
Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All plan: US would actually be saving money - doener
https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-cost-save-money-2018-7
======
rayiner
> "If every major country on earth can guarantee health care to all, and
> achieve better health outcomes, while spending substantially less per capita
> than we do, it is absurd for anyone to suggest that the United States cannot
> do the same," Sanders said in a statement. "This grossly misleading and
> biased report is the Koch brothers response to the growing support in our
> country for a 'Medicare for all' program."

This stuff is so misleading. Most countries with universal healthcare don't
have "Medicare for all." Germany, for example, has a system of public health
insurance entities with mandatory enrollment of employed workers. It is paid
for by a very high (15.5%, split between employer and employee), and rather
regressive (only on the first 52,000 euro per year of income) payroll tax. By
comparison, the U.S. Medicare tax is just 2.9%, on all income with no cap. No
deductibles or co-pays in Sanders' plan? How about France, where most medical
care has 30% co-insurance (government only covers 70% of cost)?

His heart is in the right place, but Sanders lives on a planet where if only
the U.S. would cut its defense spending down to NATO levels (cutting about
$250 billion a year), we could afford to spend trillions more per year on free
healthcare, free education, etc. Except Europe isn't a liberal paradise--they
have to make ends meet like anyone else. So you get free education in Germany,
with aggressive tracking to keep most people out of the educational system
after age 16. You get 40% income tax rates on people making median incomes or
below, 20-25% VAT that primarily affects the middle and lower classes, but low
corporate taxes (because you have to keep businesses around to bankroll the
welfare state). There is no major European country that meets the Sanders
ideal of offering free healthcare and education, but which encourages
_everyone_ to take advantage of those things, and also pays for it by taxing
primarily the rich and corporations.

~~~
yostrovs
Truth in advertising is not a common quality of communist sympathizers.
Utopian visions are dirtied by reality and mathematics. So when Bernie, in his
70s, found out on live radio that they have months long waiting lines in
Canadian hospitals, he could hardly believe it. And then he moved on, the
revelation made no impact on him.
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oQP7XvxQpRU](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oQP7XvxQpRU)

~~~
marmadukester39
You know what months-long lines for non-critical procedures for people without
supplemental health insurance is better than? Having the number one driver of
bankruptcy in the US be medical bills.
[https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/101148136](https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/101148136)

------
pandasun
Bernie lost for a reason. This "plan" is actually painful to read, let alone
the conclusion. The man doesn't understand economics and never will. It all
made sense when I clicked the Author's page though:

[https://www.businessinsider.com/author/bob-
bryan](https://www.businessinsider.com/author/bob-bryan)

Bias much? Journalism is dead. What a joke of an article.

------
ddingus
I will be frank.

I don't really care about the economic arguments. Not only can we afford to
take good care of our own, there's a strong moral argument for doing so.

Not doing it is a priority problem.

~~~
rayiner
The countries that have universal healthcare don't think that way. They
understand that it's about economics: they offer the benefit, but they pay for
it by levying heavy taxes on the middle class people who can't up and leave
the country, and they ration it. (Even then, it's not sustainable, but that
has more to do with their demographic problems.)

~~~
whytaka
As a Canadian who's had two immediate relatives undergo surgery to remove
breast cancer, survive, and had paid nothing, while I pay a very reasonable
$35/month to be covered by this care AND the provincially run health insurance
system reports a surplus, I must disagree.

~~~
rayiner
The $35/month is meaningless, because the insurance premium doesn't cover the
whole cost of care: [https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/average-canadian-family-
paying...](https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/average-canadian-family-paying-more-
than-12k-to-fund-public-health-care-study-1.4034416).

> The average single adult makes $44,348 and pays $19,759 in taxes, with
> $4,640 going to health care insurance.

That's about 45% tax for someone making an average salary. In Maryland, that
tax would be under 25%.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that public healthcare isn't a good idea.
(I think it is.) My point is that Canada didn't get public healthcare by
declaring "we don't care about economics" (like OP). They figured out how to
pay for it in realistic ways. That means they decided to tax the average guy
on the street 45%. And cut taxes dramatically on corporations--to less than
half the U.S. rate--in order to keep that dude employed and paying into the
system: [https://www.npr.org/2017/08/07/541797699/fact-check-does-
the...](https://www.npr.org/2017/08/07/541797699/fact-check-does-the-u-s-have-
the-highest-corporate-tax-rate-in-the-world) (Figure 2). Canada isn't fantasy
Bernie Sanders world where we declare "screw economics," give everyone free
healthcare, and raises taxes on rich people and corporations.

~~~
whytaka
The Fraser Institute that the article cites is a notoriously conservative
leaning Thinktank.

You can refer to this tax calculator for a more accurate estimate of a single
persons tax obligations at $44,348.

[https://simpletax.ca/calculator](https://simpletax.ca/calculator)

As you will see, it’s no where near the 45%.

