election. Period.

    Parent

    Some pretty knowledgeable people (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:03:12 PM EST
    have gone on record stating the $15 trillion number put forth by the WSJ and being used by Hillary distorts the cost of single payer because it would replace much of the current system; thereby eliminating and replacing those costs rather than just being an additional cost. Goolsbee's formula also leaves out important elements from his formula; thereby returning inaccurate results.

    As was illustrated in one of my links, a person could say that HRC is advocating for a health care system that is projected to cost $42 trillion dollars. On some level that would be a factual statement because for the most part she wants to maintain the current system with a few tweaks and that system has been projected to cost $42 trillion dollars for the next ten years. While factual, it would not be a fair accessment of her proposal any more than the numbers that the WSJ and Clinton are a fair accessment of a single payer system

    Let's have Hillary put out the cost for her proposals added to the costs of the current system which she plans to tweak as well. Projected costs for private and Medicare insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pays and coinsurance and a list of benefits to be provided should be included. We can then do a real cost/benefit analysis of both systems.

    I say put the total costs of both system out there. Let's evaluate Clinton's plan as well as Sanders.

    Parent

    Yes, the more light shed on this issue (none / 0) (#146)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:44:42 PM EST
    the better.  

    And, without getting too much into the he said/she said on the matter:  Sanders really should put his plan, with cost and other $$$ details out for public review in the coming days. There are a number of reasons about why that should be expected ... for one, imo, there is no way that this matter of costs will escape the attack machine of the Repubs if considered to be kept under wraps.  

    Parent

    In the same vein, (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:29:55 PM EST
    Hillary really needs to put her plan with the cost and other $$$ details out for public review in the coming days. Since her plan includes ACA as the basis of her health care system, the cost details need to include projections on the increases in premiums, deductibles, co-pays and administration costs, the projected cost of future subsidies as well as her tweaks to the system like the cost related to her proposed additional tax credits and effect on premiums of other enhancements to the coverage and the projected $87 billion dollar reduction in the government revenue over an 8 year period due to proposed repeal of the Cadillac Tax. There is no way that the cost of Hillary's plan will escape the attack machine of the Republicans if considered to be kept under wraps (we both know that the Republicans will attack the cost of both plans no matter when they are revealed but I will stay with your argument).

    When do you anticipate Hillary will release this level of detail of the complete cost of her plan for public review? We really need to shine the light on the costs of her plan as well so that it can be fairly compared to Sanders plans.

    Parent

    Usually it is the proponent of change who (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 11:24:35 PM EST
    is expected to put forth the change with supporting numbers, etc.  While a side-by-side would clearly be helpful at some point, it is Sanders who had initiated the matter of putting his plan with numbers/$$$$/etc.in the open so that potential caucus-goers could review.

    Again, the burden to support fundamental change from the present process really rests with the proponent of change.  Updates to costs involving the ACA would be expected--in the reporting course of things--from the supporting Administration via HHS.  

    I really am curious to compare--in general--the effect of Sanders' single payer plan on my present healthcare costs.  Containing healthcare costs for as many people as possible is in everyone's interest.  

    Parent

    Nah, I don't buy that (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 12:07:57 AM EST
    If it is the duty of the proponent of change to outline the fundamentals including the costs of the changes, then Hillary also has that duty.

    Hillary says that she has a health care plan and that she is going to take the current system and change it for the better. She has said she is adding additional benefits, tax credits and repealing taxes meant to reduce costs and produce revenue. She is suggesting more regulations and increased regulatory reviews. How much will that cost? Those changes alone will change the cost structure of the current system. She says her changes to the ACA system will make her plan better than Sanders. If so, let her put the costs out for public review at the same time as Sanders does and let the public decide.

    Let her put it out for public display so we can judge if her plan really is an improvement and how much her improved health care system will cost. Without the nitty gritty details of how much her plan will cost, it is just smoke and mirrors with voters unable to determine if her plan will actually make the private health insurance more affordable or not.

    I'm really curious to see the impact that Hillary's changes will have on the costs of private insurance. We know now, that due to the deductible, co-pays and coinsurance many people are struggling to afford actual health care. Will her plan just put a short term bandage on the affordability problem where after a year or two the cost increases exceed her proposed fixes or will it have a long term effect.How will her plan increase or decrease the administration costs which according to some reports I've seen are running pretty high.

    Parent

    Simply put: Where is the promised plan (none / 0) (#159)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 01:02:40 PM EST
    Really, MoBlue ... my understanding is that Mr. Sanders said his detailed plan (with costs & savings) would be available for the public view before the Iowa caucuses.  It is fair to expect to see that plan, then.

    I would expect that after the plan for single payer--with costs & savings--is made transparent for all, that Hillary Clinton should be expected to respond in full.  At that point: Clinton would offer whatever differences with the present ACA that she would propose along with associated costs & savings.

    The ACA approach, which Clinton has supported to date (except for suggestions about responsibility for the so-called "Cadillac plan" costs/benefits) is not an essential change in the overall law of the land, the ACA.  For that reason--because she has not proposed jettisoning the ACA nor major change in the exchange & delivery operations--the burden for explaining the advantages of Sanders' proposed extensive change to single-payer must rest with him as its proponent.

    I do understand your position, MoBlue ... but, here, the many words that you seem to be using to forestall the release of Sanders' plan does seem to be agenda-driven.  (In fact, I'm reminded of the several times that some of your TL associates have characterized my explanations of various positions as "word salad." If that is so, your re-stated resistance to making public the costs of Sanders' plan should reach the level a "hearty word dinner."  :) )

    BTW, whatever happens, it is ok.

    Parent

    Simply put what is the cost (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 02:04:30 PM EST
    of HRC's plan? The total cost of her proposed health care has not been disclosed.

     I can understand your stated resistance to Hillary releasing the TOTAL costs of her health care plan. Keeping the costs a well guarded secret allows her and her surgates to attack a single payer system as too costly, while hiding the fact that the health care system she proposes may well actually cost more for less coverage and does not provide affordable universal health care.

    Word dinner? Nice touch but still doesn't negate the fact that HRC has not released the TOTAL costs of her health care plan, or a detailed plan on how she is going to achieve universal coverage.


    Parent

    Sorry ...it is Sanders' turn (none / 0) (#161)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 03:33:04 PM EST
    Anyway...we'll only go round & round in this thread.  

    The Dem Debate tomorrow should be interesting ... better yet, maybe it will be illuminating.  

    Parent

    I wonder if HRC will admit her error (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 05:09:44 PM EST
    I wonder if Hillary will admit the $15 trillion cost of a single payer system she and the WSJ are citing came from an analysis done bt Dr. Gerald Friedman.* I wonder if she will acknowledge that in that same analysis, Dr. Friedman produced data to show that the single payer system with the $15 trillion 10 year price tag would save over $4 trillion over the current ACA system.

    In Sept. 2015, Dr. Friedman in an Open Letter to the WSJ called their article a "hit piece" an reiterated what they chose to leave out. Once again, here are the number that are part of his analysis and his rebuttal to the WSJ's " hit piece."

    10-year estimates of spending with the current system and HR 676 (in $ billions):

    Projected total NHE (personal health care) with ACA (current system) $42,914

    Projected total NHE (personal health care) with Conyer's bill (single payer) $37.834

    Additional spending available to provide universal access and cover uninsured $4,553

    The analysis, which was conducted by University of Massachusetts at Amherst economist Gerald Friedmoan, would "require $15 trillion in federal spending over 10 years, on top of existing federal health spending," according to The Journal.

    Gerald Friedman's research was cited in a Wall Street Journal story about Bernie Sanders's proposals for government spending. Friedman responds to that story below.

    **source

    I wonder if she will acknowledge that the ACA system that she has chosen to maintain is not a universal health care system and is projected leave millions of people uninsured.

    The ACA is expected to leave 27 million uninsured in coming years, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.

    Link

    This is not a matter of he says - she says as you continue to claim. It is a matter of cherry picking a number out of an analysis to create a "hit piece" and an erroneous political attack and leaving out the parts of the analysis that completely contradict your propaganda.

    It really was not all right for the WSJ and Hillary's campaign to distort Dr. Friedman's analysis. Now you may chose not to read the data and you may chose to ignore the facts...the truth may not matter to you or some other HRC supporters. But it really matters to all the people who can not afford health care even after the government spends trillions of dollars.


    Parent

    Huffington Post weighs in (none / 0) (#163)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 06:19:46 PM EST
    And yet, Clinton has responded to the adversity by doing, frankly, what Clintons always tend to do -- going on the attack. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as those attacks make sense in the context of a Democratic primary. What Clinton has come up with, however, is strategic madness.

    Perhaps the most astounding mistake Clinton has made, in recent days, is the way she's gone about competing with Sanders on the issue of health care. Sanders favors a single-payer, Medicare-for-all system. Clinton would prefer to make incremental expansions to Obamacare.

    But instead of convincing voters that she'd be the more politically effective candidate in this situation, Clinton's gone all the way 'round the bend and has decided to ramp up unnecessary fearmongering, dispatching her daughter to New Hampshire to darkly warn that Sanders is gonna take everyone's health care away:

    http://tinyurl.com/gr5vv7x

    Parent

    So, the further right & the left (none / 0) (#164)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 11:24:20 PM EST
    come together in critiques from time to time....:)

    Parent
    Sometimes the truth is just the truth (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 07:28:00 AM EST
    And sometimes HRC's campaign attacks are not just lies as numerous Democratic pundits like those quoted above have called out as distortions of the truth but also very stupid. Left wing and mid of the road Democratic reporters and pundits have come together and agreed that HRC's attacks on Sanders health care were not only groundless 'hit pieces" but stupid as well. "Disingenuous to the point of farce" was one descriptors.  

    Those are not Trevor's word that you are responding to. They are a quote from a Huffington Post post titled

    Hillary Clinton Is Botching Her Best Chance To Win
    Not again.

    By Jason Linkins
    'Eat The Press' Columnist, The Huffington Post
    Zach Carter
    Senior Political Economy Reporter, The Huffington Post

    Neither writer writes from the right.

    Post after pundit post repeats the same critiques. HRC attacks on Sanders health care were not the truth, Clinton was well aware that they were not true and they were a very stupid move.

    Sometimes lies are just the lies and writers come together to acknowledge that they were lies.

    Parent

    What is the cost of his plan, then? (none / 0) (#165)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 11:25:21 PM EST
    Most experts think it would be cheaper (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 12:15:45 AM EST
    than Hillary's and provide universal coverage that is lacking in the current system.
    One version of the attack accuses Sanders of raising taxes on middle-class Americans. "There is no way that can be paid for without raising taxes on the middle class," Clinton said in Iowa. "The arithmetic just doesn't add up."

    Here, Clinton is neglecting to mention that those taxes would replace the insurance premiums people are already paying, and would likely be lower than the insurance premiums people are already paying. If single-payer is cheaper than the current health care system -- and most experts believe it would be -- then the net result would be less spending.

    Link

    Also, you might want to read the rest of this post. It pretty much lays out the consensus opinion that Hillary was knowingly not telling the truth in her attacks against Sanders. The consensus opinion also is it was a stupid thing to do.

    Hillary Clinton's campaign has spent the past few days indulging its worst instincts. It blundered into a dumb attack on Bernie Sanders, but rather than back down it raised the stakes. The result has been a reminder, to liberals, of what they like about Sanders and mistrust about Clinton. But it's also been a missed opportunity for Clinton to make the case to Democratic primary voters that she should have been making all along.


    Parent
    Nothing wrong with clarification, but (none / 0) (#141)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:20:13 PM EST
    I think that in addition to discussing the costs of Sanders' plan, we also need to look at the savings - as well as taking a serious look at those same elements within the current system.

    Parent
    Agree. The savings must be presented as well. (none / 0) (#145)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:40:02 PM EST
    Seriously... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:12:58 PM EST
    the Chelsea spiel looks especially ridiculous when Bernie has this in his photo album.

    Panic is a stinky perfume.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:15:07 PM EST
    That was a thank you note for his support. She was the driving force for real change in healthcare and Bernie supported her. I don't recall Bernie testifying in front of congress for universal healthcare!

    Parent
    Bernie has testified... (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:20:18 PM EST
    for his entire career.

    Speaking of intentionally misleading...is that you Chelsea? ;)

    Parent

    Truth hurts, bro. (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:22:01 PM EST
    Hurt? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:42:37 PM EST
    I feel like Tony the Tiger as far as Bernie is concerned....grrrreat!  He could drop out tomorrow and still have exceeded my wildest expectations.

    The political shift of the nation is swinging back left, we never argued about Dennis Kucinich like this.  Happy Days!

    Parent

    Cute...but really not responsive, kdog (none / 0) (#75)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:09:26 PM EST
    BTW, you don't really believe that typical hard-hitting big league presidential campaigns signify "panic?"

    Parent
    It isn't that she's ripping Sanders, per se; (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:14:57 PM EST
    it's the dishonest way she's doing it (my bold):

    "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.

    What is she so afraid of?  This is the same Hillary Clinton who went after Obama in 2008 because he didn't have a single-payer/universal plan, and now she wants to attack Sanders because he does?  Wants to scare people into thinking that Sanders wants to take away their health insurance?

    It smells desperate, and dumb.  She'd have gotten more traction, probably, from demonizing the socialist flavor of Bernie's plan; if he makes any more headway in the polls, look for that next.

    Looking forward to an in-depth discussion about health care in the next debate - assuming whoever is moderating allows it.

    Parent

    I would love to see a debate (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:22:19 PM EST
    centered around only two issues:

    The first 45 minutes: job creation and wages

    The last 45 minutes: health care

    It would probably take someone like Gwenn Iffil or Ray Suarez (how I miss him!) to conduct such a debate.

    Parent

    I hope they keep OMalley out (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:01:28 PM EST
    So such a thing could actually happen sans his tantrums.

    Parent
    Just read (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:11:26 PM EST
    he is in the debate. So your wish is not gonna come true. Sorry :)

    Parent
    Kind of like candidate (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:32:42 PM EST
    Obama rejected mandates out of hand.

    Parent
    Keep repeating it (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:21:20 PM EST
    "It doesn't replace it, it exceeds it."

    Um, yeah, considering it's not true.  It absolutely replaces it with something different, and of course, we still don't know how he's gonna pay for it.  (Well, we know he won't have to, because it will never happen, so he can say whatever he wants, and his supporters can keep believing that "taxing the rich" and "the savings from not paying premiums" will offset all the costs).

    Parent

    It's ok to "slime" one but (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:31:33 PM EST
    not the other.

    Parent
    It seems so (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:34:44 PM EST
    Maybe you missed this (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 01:29:23 PM EST
    From the last post:
    =====
    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