Bernie Sanders Presidency: 5 Ways Your Money Could be Affected.

Greenbeard said:

Not sure I agree that nobody's suggesting that. In Bernie's telling, it's all very simple: we cover everybody with even more generous coverage than Medicare currently offers, nobody has any deductibles or cost-sharing, and we save ~$600 billion a year virtually overnight. And he points to the fact that the rest of the world does it significantly more cheaply than we do, with the implication (intended or not) that we could achieve that.

What he's put out so far is getting nit-picked intensely, and for good reason: once you get pass the slogan phase (whether it be the left's "Medicare for all" slogan or the right's "across state lines" slogan), it turns out this is complicated. This is hard stuff. The conceit of the single-payer movement--which in some ways is mirrored by rhetoric on the right--is always that it's all ultimately very simple and we're just overcomplicating things now. And while single-payer may be simpler in many ways than other approaches, this is tough stuff. As Bernie is finding out now as he takes heat for the very high-level framework he's trying to sketch out.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that although all the other industrialized nations have been able to do it...we American cannot?

Is it that are too stupid in your opinion?

Frank Apisa said:

Are you suggesting that although all the other industrialized nations have been able to do it...we American cannot?

Is it that are too stupid in your opinion?

Click to expand...

No, it's that we could have achieved the results they do at the costs they do. If we had started decades ago when they did.

But we are where we are now. We spend $3 trillion a year on health care. That's money that flows into our hospitals, our clinics, our communities. It's a huge chunk of our economy and it employs a lot of people (in many areas, a health care system is the single largest non-government employer). The cost structures of our hospitals and health systems have evolved to depend on the amount of revenue they're taking in today.

If we decided tomorrow we were just going to pay lower prices and suck half the revenue out of the system, we'd have a disaster on our hands. Both an economic/employment disaster and a public health disaster. The best we can do at this point is work on slowing health spending growth as much as we can, re-align the incentives to encourage more efficient cost structures going forward, and aim to gradually steer labor into other sectors of the economy.

That's the project that's already started under the ACA. Perhaps single-payer would/will be better at achieving it and sustaining over the long run, but it's not going to substantially accelerate it. Because, again, accelerating it would be extremely disruptive. All we can do is try and steer the way the system evolves from here to put it on something of a sustainable footing; we can't try and achieve tomorrow what other countries or systems achieved over a period of decades.

Greenbeard said:

No, it's that we could have achieved the results they do at the costs they do. If we had started decades ago when they did.

But we are where we are now. We spend $3 trillion a year on health care. That's money that flows into our hospitals, our clinics, our communities. It's a huge chunk of our economy and it employs a lot of people (in many areas, a health care system is the single largest non-government employer). The cost structures of our hospitals and health systems have evolved to depend on the amount of revenue they're taking in today.

If we decided tomorrow we were just going to pay lower prices and suck half the revenue out of the system, we'd have a disaster on our hands. Both an economic/employment disaster and a public health disaster. The best we can do at this point is work on slowing health spending growth as much as we can, re-align the incentives to encourage more efficient cost structures going forward, and aim to gradually steer labor into other sectors of the economy.

That's the project that's already started under the ACA. Perhaps single-payer would/will be better at achieving it and sustaining over the long run, but it's not going to substantially accelerate it. Because, again, accelerating it would be extremely disruptive. All we can do is try and steer the way the system evolves from here to put it on something of a sustainable footing; we can't try and achieve tomorrow what other countries or systems achieved over a period of decades.

Click to expand...

One of the problems with a democracy...and with two parties regularly shifting in power...

...is the "we'll get it done tomorrow or the day after that" syndrome that usually ends up with nothing getting done.

We've had people advocating for a different medical care structure for most of my adult life (I'm 79)...and at some point we have got to stop saying we can do it further down the line...and actually get it done.

Okay...with that out of the way...you are correct that it cannot be as disruptively as having it happen tomorrow. But surely you do not think that Sanders will insist that it be done tomorrow.

I suspect he is asking it to BE DONE TOMORROW...in order to see it done sometime during the next three decades.

Or...we can just keep putting it off...which I do not want to see happen.

(By the way, I am not a Bernie Sanders supporter...although I will vote for him with a huge smile on my face if he beats Hillary Clinton for the nomination.)

The government makes a killing on student loans, I'd support refinance options but not "free college." A 6+% interest rate on student loans with special repayment considerations like no ability to bankrupt the loans and legal penalties for late payments does take advantage of students, especially those who don't come from wealthy families. The worst it hurts are grad students, but I doubt Bernie cares much about those who will make 6 figures out of school, their taxes and their student loan interest will fund the Barista at Starbucks that took out 50k for an art history degree. Even under Obama the cap on interest deductions on your taxes is around 75k a year income, the whole system is set up to screw graduate degree holders and they like that, I doubt Bernie would change that either since they're "the rich."

The rest of Bernie's policies are illogical and damaging to the country. He's the Dems version of Donald Trump minus the social outrage (because it's acceptable to be a far-left socialist on social media).

His tax policies and "Wall Street" reforms would damage the financial sector, likely hurt the stock market which in turn hurts people's retirement funds. Single Payer healthcare on a federal level is probably the worst idea for healthcare reform. The US is diverse and the government inefficient. Having 1 payer for all 325 million people spanning a vast country with many different demographics, state laws, and health problems would be a disaster and also a damaging overhaul of the system. It removes people's healthcare choice freedoms as well as giving an already bloated federal government more power.

I wish Democrats, like Republicans, would wake up and stop supporting such fools for the presidency like Trump (then again between Sanders and Hillary the Dem candidates are all fools :mrgreen: that's what happens when you oust reasonable people like Jim Webb for not being far-left enough).

Frank Apisa said:

Or...we can just keep putting it off...which I do not want to see happen.

Click to expand...

I don't think it is being put off anymore. Much of what single-payer advocates like Bernie want to achieve has been seeing progress over the past few years.

Greenbeard said:

I don't think it is being put off anymore. Much of what single-payer advocates like Bernie want to achieve has been seeing progress over the past few years.

Click to expand...

I hope you are correct, GB, except that although I sorta agree that movement toward it is evident...

...I see the movement to stop it and reverse it being even more evident.

The movement toward it must be a sustained movement. I'm not sure it can be sustained in the face of the kind of opposition conservative America mounts.

RabidAlpaca said:

Except for the fact that all of these things have already been successfully implemented in most modern countries around the world. You're free to think that poor people don't deserve medical treatment or education, but don't for one second pretend this is unworkable or unrealistic, as we have dozens of examples to the contrary.

If we really want to call ourselves the best country in the world again, we need to modernize and start giving a **** about our people. We spent trillions and trillions on afghans and Iraqis and you want to complain about actually spending a tiny fraction of that on Americans? Priorities. There's always enough money for guns, never enough for butter.

Click to expand...

As an example, Cuba, with far fewer resources than the U.S. provides universal coverage and is ranked 39 to the USA's 37.

What I find refreshing about Sanders is that he's bringing issues to the main discussion that have been relegated to the back-burner or marked as "impractical." He truly lives RFK's words, "I dream things that never were and say, why not?"

MTAtech said:

As an example, Cuba, with far fewer resources than the U.S. provides universal coverage and is ranked 39 to the USA's 37.

Click to expand...

Oh pluuueeeze Sanders, use Cuba as a example in a public settings.

Pluuueeeze !!

Fenton said:

Oh pluuueeeze Sanders, use Cuba as a example in a public settings.

Pluuueeeze !!

Click to expand...

Indeed. A small, resource poor, blockaded, embargoed, browbeaten country, yet one with, in some respects, better health outcomes than the US. And more of an egalilatarin society. Indeed one with more of the fantasized objectives of the 1770's revolutionaries in the nascent US, than has actually been the case in the contemporary US. What an embarrassment. No wonder the uber-right want to push this issue into the non-media background.

Fenton said:

Oh pluuueeeze Sanders, use Cuba as a example in a public settings.

Pluuueeeze !!

Click to expand...

Just another example of Republican political correctness -- always show Cuba in a bad light and if there is anything that Cuba does well... shhhh.

There are things to learn from other countries. If a poor country like Cuba can have similar medical outcomes as the U.S., at lower cost, using a universal system, why do Republicans think that there is nothing to learn from that?

MTAtech said:

If a poor country like Cuba can have similar medical outcomes as the U.S., at lower cost, using a universal system, why do Republicans think that there is nothing to learn from that?

Click to expand...

Because in universal National HealthCare Systems the professional fees and pharmaceuticals are mandated by the National Health Service. (The NHS can negotiate better pricing from volume contracts, and the savings passed on to HC-consumers.)

Which means, in France (for instance), medical practitioners earn about a third less than in the US. But, in the US, incomes are substantially higher. The GP, for instance, in the US earns $186K annually. As well, pharmaceutical costs are much higher in the US as well for the reason stated above.

Check out the facts:
*The US has the mostly costly healthcare system on earth. Scroll down to the info-graphic in this OECD report: WHY IS HEALTH SPENDING IN THE UNITED STATES SO HIGH?.
*And, one must ask "for what?" A life-span that is less than most of Europe that has far lower total HC-costs. See that fact derived from this info-graphic here: Life expectancy and total HealthCare spending (OECD countries).

The American public is being ripped-off by privatized health-care - it can be done far cheaper and should be.

Bernie is simply copying the idea of a National Healthcare Service that has existed and works well in Europe since the 1950s - that's 65 years ago ... !

Lafayette said:

Because in universal National HealthCare Systems the professional fees and pharmaceuticals are mandated by the National Health Service. (The NHS can negotiate better pricing from volume contracts, and the savings passed on to HC-consumers.)

Which means, in France (for instance), medical practitioners earn about a third less than in the US. But, in the US, incomes are substantially higher. The GP, for instance, in the US earns $186K annually. As well, pharmaceutical costs are much higher in the US as well for the reason stated above.

Check out the facts:
*The US has the mostly costly healthcare system on earth. Scroll down to the info-graphic in this OECD report: WHY IS HEALTH SPENDING IN THE UNITED STATES SO HIGH?.
*And, one must ask "for what?" A life-span that is less than most of Europe that has far lower total HC-costs. See that fact derived from this info-graphic here: Life expectancy and total HealthCare spending (OECD countries).

The American public is being ripped-off by privatized health-care - it can be done far cheaper and should be.

Bernie is simply copying the idea of a National Healthcare Service that has existed and works well in Europe since the 1950s - that's 65 years ago ... !

Click to expand...

Those are good points. I would have to add, what's wrong with copying a 65 year old model, if the model works? Our model is much older and doesn't work.

What Sanders points out is that our system is broken. Why should Medicare be barred, by law, from negotiating prices with drug companies? Why? Because the drug companies and their lobbyists make visits to Congress carrying suitcases full of cash.

MTAtech said:

... what's wrong with copying a 65 year old model

Click to expand...

Why there's fierce resistance against that model:
*One helluva chunk of business escapes insurance companies. (Too bad, just awful.)
*The HC-practitioners will likely have to take a serious pay cut. (Poor me, poor me!) In time they could be replaced by interns formed at a national University of Medicine funded by the government. After all, if we a Naval Academy and West Point, why not a national medical university?
*The government could put enormous pressure on the "private-enterprise business model" by opening clinics and hospitals that are run on a non-profit basis. Private hospitals would see patients decline significantly.

Still, change for the better is not Mission Impossible, just Mission Improbable without a significant advance of Progressive Members of Congress. The Congressional Progressive Congress consists almost uniquely of Democrat Representatives. (Bernie is the only Senate member.)

For real progress to fix America's societal-ills, the HofR would have to get seriously progressive. There are presently only 68 Progressive Reps and 1 Senator in the CPC, out of a total HofR membership of 435 seats.

Meaning this: There is long, hard row-to-hoe for the CPC to obtain real political traction in the HofR, but we have to start somewhere - and now is as good a time as ever ...

Btw, the above "model" comes from Europe, where national universities train doctors/nurses at a reasonable fee of between 700 and 1200 euros a year.

In fact, to keep HC-costs reasonable, many countries do not pay 100% of all the bills (with the sole exception of the UK). In France, the National Health Service picks up 70% of the cost, and top-up private insurance the other 30%. But that top-up insurance rarely costs a family more than 100/150/200 euros a month (depending upon the level of service).

Graduates of all government subsidized universities can chose to work in the National Health Service or in a private-practice. In fact, some do both.

Doctors in France work for salaries that are not that much better than nurse-practitioners (salary $97K) in the US (and much less than Registered Nurses). Otoh, some surgeons do get about the same salary as US surgeons.

Captain Adverse said:

This list of economic policies Bernie Sanders advocates was on Yahoo Finance today:



5 ways your money could be affected by a Bernie Sanders presidency - Yahoo Finance

I agree with two of those proposals; single-payer health coverage (which was what I understand Obama had originally proposed when he tried to get Congress to pass a national healthcare program), and Student loan refinancing. Those loans are one of the best deals lending institutions ever got out of Congress. Tying a long-term debt to a college loan with rates that are locked in and higher than most other consumer loan standards, even home loans? Sheer usury.

But "free college?" No way. Paid family leave? A major cost burden on employers, not everyone in business is a major corporation with profits to cover that. The $15.00 minimum wage? Wouldn't need it if our money had real value, but that's just my opinion.

Click to expand...

A modified version of 2 and 3 are more likely with 1, 4 and 5 being completely unrealistic or just plain stupid, in their current form.
Do we really think that just because this guy is elected president, that he can dictate these things into law?

Harry Guerrilla said:

A modified version of 2 and 3 are more likely with 1, 4 and 5 being completely unrealistic or just plain stupid, in their current form.
Do we really think that just because this guy is elected president, that he can dictate these things into law?

Click to expand...

Implement them in law because that is the way most of the rest of the civilized world does it? And because it demonstrably works?

Boy, this guy is out on the fringe, isn't he?

Ganesh said:

Implement them in law because that is the way most of the rest of the civilized world does it? And because it demonstrably works?

Boy, this guy is out on the fringe, isn't he?

Click to expand...

Well, the way he wants to do UHC is the lazy way and generally not really the most cost efficient.

Free college, that just fuels the "education" arms race and doesn't address the structural short falls in what we call education.

Current interest rates for student loans are just fine, a fair trade off.

Edit add: So yea, he may as well be a Paulite running for Prez.

Captain Adverse said:

But "free college?" No way. Paid family leave? A major cost burden on employers, not everyone in business is a major corporation with profits to cover that. The $15.00 minimum wage? Wouldn't need it if our money had real value, but that's just my opinion.

Click to expand...

Literally every other first-world country, and many second-world countries, do this. The "cost" doesn't seem to be so huge, in my opinion. Particularly given how much this would help US citizens and growth; paying 10% of your GDP in these types of programs seems like a good re-investment in the US to be able to produce more in the future. BTW: Note that with Sanders' plan there will be subsidies given to the worker and the company does not pay for that the parental leave of absence. So that's not going to be a problem for small companies, the only inconvenience is in training their temporary replacements or temporarily lowering production.

The 15 dollar an hour minimum wage is ultimately a good thing, I think. I'm not committed to 15 dollars, but at this point I'll pretty much take any form of counter-class-warfare that's on the table. It quite literally drags money out of the upper classes and pushes it into the hands of the lower classes. This, in turn, gives the lower classes more assets, which they tend to use and that helps the economy. It turns out that when people who need things can actually buy things, that makes more jobs. It turns out that the rich hording money does not produce new jobs, it just causes money to be exchanged between very rich people in large sums.


However, realistically, Sanders presidency would wildly exceed expectations if he simply got a 12 dollar an hour minimum wage, if he added a public option to Obamacare, got Medicare/Medicaid/Public option the ability to negotiate for drug prices, rolls out some national funding for proper police training initiatives, some campaign reforms, and introduced some real regulation on Wall Street. It's great that Sanders wants other things, but those are the crucial things that people want to see real progress on. I'm willing to compromise with the Republicans on Bernie's plans, but the compromise starts on the left and moves inward. It doesn't start on the right and then move even more rightward, like it will for Hillary.

Let Americans get a taste of socialism and democracy. It'll be good for them, and they'll want more.

Harry Guerrilla;10655341in88 said:

Well, the way he wants to do UHC is the lazy way and generally not really the most cost efficient.

Click to expand...

You mean even more lazy and less cost efficient than the system now in place, in fact the worst in the world by this measure ? Well, perhaps Bernie is an aficionado of science fiction. That might help him in coming up with something worse than has gone before.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Free college, that just fuels the "education" arms race and doesn't address the structural short falls in what we call education.

Click to expand...

What is an education arms race? Or do you know. Given the posts I have seen on this site, I'd venture a guess that more education is something that the US should give an emergency, crash program, all holds barred, expense be damned, top priority.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Current interest rates for student loans are just fine, a fair trade off.

Click to expand...

When I was a kid, back in ancient times, a student could work during a summer pumping gas, or at a similar job, and pay for not only tuition, but also living expenses for a whole year. Today, kids graduate with $50-100k debts. They are hobbled before they start. Except of course, the the most affluent one percent, to whom such is spare change. I am thinking here that even guerrillas have the wit to see that something has gone askew over the years.

Ganesh said:

You mean even more lazy and less cost efficient than the system now in place, in fact the worst in the world by this measure ? Well, perhaps Bernie is an aficionado of science fiction. That might help him in coming up with something worse than has gone before.

Click to expand...

Comparing a bad system, to a bad system, doesn't make one better.
It's a different kind of bad, but still bad.

There are superior alternatives that are ignored.

Ganesh said:

What is an education arms race? Or do you know. Given the posts I have seen on this site, I'd venture a guess that more education is something that the US should give an emergency, crash program, all holds barred, expense be damned, top priority.

Click to expand...

The fact that the value of these degrees is plummeting and that requirements for positions climb.
All this does is shore up the arms race, instead of restructuring the entire system, to be an actual education system and not a ****ty credential program.

Ganesh said:

When I was a kid, back in ancient times, a student could work during a summer pumping gas, or at a similar job, and pay for not only tuition, but also living expenses for a whole year. Today, kids graduate with $50-100k debts. They are hobbled before they start. Except of course, the the most affluent one percent, to whom such is spare change. I am thinking here that even guerrillas have the wit to see that something has gone askew over the years.

Click to expand...

Cost depends on location and type of school.
My local schools costs are covered entirely by a Pell grant, plus left overs for books and gas money.

In terms of interest rates though, these people largely have no/young credit and they're getting single digit interest rates, for large sums of money no one else would ever loan them.
It's fair.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Comparing a bad system, to a bad system, doesn't make one better.
It's a different kind of bad, but still bad.

There are superior alternatives that are ignored.

Click to expand...

Public, universal, inclusive, single payer systems have been shown to work, around the world. You have a superior idea?

Harry Guerrilla said:

The fact that the value of these degrees is plummeting and that requirements for positions climb.
All this does is shore up the arms race, instead of restructuring the entire system, to be an actual education system and not a ****ty credential program.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'd say it's true that degrees have much less value today. That is a function of the decline in well paid, secure work, and hence much stiffer competition for remaining positions. The term for it here is "credential creep". The value of a good, well rounded, liberal arts education remains however, and a look at events such as the current federal election cycle illustrate just how lacking this is even today. The problem of the cavalier attitude of employers towards educational certificates is rooted in the changes to the workforce, and education itself is not the problem per se.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Cost depends on location and type of school.
My local schools costs are covered entirely by a Pell grant, plus left overs for books and gas money.

In terms of interest rates though, these people largely have no/young credit and they're getting single digit interest rates, for large sums of money no one else would ever loan them.
It's fair.

Click to expand...

You are very lucky then. It remains though that many millions today graduate with huge debt, as much as $100k in some circumstances.

Funding education goes far beyond a financial transaction. If you want a new car loan, that's up to your bank officer and you. Training the next generation to take over is a horse of a different color, and something society has to invest in, or risk seeing a decline of the nation in future years. Just saying a borrower got a good rate is too narrow a view.

Ganesh said:

Public, universal, inclusive, single payer systems have been shown to work, around the world. You have a superior idea?

Click to expand...

I support this, Singapore’s health care system holds valuable lessons for U.S. | News | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
It has all the best of a private market system combined with a public system.

Ganesh said:

Yes, I'd say it's true that degrees have much less value today. That is a function of the decline in well paid, secure work, and hence much stiffer competition for remaining positions. The term for it here is "credential creep". The value of a good, well rounded, liberal arts education remains however, and a look at events such as the current federal election cycle illustrate just how lacking this is even today. The problem of the cavalier attitude of employers towards educational certificates is rooted in the changes to the workforce, and education itself is not the problem per se.

Click to expand...

No I don't think that's it.
Lots and lots of jobs that now require degrees, don't need them and I seriously question the quality of "education" that is received.
To me it's a superficial education, but changing all this would require a giant shift in culture.

Ganesh said:

You are very lucky then. It remains though that many millions today graduate with huge debt, as much as $100k in some circumstances.

Click to expand...

Most of those people are going to private schools then.

Ganesh said:

Funding education goes far beyond a financial transaction. If you want a new car loan, that's up to your bank officer and you. Training the next generation to take over is a horse of a different color, and something society has to invest in, or risk seeing a decline of the nation in future years. Just saying a borrower got a good rate is too narrow a view.

Click to expand...

Sure there are things they could do to give young adults a more informed understanding in these matters.
In the end though, we just don't need this many people with degrees, it's a waste of time and money.

Harry Guerrilla said:

I support this, Singapore’s health care system holds valuable lessons for U.S. | News | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
It has all the best of a private market system combined with a public system.




No I don't think that's it.
Lots and lots of jobs that now require degrees, don't need them and I seriously question the quality of "education" that is received.
To me it's a superficial education, but changing all this would require a giant shift in culture.



Most of those people are going to private schools then.



Sure there are things they could do to give young adults a more informed understanding in these matters.
In the end though, we just don't need this many people with degrees, it's a waste of time and money.

Click to expand...

I disagree. When 46% of the US electorate can consider Sarah Palin a good choice for VP, and someone they would have confidence in handling the nuclear code suitcase if her employer kicked the bucket during his term, then I'd say to you that a well rounded, liberal arts education is not only needed in the US, but desperately needed.

Ganesh said:

I disagree. When 46% of the US electorate can consider Sarah Palin a good choice for VP, and someone they would have confidence in handling the nuclear code suitcase if her employer kicked the bucket during his term, then I'd say to you that a well rounded, liberal arts education is not only needed in the US, but desperately needed.

Click to expand...

Many of those 46% had a liberal arts education.
I think it hurts your case, more than it helps.