Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet.


The good news is Bernie Sanders and other senators will introduce “Medicare-for-all, single-payer healthcare” legislation this week. The bad news is their proposal won’t say how to pay for universal health care for all Americans.

“Unless something changes, which I’m [still] hoping, this confirms the two nastiest judgments of critics of single-payer,” said Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts economist and expert on financing universal healthcare coverage. “The liberals are saying, ‘The single-payer community doesn’t know how to do policy, so they need to come to us, the wonks, and we’ll tell them how to do it’—and in the process, we won’t do single payer, we’ll do something else. And the conservatives who say, ‘Single payer will be so expensive that even its supporters are scared to talk about how much it will cost and how much it will raise your taxes.’”

“If you fill in the blanks [on how to pay for universal care], then you are going to have an argument,” Friedman continued. “You are going to have an argument with people about how much this will go up; how much that will go up; how much you will be able to control this cost or that cost. You’ll have an argument. And if you don’t fill in the blanks on the financing, then you’re going to just leave the whole space to them [opponents]. They’ll say whatever they want.”

Friedman’s warning, call it loyal opposition, comes at a poignant moment. Progressives have long sought a national health care system, long before Sanders ran for president and popularized the idea. It was sidelined in 2017 over GOP threats to destroy Obamacare and gut Medicaid, the state-run health plan for the poor.

But the GOP’s “repeal and replace” implosion wasn’t the only big health policy debacle this year. In Democrat-controlled California, a proposal for a state single-payer system was sidelined. It passed the state Senate, but only after supporters said the state Assembly would fill in its financing options.

Days before the Senate acted, the bill’s top advocate, the California Nurses Association, released a plan to raise the $100-plus billion in revenue needed, offering two progressive tax increases. But Senate staffers got ahead of the nurses and said a state single-payer system would require doubling the payroll tax. That intentionally scary scenario—though it was not the only revenue option—paved the way for conservative Democrats in the state Assembly to kill the nurses’ proposal.

Friedman’s point is the Sanders bill is poised to repeat this same mistake, giving an opening to the status quo’s defenders to frame single payer as unaffordable, and more of a left-wing fantasy than a serious policy alternative. The economist, who has seen various versions of Sanders’ bill, said there is no reason to give opponents this open invitation, especially when there is plenty of academic literature discussing progressive revenue options.

“We have a bill, great. It would be even better if it was a full bill,” he said. “Here’s where they could go. There are a bunch of studies done on the state level [New YorkCalifornia]. There’s a PNHP [Physicians for a National Program] study but also [David] Himmelstein and [Steffie] Woolhandler have a study in the Annals of Internal Medicine this year, estimating its costs.”

What are these studies’ revenue options, as well as on websites like, where Friedman is a board member? They involve a mix of options that move away from employers carrying the costs or individuals buying policies, which are pillars of the current system. There is raising state sales tax by a few points, taxing business revenues after the first $2 million—which exempts small business, taxing speculative financial transactions, increasing the payroll tax in tiers to protect low-wage earners, and increasing the income tax for people making more than $225,000 annually. There is also taking it out of overall government tax revenues.

“People can go to that and fill in the blanks in the Bernie bill, because there’s a giant blank,” Friedman said. “If the Bernie bill gets any real attention, other people are going to fill in the blanks. And they are going to be nasty about it.”

“The insurance industry and the drug companies and the hospitals can afford to pay economists, and they will find good economists who will say ridiculous things—things that I consider ridiculous,” he said. “But without an answer from Sanders, that’s what’s going to come in. Just like the California Senate’s estimates, which were a bit high; but are not nearly as unreasonable as what Republicans are going to come in with—if it gets to that.”

On the other hand, Sanders’ bill may not be much more than a rallying cry for a grassroots movement before 2018’s elections. There’s little chance anything he proposes would get a hearing in this Congress. But even if that’s true, his proposal should not be a bumper sticker that hurts reform efforts, including smaller steps along the path to universal coverage.

“What can happen now?” Friedman said. “On the federal level and on the state level, we have to find intermediate steps. Things like Medicare for All [where enrollees pay premiums, deductibles and co-pays, and insurers sell policies covering its gaps], or Medicare for More, such as lowering the age of Medicare five years at a time… We are not going to be able to go ahead in one leap. This is too much money and too many [opposing] interests. We have to chip away at the interests.”

When progressives hear from Sanders, Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, and Kamala Harris, D-CA, and many advocacy organizations later this week, they should heed what these political figures are promoting: pragmatic legislation or a political campaign. Even H.R. 676, the single-payer bill proposed by Rep. John Conyers, D-MI, tips its hat to including funding mechanisms, even if they are generic references to taxing the richest Americans.

Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet, including America’s democracy and voting rights. He is the author of several books on elections and the co-author of Who Controls Our Schools: How Billionaire-Sponsored Privatization Is Destroying Democracy and the Charter School Industry (AlterNet eBook, 2016).



  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 56

37 responses to “Who Pays? The Big Flaw In Bernie Sanders’ Single-Payer Bill”

  1. FireBaron says:

    While I agree that our country needs a single payer system, the question of who pays whom and who benefits from it needs to be addressed and answered. The concept of Medicare for All sounds good on the surface, but if we are going to progress toward a more uniform health care system, those questions need answering.
    If this were the late 60s or even the 70s, this would not be an issue. Unfortunately in the 80s, the health care system has been migrating from a not-for-profit to a for-profit business model.

    • dbtheonly says:

      But what we don’t need is the TPL telling us we need to get there with no suggestion of the route to be taken.

      Also, I’m inclined to be suspicious of anything that deflects us from defending ObamaCare. There’s an old saying involving birds, hands, and bushes.

      • Eleanore Whitaker says:

        One of the biggest lies the right wing and Republicans tell over and over is that Obamacare increased the cost of healthcare. What they don’t say is WHY.

        Every Republican state or states like mine with the Repubican Governor sabotaged Obamacare by refusing to all state agencies to be set up for the ACA.

        NY state set up an agency. Governor Fat Mouth in NJ refused. Now, NJ’s healthcare costs are 11% higher than NY’s.

        The reason? When you have true healthcare reform, The Big Six HMOs are not allowed to buy up all of those smaller healthcare insurance providers and jack the costs right back to pre ACA levels. That and ONLY that is why healthcare costs have risen.

        When Aetna went on a shopping spree, my Medicare supplement for Part B through First Health became their first acquisition. Immediately Aetna jacked the costs for Part B from $121 a month for supplemental to $135/month.

        • Independent1 says:

          ACA HAS NOT increased the cost of healthcare. Had ACA not been enacted, those $135/month premiums could be as much as 40% higher today than they are or closer to $190/month.

          Before ACA, healthcare premiums were going up 8-15%/yr; ACA slowed that to closer to 4-6%/year such that without ACA, today’s healthcare premiums would be much higher than they are.

          Suggesting that ACA has increased healthcare costs is just one more conservative pathological lie.

          And ACA has saved hospitals across the nation at least 10 billion since enacted, and saved most states billions in tax dollars by reducing the uninsured rate – by as much as 40% in many states (drastically reducing the free insurance hospitals have had to give away which many states are forced to reimburse in order to keep many hospitals from going belly up). And ACA has reduced the readmission rate where people needed to get back to the hospital because of an illness they caught in the hospital from about 19% to around 10-11% which has also saved hospitals billions.

          And ACA has lowered the nation’s cost of healthcare – it reduced the CBO’s national cost projection of what the country would spend on healthcare through 2019 by almost 1/2 a trillion dollars (from 4.6 trillion to around 4 trillion).

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            As I said, the greatest threat to CONmen is that they would have to once and for all time pay for their own healthcare needs.

            They figured all they had to do was refuse to set up state ACA agencies that allowed smaller HMOs to offer more affordable healthcare insurance. When they did that their states suffered the consequences.

            During yesterday’s hearing on healthcare insurance, I almost laughed myself silly when I heard that lame ass excuses from the Senator from Indiana on CNN say that he had to admit that 220 people in his state who bravely enrolled in Obamacare now had healthcare insurance but “hundreds of thousands who earn under $40,000 a year have none.”

            Hey Indiana Stupid! Lie some more. Those hundreds of thousands could have affordable healthcare insurance if they got off those lazy bum asses and took the time to find state agencies that offer affordable healthcare.

            But why do that when Senator from Indiana (Pence’s state) sabotaged the number of ACA agencies allowed in the state.

            So what does genius boy say then? “We should allow our people in Indiana to cross state lines to buy affordable healthcare insurance.

            Sure. That way, people in other states will bear the cost of Indiana slugs who don’t want to PAY for their healthcare insurance.

            Funny thing, all those brand new bull nosed bully boy pick up trucks cost more than their healthcare insurance would. But those boys’ toys they can afford? Who do they think they are BSing?

          • Independent1 says:

            Yes, and what Pence and his henchmen have done to further destroy Indiana with their refusal to support ACA is just one of a number of reasons why Gallup-Healthways determined in their surveys that Indiana was the 3rd most miserable state in America in which to live with the worst quality of life for the years 2014-2016. And wouldn’t you know that Gallup-Healthways determined that Indiana’s neighbor state on the east, Ohio, went from the #4 most miserable, to the #2 most miserable under presidential contender, Kasich, during those years.

            Sadly, conservatives have a knack for making people’s lives miserable in about every way they can dream up; whether it’s refusing to extend unemployment benefits or lend any helping hand when people in their states are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs, even when it’s the conservatives mismanagement of the economy that has caused those job loses which is usually the case.

            It’s not by accident that the stock market since 1930 has actually seen negative gains during the 42 years that Republicans have been in the presidency; it’s because of Republicans’ terrible misguided ideology which consistently throws America into a recession or depression; which ends up with millions losing their jobs and the GOP more often than not refusing to even give a helping hand when it’s their failed ideology that has inflicted great hardship on the people they govern.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            When I watched the Senate Session yesterday on Tax Reform, Senator Charles Schumer, as always, hit the target at direct center.

            As he stated, 2% of ALL US wealth is in the hands of 1% of the entire population. As he pointed out, this is not because they are the most intelligent, he said it was because when it comes to how wealth is amassed by that 1% because they receive the MOST tax benefits. He then went on to prove this with facts and figures that would make the least honorable Americans ill.

            For example, he quantified the effect of handing corporations tax subisdies when they no longer create jobs here in the US. He also pinpointed the blame, not suprisingly, on Republicans who since as you pointed out the 1930s, have told the same lie over and over: By giving corporations and the wealthy huge tax breaks they create jobs.

            We know now how this lie is not remotely true. How has giving Donald Trump tax breaks helped people in NJ when he was forced to close his 2 hotels and casinos to pay off money laundering fines? Did HE create jobs? The jobs he created were filled by immigrants and minorities he had NO PROBLEM handing pink slips to when those fines hit him hard. 4400 jobs, albeit paying barely minimum wages were gone. But, he got his decades of tax cuts and tax subsidies from NJ taxpayers.

            He isn’t the only one who pulls this BS. There’s Mitt Romney who dumped corporate bankruptcies on taxpayers for his failed business and even GWB, JEB and Neil Bush, all three who dumped bankrupticies on taxpayers.

            Is this part of the game of Republicans? Get rich quick and the minute it starts to all fall apart, dump your debts on taxpayers?

            Back in the 20s, my 2 uncles, Ben and Mickey, were saving up to buy homes..CASH. Sounds funny now doesn’t it? Uncle Ben was just about the buy his home with the $10,000 he saved. Uncle Mickey had a few thousand more to go to add to the $3,000 he saved. Then, Hoover played footsie with Wall Street speculators. Because there was NO FDIC back then, banks made off will hundreds of millions never to be seen again.

            Don’t wonder why neither uncle allowed us to mention Hoover’s name. Nearly every Republican president since Harding has had a recession in the 2nd term. So they can’t blame that on Democrats.

        • dbtheonly says:


          It seems possible that there might be some room to fix, and lock in, ObamaCare.

          I’d hate to lose that opportunity, assuming it’s really there, in pursuit of the hope of Single Payer. Birds and hands, don’t you know.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            The Republican NEVER had a 2nd plan to repeal and replace Obamacare. They’ve been at it over 85 years trying to repeal and replace Social Security and have failed every year for those entire 85 years.

            With healthcare, it had to be reformed because in the hands of the Big Six HMOs, the cost to be sick was forcing people to choose a roof over their heads or death.

            Now, the Republican states realize they can no longer rely solely on Dem states to fund the cost of healthcare for Republican states.

            I don’t worry about Obamacare. It’s taking the very same path SS did lo those many decades ago and ironically, for the very same reason: Greedy men who got their syrupy mitts on Wall Street until they speculated every dime people had saved and banks were forced to shut down. The only reason this didn’t happen in 2008 with the Sept. Financial Meltdown on Republicans watch was due to Bush hurriedly putting TARP out there and Obama shoring up the economy with ARRA.

            If Obama is remembered in history for anything, it will be for his courage to take on the mess the Republicans left behind in 2008. If ARRA had not passed, ConMan, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase would not today be so arrogant about refusing to obey the banking regulations Obama set in place to ward off further crooks.

            The joy of watching Trump squirm over being outed about his decades of corruption is that it has the Koch Boys, Adelson and the rest of the crooks defecating in their pants because they know when Trump is outed for his “art of the deal,” so they shall also be.

    • Eleanore Whitaker says:

      Think about this. The reason single payer would work spectacularly in the US is our sheer numbers. Canada has single payer at $450 a year and their population is far less than ours.

      Do the math. If even half of the population of people in the US paid for their own healthcare and the government put a stop to Big Insurance trough feeding, how wouldn’t we fare better than other countries?

      So what are the Republican states so afraid of? Having to actually pay for their states healthcare needs.

      Just imagine if they’d won the Civil War. They’d have had the largest exodus of free slave labor in their Confederate history. The north would have the lion’s share of workers ready, willing and able to work and advance while the south and midwest die a slow, painful death from their own lack of initiative.

      It should be noted that more than 900,000 Confederates didn’t die in battle. They died from preventable diseases like Yellow Jack Fever.

      You know why the south and midwest HATE the idea of having to pay for ANY healthcare they need: They’ve been getting us to pay ours and theirs for decades. So they don’t want to suddenly be stuck paying for their own.

      When you study which states have the highest numbers on welfare and phony SSDI, you see the bigger picture of Republicanism at its worst. MS for example, is No. 1 in poorest healthcare in the country. But it is also No. 1 in the highest number of residents on welfare. Is that really our problem or theirs?

      They sure do love to slather every sentence with that states’ rights BS. Until it means THEY have to pay with their STATES taxes. Then they feed at the federal trough.

      • TonyaBLafond says:

        Boost your earnings on Google & make $99/hour by working from a home computer.
        on tuesday I bought a great Ford when I got my check for $9355 this past five weeks . this is definitely my favourite-job Ive ever done . I began this 3 months ago and pretty much straight away was bringin home over $99, p/h . see this website
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleOnlineBestToolJobs4u/simple/work ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!pz15h..,..

      • MaryJRoush says:

        Boost your earnings on Google & make $99/hour by working from a home computer.
        on friday I bought a gorgeous Chrysler when I got my check for $9277 this munth. it’s actualy the most comfortable job Ive ever had . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away got over $99, per/hr . check
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleOnlineFullBestJobs4u/earn/hourly ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!si144l..,…

  2. harleyblueswoman says:

    so how do other countries pull it off….we are the only major country that does not have it….so there surely is a way….what happened to the single payer option that went with Obamacare to begin with….how was it going to be paid for???

    • johninPCFL says:

      Other countries “pull it off” by raising the necessary money through taxation – either VATs or income taxes. So far, the owners of Congress have forestalled any taxation options.

      • Eleanore Whitaker says:

        When my younger son lived in Sweden for 15 years, he complained about the 52% in taxes he paid on his wages. Yet, the Swedes get bang for their buck.

        With 52% taxation here is what you get: free healthcare, free college, free assistance with finding housing, free maternity care for both parents and free childcare for working parents after the birth of a child. No need for car insurance either. Their transit system is state of the art.

        Americans want it both ways. No costs for healthcare and no higher taxes. Yet, when it comes to counting the bang for our tax bucks Americans get, we are “taxed” or pay fees far in excess of that 52%.

        Total it up yourselves. Add the cost of the 5 insurances you are forced to pay, the annual fees within your state and you already pay far more than 52% of your income.

    • Independent1 says:

      Other countries do it by taxing people at a far higher rate than the U.S. taxpayers pay. No other major country lets multi-millionaires get away with paying an average tax rate of 20.4% of their gross income -for 2015/16 according to the IRS; nor people earning 50-100,000 an average rate of 8.7% or people earning less than 50,000 an average rate of 4.7%. And yet Americans squeal like stuck pigs even though we pay some of the lowest tax rates on the planet.

      The key problem is that people in most foreign countries are willing to pay their fair share of taxes so the majority of the people living in those countries can all get the many benefits those countries provide them; while Americans are too self-centered and the majority refuse to allow their tax dollars to be used to improve the lives of others besides themselves.

  3. RichFromShowMe says:

    Socialists never worry about who will pay for their transgressions as they know that it’s just one-more-step-to-full-blown-Socialism.

    Bernie may have thought his wife could finance it the way she did putting the college she worked for, OUT OF BUSINESS!

    • CrankyToo says:

      You and I have something in common: neither of us knows what the hell you’re talking about.

      • Eleanore Whitaker says:

        Rich is not exactly the brightest bulb in the pack. His posts all prove that. Yet the minute someone with more work experience or knowledge points out his lack of education and low intelligence level, he makes like he is smarter than Einstein. So does Trump.

      • RichFromShowMe says:

        Bernie’s Health Insurance debacle is estimated to cost between $16 and $32 Trillion over 10 years and we’re already $20 Trillion in debt.

        The only way it can be funded is by using his wife’s tactic of bankrupting the organization that sponsors it.

        I know how you guys hate FACTS, but Bernie’s plan will further bankrupt the USA.

        • dtgraham says:

          How do other countries finance either single payer or some other universal health care system, yet have smaller debt to GDP ratios than the U.S.? “I know how you guys hate FACTS”, but care to explain?

          Also, funny how America ran 4 consecutive surplus budgets in the late 90’s after Clinton’s big tax increase, and actually started making debt payments, until Bush’s 2001 tax cuts. That big budget reconciliation tax increase of the 90’s didn’t hurt the economy at all.

          • CrankyToo says:

            Dig it. And let’s not forget the Bushwhacker’s Part D debacle, wherein big Pharma got a big windfall and seniors got the donut hole.

          • dtgraham says:

            You know it. To the right-wingers, America is the biggest baddest a$$ on the planet with the most money, until the time comes to spend some of that money on something they don’t approve of (which is almost everything except the military). Then America is suddenly a bankrupt failed state.

  4. Eleanore Whitaker says:

    Now really, is the problem really FREE healthcare? Or is the problem REALLY Big Insurance?

    After Americans get through paying monthly premiums for auto insurance, dental insurance, pet care insurance, homeowners insurance and flood insurance, we end up paying not one, but 3 different healthcare insurance plans under Medicare.

    You get Part A for free. That only covers hospitalization. The minute you turn age 67, you must enroll in Medicare where Part B pays 80% of doctor, diagnostic and other medical fees. You need a supplement for the 20% Part B doesn’t pay.

    Mind you, for most of your working lives, you had your paychecks deducted for Part B under Medicare taxes. Yet, the minute you are eligible for Social Security, immediately, the government deducts automatically $107 a month for Part B.

    Meanwhile the supplement to cover the 20% costs more than the $107 Part B the government takes.

    But it doesn’t end there. If you need regular medication for diabetes, chronic high blood pressure or other congenital diseases as you age, you need to pay another $100 a month for Part D which covers prescription drugs.

    No matter how much you paid into Social Security, SS will still only pay out a monthly amount of $1500 or a total of $15,000 a year. So that $107 for Part B is already deducted from your $1500 a month.

    Sanders is so typical of the mindsets that believe in freebies. If they don’t have to pay, they don’t especially care who else does.

    Yet in Canada, my friends pay an average of $450 a year for their medical and they are completely covered. Not Part A, Part B, Part B Supplement.

    Sanders is the political version of the Kardashian KameraHogs. So long as he gets face time, he gets the attention he needs.

    The reality is that unless Big Insurance in the US is stopped cold in its tracks and stops using our premiums for their political lobbying and their CEO double digit million salaries, no healthcare reform will work,.

    When the Republican morons tried to sabotage Obamacare, they did so to keep those political campaign dollars from Big Insurance coming through your paid premiums.

    Out of every premium you pay monthly, over 55% goes to “administrative” (read CEO salaries) and political campaign and lobbying fees.

    So it comes down to you. Do you allow these pigs of greed to continue to zap hell out of your healthcare costs so they can live like kings or do you lay the law down as Canada, Germany, France, the UK and Scandinavian countries have had to do to keep healthcare costs affordable?

  5. Richard Prescott says:

    The problem is sort of both.

    Big business, health insurance companies, have never really been enamored with Single Payer. They like dictating what health care procedures can and can not be covered, like with pre-existing conditions.

    But the paying part can be covered a bit more realistically despite the “wonks'” claims.

    First, all who work and file taxes pay into SS and Medicare.

    Next, companies who provide health coverage for their employees and their employees pay for health insurance. Whatever share each pays depending on the plan(s) involved.

    So, we already have a vehicle in place to cover the costing. It just gets shifted from what we have had to what we could want. And if some adjustments are needed then make them.

    And for those who think they want to call SS and Medicare an entitlement, think again (you are wrong). We do pay for Medicare Parts A and B after we retire (I lump them together since most get both even tho A is no cost). And we need to buy part D for drug coverages. And just in case you all forget, the “donut hole” in the drug coverages part kicks the drug costs up a lot by a factor of roughly 3 times. And there is the 20% deductible we have to pay out of pocket.

    So no one has a free ride who is properly in the system.

    Incentive for those who are working “outside” the system. Participate in the “system”, get covered. Get paid under the table like so many are in certain areas of the country, no benefits.

    • Independent1 says:

      Don’t forget the 30+ million Americans who currently pay nothing for healthcare; millions of which would be put into dire straights if suddenly hit by a healthcare tax their current budgets would not provide for. 76% of Americans are already living from paycheck to paycheck (almost all the Americans with incomes below the upper 20% of income earners). More time is needed for ACA to work at reducing high costs built into the current healthcare system and to in some way draw most of those 30 million not yet covered by healthcare insurance into being payers for their healthcare under the current system before serious thought is given to enacting single-payer..

  6. opinioned1 says:

    “The bad news is their proposal won’t say how to pay for universal health care for all Americans.”
    You are joking I have to assume??

    Simple–Every adult no matter who they might be, will have a deduction made from their pay check, just like we do today from Social Security to cover the premiums. It can be based on a % of income, with the poor or middle-class paying the same % as somebody like trump who claims to make millions per year. That`s what is called fair >> ! If you are not working and drawing unemployment or welfare you get the same % deduction from that benefit as is the average % nationally for all. Everyone pays the same percent based on your yearly net taxable earnings, no matter if it`s $5,000. per year or $50 million per year.

    On the plus side we no longer have a FOR PROFIT heath care system driven by a return on investment, dividends, or footing the bill for outrageous salaries topping several millions per year. The most cost efficient delivery of HC in the nation is our current Medicare system. Time to enter the 21st century will ALL the other industrialized nation in the world, and tell all Americans you now have universal H.C coverage. America is the only nation where you get sick you go bankrupt at the same time. The only reason for all the objection is simple–MONEY–MONEY–MONEY–and GREED!! Big pharma loses their golden goose, hundreds of CEO`s are no longer paid millions to devise new methods of saying NO, and doctors can once again do the right thing for their patients with out prior approval from some bean counter worried about the next dividend report.

    • Leftout says:

      Paychecks are great for Medicare but some as in ACA are paid for by you and me since not everyone likes to work .
      A medical tax has to be the fair way on all goods bought. So even welfare Dorito eaters can also pay thier way. large Corps would not longer need Benfits Departments to administer , the corps could contribute this cost into the system. medicare could administer it all. No need for any more Gov Give agencies. No more insurance companies to say no! This could be a private group not Government run

      • opinioned1 says:

        You can’t be for real.. you think this is fair to anyone when a family making $50-K a year spends 100% of their income feeding and housing their families while some rich dude like trump lives the high life making millions per year and percentage wise pays nothing compared to Joe Sixpack..
        “fair way on all goods bought”
        Not a chance this idea s anymore fair that the fair tax BS the rich love to push.

        • stcroixcarp says:

          The whole trump family are low life corporate welfare queens. You think the orange comes from eating Doritos/

        • Leftout says:

          You are already paying 30% more for the 30% that are not paying their way.
          Do you want to pay for those not putting in something. If there is a National health Sales type tax then everyone contributes SOMETHING, Even the welfare Dorito Eater with Obese starving children.

      • stcroixcarp says:

        “welfare Dorito eaters” Aren’t we judgmental! I am not sold on “private groups” to run things, without a lot of oversight and accountability.

      • Independent1 says:

        ” This could be a private group not Government run.” What? A private group?? Just another private venture like those bloodsuckers that claim to run Magnet Schools who don’t even teach kids as well as schools run by the government (studies have proven) but yet end up leaching millions of dollars a year from unsuspecting Joe Sixpacks?? What kind of idiot are you??

        The private sector will rarely run anything without trying to figure out someway to rip everyone off so they can make a killing!!! That goes for private companies trying to run prisons!! Con artists, all of them!!

        • Leftout says:

          I agree , the insurance compnies can administer the program and get a fee, since theynalread have the tools. I am
          A one payer system where everyone should mcontribute. The problemw ACA is that we the working stiff have to endure 30 incrwases tomoay for the laggards. What is your pay formula for equal ? Some contributions from everyonr including wasteful benefits depts of Corps and school Broads and similar quasi groups.

    • Tom S says:

      Not necessary. The Upper 0.3% can Pay for MedicAid for All – instead of the Bush Tax Cuts they are NOT Paying!

  7. Tom S says:

    The speciousness of this argument is obviated by the Question, “Who is paying for WCare Part D?”.
    A. We are! The Republicans were so afraid of Grover Norquist, that they refused to create a Funding mechanism for WCare. Thus, for the past 12+ years, the benefits have been Paid For by We the People – out of the General Fund.

    Further compounding the problem, the Republicans refused to not dole out Corporate Welfare to Big Pharma, so they allowed Big Pharma to set the prices on their medicines and drugs sold to Medicare and MedicAid.
    However, they allowed the VA to continue to bargain with Big Pharma for Best Price on the Drugs and Medicines they dispense – just like Hospitals do??
    Obviously, there must have been a narrative they wanted to advance ….

    As the result of all of this Mis-Management of TaxPayer Funds by Republicans, the National Deficit is increasing every year by ~$0.5T plus Interest.
    Plus another $0.5T each year owing to the Bush Tax Cuts – plus Interest.

    Thank you, “fiscally responsible” Republicans!!

    Plug those 2 open scuttle cocks, and Medicare for All is Paid For!!

  8. Wrily says:

    Health care for all; the same health care package congress has given itself at our expense. Make that the law and congress will certainly find a way to pay for it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.