Bloomberg might be running an organized campaign but he looked awful.

She has to beat the boys in her party first before going in the ring with Orange Man...

She polls terribly in Flyover America. Not welcome is the sign out front. Big Blue states aren't enough to get her the Win.

Trump's RCP average job approval was -10, now is -4.9. Not great but is a positive trend since the Impeachment.

I would vote for a woman. I would vote for Condoleezza Rice. Heck, I would vote for Oprah if she could convince me of governing as a Centrist. I have no beef of putting a black woman in charge. They get **** done...

Elizabeth Warren scares the crap out of me. I cannot do it. Congress would not fund her policies. It would be 4 years of gridlock. She would be forced to go pen and phone. We know how that works. It is a temporary lurch.

You need a candidate that would appeal to moderates and Independents. You don't have one.

Gore and Kerry couldn't do it. She is far left of them. I don't see it happening...

The only think that goes left, left, and then left some more, with greater consistently than Warren, is a NASCAR.

How to pay for Medicare for all? Bernie's $11T tax plan only pays around 1/3 of it.

For example, economist Kenneth Thorpe estimated that single-payer health care would cost the federal government $24.7 trillion through 2026, excluding the costs associated with long-term care benefits (likely about $3 trillion). The Urban Institute estimated a $32 trillion cost over the same period, including those long-term care benefits. The Center for Health and Economy (H&E) produced an estimate that the American Action Forum calculates would cost the federal government $36 trillion through 2029.

In addition, former Social Security and Medicare Trustee and current Mercatus Center fellow Chuck Blahous estimated that Medicare for All as proposed in Senator Sanders's 2017 legislation would cost the federal government $27.7 trillion through 2028 assuming steep provider cuts and $32.1 trillion assuming no provider cuts (these estimates, like most others, assume immediate implementation).

Importantly, these totals represent the increased cost to the federal government, not the change of total national health expenditures. National health expenditures would likely change by no more than a few trillion dollars over the decade. The direction of that change is unclear and would depending on the whether the increased cost of expanding coverage (by making health insurance more generous and offering it to more people) is larger or smaller than the amount saved from lower provider payments, drug payments, and administrative spending.

The totals also do not represent debt impact, which would depend not only on the cost to the federal government but also on any funds the government might choose to raise through premiums, taxes, or both. For example, Senator Sanders's campaign plan included roughly $11 trillion of tax increases, which could fund more than one-third of Medicare for All.

While any new revenue would in part be replacing current premiums, identifying pay-fors still remains a challenge. Enacting this type of Medicare for All would mean increasing federal spending by about 60 percent (excluding interest), and financing a $30 trillion program would require the equivalent of tripling payroll taxes or more than doubling all other taxes.

Supporters of Medicare for All should work to identify new revenue, premiums, and/or spending cuts to finance new federal costs or else scale back their proposal if they are unable to identify sufficient funding.

It is a noble idea, but at a staggering cost.

Realistically we need a plan that provides Healthcare to those without that doesn't break the bank.

California's plan would have TRIPLED their budget. That's just unrealistic.

Most Americans cannot afford such an increase in their taxation. It would stop our economy in its tracks.

California's General Assembly pushed forward but eventually figured out that ignoring the cost is futile.

You can't fund a $32T gorilla, folks...go back to the drawing board. You can't land a 75 pound catfish with a pair of tweezers.

Posted by DoctorKz on 2/20/2020 2:20:00 PM (view original):
I would vote for a woman. I would vote for Condoleezza Rice. Heck, I would vote for Oprah if she could convince me of governing as a Centrist. I have no beef of putting a black woman in charge. They get **** done...

Elizabeth Warren scares the crap out of me. I cannot do it. Congress would not fund her policies. It would be 4 years of gridlock. She would be forced to go pen and phone. We know how that works. It is a temporary lurch.

You need a candidate that would appeal to moderates and Independents. You don't have one.

Gore and Kerry couldn't do it. She is far left of them. I don't see it happening...

Maybe it's because both parties have polarized recently? Joe Biden hasn't changed.

Posted by DoctorKz on 2/20/2020 4:31:00 PM (view original):
How to pay for Medicare for all? Bernie's $11T tax plan only pays around 1/3 of it.

For example, economist Kenneth Thorpe estimated that single-payer health care would cost the federal government $24.7 trillion through 2026, excluding the costs associated with long-term care benefits (likely about $3 trillion). The Urban Institute estimated a $32 trillion cost over the same period, including those long-term care benefits. The Center for Health and Economy (H&E) produced an estimate that the American Action Forum calculates would cost the federal government $36 trillion through 2029.

In addition, former Social Security and Medicare Trustee and current Mercatus Center fellow Chuck Blahous estimated that Medicare for All as proposed in Senator Sanders's 2017 legislation would cost the federal government $27.7 trillion through 2028 assuming steep provider cuts and $32.1 trillion assuming no provider cuts (these estimates, like most others, assume immediate implementation).

Importantly, these totals represent the increased cost to the federal government, not the change of total national health expenditures. National health expenditures would likely change by no more than a few trillion dollars over the decade. The direction of that change is unclear and would depending on the whether the increased cost of expanding coverage (by making health insurance more generous and offering it to more people) is larger or smaller than the amount saved from lower provider payments, drug payments, and administrative spending.

The totals also do not represent debt impact, which would depend not only on the cost to the federal government but also on any funds the government might choose to raise through premiums, taxes, or both. For example, Senator Sanders's campaign plan included roughly $11 trillion of tax increases, which could fund more than one-third of Medicare for All.

While any new revenue would in part be replacing current premiums, identifying pay-fors still remains a challenge. Enacting this type of Medicare for All would mean increasing federal spending by about 60 percent (excluding interest), and financing a $30 trillion program would require the equivalent of tripling payroll taxes or more than doubling all other taxes.

Supporters of Medicare for All should work to identify new revenue, premiums, and/or spending cuts to finance new federal costs or else scale back their proposal if they are unable to identify sufficient funding.

Right, but the big thing is that we don't truly know whether M4A would increase costs over the current system significantly. It depends on a lot of external factors. Other countries have made it work.

Posted by DoctorKz on 2/20/2020 4:41:00 PM (view original):
It is a noble idea, but at a staggering cost.

Realistically we need a plan that provides Healthcare to those without that doesn't break the bank.

California's plan would have TRIPLED their budget. That's just unrealistic.

Most Americans cannot afford such an increase in their taxation. It would stop our economy in its tracks.

Of course, if Bernie is to be believed, the tax hikes come at the expense of the wealthy and not the middle class.

And he could be right. We don't know.

I think some people would go for it if you could prove the cost won't kill us. I'm not sure about Bernie's math skills.

We have yet to see Congress tax the wealthy to the amount they are supposed to. A lot of dominoes have to fall.

My faith in Congress ain't deep...they have shown their ability to spend us into oblivion. You wanna give them more money? This house of cards might not be sturdy enough, you wanna dump snow on the roof...

Take into consideration the current debt load we carry. Adding this plus interest is probably not sound financial planning.

Posted by DoctorKz on 2/20/2020 5:06:00 PM (view original):
I think some people would go for it if you could prove the cost won't kill us. I'm not sure about Bernie's math skills.

Well again, we don't know. There are some studies that say that it would save the country money on healthcare. I believe that most projections have the middle class saving money.

In terms of Congress, yes, this is all hypothetical anyway because it isn't getting passed.

I still contend that it would be much more cost effective to cover those without by expanding Medicare/Medicaid while allowing private insurance to survive. We could supplement pre existing conditions, just as you could supplement high risk pools. That can't cost nearly as much. I'm no expert, but why not? Complicated but someone must be capable of figuring this out.

Just my two cents on the issue...

Healthcare for everyone is expensive. If you want to cover everyone, than you have to be willing to pay for everyone to be covered.

Sanders (and probably Warren as well) believe that healthcare is a human right, so they are willing to pay the huge price tag in order to get everyone insured. Realistically, Medicare 4 All is the only way to actually achieve that.

The Moderates (Biden, Klobuchar and Buttigieg) would like everyone to believe that they can get everyone insured at bargain rates. This is nonsense, and it ignores basic economics and the reality of how insurance markets work. (The young and healthy are cheap to insure, but the marginal cost to insure those who are underinsured or uninsured will be quite pricey)

Insurance Markets will never be capable of insuring every person, unless the cost of insuring each individual is less than each individual's ability to pay for said insurance. This is not even close to being the case, as the cost of healthcare for those who have pre-existing conditions or who are old is very, very high, and certainly would be a money losing proposition to insure unless the premiums/deductibles/copays charged are extremely high, in which case these people would then be unable to afford said insurance.

Mr. Buttigieg (and probably other moderates) seem to think that introducing a public option will somehow do the trick, by instituting "competition", the idea being to somehow lower prices and make insurance more affordable for everyone. The reality is a little different than they might like:

The price of insurance under the Public option will go down... for healthy people who generally can already afford the coverage! That's because insuring healthy people is quite profitable, and these are the customers that insurance companies want to insure.

The people who have pre-existing conditions on the other hand, are not going to see any price reductions under private insurance plans. The insurance companies don't want to insure these people unless they can charge them a high enough price (which these people likely can't afford unless they are rich). As a result, every single one of these people will need to be on the Public option.

So considering everything, the moderates plan will result in lower prices for healthy people who could already afford their medical coverage, and a public option with tons of unhealthy patients that will cost taxpayers a mint. If everyone is to be insured, the overall price tag will likely approach that cited for... Medicare 4 All.

In the end, the question is: how many uninsured (or underinsured) is too many? If the answer is zero, are you willing to pay the price tag for Medicare 4 All? And if not, are you willing to accept that some will be uninsured (or at least underinsured?)