Red Mosquito

I am a big fan of ranked voting schemes, but if Sanders has more votes than anyone else but doesn't get the nomination, there will be riots.

$60 trillion in costs, that is insane.

"Experts estimate that Sanders' major proposals would cost a staggering $60 trillion and would double the size of the government (while his tax plans fall $27 trillion short of paying for it). There's a reason that, when pressed on the cost of his plans, Sanders simply refuses to answer, saying he actually has no idea and 'no one does.'"

60 minutes:

Cooper: Do you know how all -- how much though? I mean, do you have a price tag for -- for all of this?

Sanders: We do. I mean, you know, and -- and-- the price tag is -- it will be substantially less than letting the current system go. I think it's about $30 trillion.

Cooper: That's just for "Medicare for All," you're talking about?

Sanders: That's just "Medicare for All," yes.

Cooper: Do you have -- a price tag for all of these things?

Sanders: No, I don't. We try to -- no, you mentioned making public colleges and universities tuition free and canceling all student debt, that's correct. That's what I want to do. We pay for that through a modest tax on Wall Street speculation.

Cooper: But you say you don't know what the total price is, but you know how it's gonna be paid for. How do you know it's gonna be paid for if you don't know how much the price is?

Sanders: Well, I can't -- you know, I can't rattle off to you every nickel and every dime. But we have accounted for -- you -- you talked about "Medicare for All." We have options out there that will pay for it.

I'm sure he's been told this stuff will result in societal changes that will open up money that isn't currently available. It probably will, but it will come from crushing some existing industries to create new ones. No one wants to campaign on that even if it is inevitable.

It would totally matter, if he had a hog’s chance in hell of making even a third his agenda a reality.

that back of the envelope number doesnt seem to factor in any price reductions from current ripoff retail rates

if you put the middlemen out of business then the cost comes down

not that any of this is realistic anyway unless it is accompanied by a ban on lobbyism

that aside tho- he needs to have a better response ready. that was silly

tragabigzanda wrote:

McParadigm wrote:It would totally matter, if he had a hog’s chance in hell of making even a third his agenda a reality.

To what extent do you think this increases if he picks Warren as veep?

He won’t. But the answer is: none. He will in many ways be a president without the support of a party, facing a conservative-majority court and a coalition of swing state democrats who are falling over each other to prove to their constituents that they’re not onboard the Sanders train.

Big night tomorrow

Bernie’s chance to drive it home

Bloomy’s last shot at redemption

Biden’s last attempt for relevance

Warren’s last chance to secure russian funding

Butti’s last chance to dodge the moderate front runners and attack a small midwestern woman

Even a senate swap wouldn’t do much for him. Way more democratic skittishness towards big change over there.

Democrat party shocked to discover that decades of pandering to socialists have caused their party to be taken over by socialists.

Is this going to be his Howard Dean moment in the eyes of the media? Everyone is looking for a way to get him out. CNN is all over him about this

this is just the establishment Dems doing one last hard oppo push before Super Tuesday to hold back the Revolution

the whole Cuba has great doctors / low infant mortality / high literacy thing has been a known talking point of Ras Trentists for quite some time

this should be no surprise to anyone

tragabigzanda wrote:what a maroon

Sanders under fire from Democrats over praise for Castro regime
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4844 ... tro-regime

I really like Bernie, but like a lot of well-meaning American leftists, they sound comically out of their depth when they talk about Latin American history and politics

96583UP wrote:that back of the envelope number doesnt seem to factor in any price reductions from current ripoff retail rates

if you put the middlemen out of business then the cost comes down

not that any of this is realistic anyway unless it is accompanied by a ban on lobbyism

that aside tho- he needs to have a better response ready. that was silly

Significant cost reductions are the only thing that gets it under $4T a year. From George Mason study:

https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/b ... r-v1_1.pdf

“ Abstract

The leading current bill to establish single-payer health insurance, the Medicare for All Act (M4A), would, under conservative estimates, increase federal budget commitments by approximately $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation (2022–2031), assuming enactment in 2018. This projected increase in federal healthcare commitments would equal approximately 10.7 percent of GDP in 2022, rising to nearly 12.7 percent of GDP in 2031 and further thereafter. Doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan. It is likely that the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates, which assume significant administrative and drug cost savings under the plan, and also assume that healthcare providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance.”

Doubling taxes would be insufficient to cover Medicare for All, say nothing of everything else he’s promised. It’s likely reducing the tax benefit provided to businesses in order to get them to subsidize insurance would help, assuming businesses would pass the equivalent funds to employees (stop laughing) and not back to shareholders, and that doctors and nurses and hospitals can operate at roughly 40% lower rates.

Bi_3 wrote:

96583UP wrote:that back of the envelope number doesnt seem to factor in any price reductions from current ripoff retail rates

if you put the middlemen out of business then the cost comes down

not that any of this is realistic anyway unless it is accompanied by a ban on lobbyism

that aside tho- he needs to have a better response ready. that was silly

Significant cost reductions are the only thing that gets it under $4T a year. From George Mason study:

https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/b ... r-v1_1.pdf

“ Abstract

The leading current bill to establish single-payer health insurance, the Medicare for All Act (M4A), would, under conservative estimates, increase federal budget commitments by approximately $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation (2022–2031), assuming enactment in 2018. This projected increase in federal healthcare commitments would equal approximately 10.7 percent of GDP in 2022, rising to nearly 12.7 percent of GDP in 2031 and further thereafter. Doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan. It is likely that the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates, which assume significant administrative and drug cost savings under the plan, and also assume that healthcare providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance.”

Doubling taxes would be insufficient to cover Medicare for All, say nothing of everything else he’s promised. It’s likely reducing the tax benefit provided to businesses in order to get them to subsidize insurance would help, assuming businesses would pass the equivalent funds to employees (stop laughing) and not back to shareholders, and that doctors and nurses and hospitals can operate at roughly 40% lower rates.

Yes I didn't say it was realistic, just less than that number

for this to work they will need to do a number of things to bring down costs, such as limit the ability to sue doctors in order to drive down their insurance costs and overhead to get to lower prices

like in canada - don't think you can sue there in most cases

and helps keep the costs down

96583UP wrote:Yes I didn't say it was realistic

Early contender for Bernie 2024 re-election campaign slogan