Progressives (Liberals)

Does Bernie Sanders's health plan cost $33 trillion — or save $2 ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../does...health...cost.../d178b14e-9432-11e8-a679-b0...
Jul 31, 2018 - On its current trajectory, the United States is projected to spend $7.65 trillion annually on health care by 2031, according to the Mercatus study. That number would drop to $7.35 trillion if Sanders's plan were implemented, the study found. Over time, that adds up to a net savings of about $2.1 trillion. I personally believe it's impossible to project future cost vs savings for health care unless government establishes a one payer system. That will result in control of costs, because there will be only one market for healthcare.

A candidate that eschews a health plan like Bernie's will not get my support. A warmonger will not get it. One on the corporate dole will not get it.

I posted a series of questions that I'd appreciate you looking over if you are so inclined. They're about Medicare for All.

Please note the comment from the ranking Democrat on the Committee, California Senator Dianne Feinstein, during a break in the hearing: She said the hearing was “going very well” and expected Barr to be easily confirmed by the full Senate.

See why I’ve called the Republican and Democratic parties an inbred duopoly? Expect the further decay of a Department of Injustice, shielding a chronically lawless President and turning the rule of law on its head.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/ralph-nader-democrats-may-be-surrendering-the-rule-of-law/

There is no easy simple answer, because there are way too many possible variables from one person to the next.

There are experts who are better in answering your specific questions.

Of course I am not an expert, but I will give my own opinion using your hypothetical scenario of an individual who is grossing $50,000 annually.

First I would create a new (Medicare-for-all) tax that we all would have to pay. I would not use a dollar amount to come out of our pay checks and income. I would only use a percentage amount to come out of our pay checks and income.

I would create a (Medicare-for-all) tax of 5 percent of everyone's gross income to help fund the program. That 5 percent (Medicare-for-all) tax would be applied to all income, regardless of how high of the person's income. If you make $50, 000 annually, your (Medicare-for-all) tax will be 5 percent. If you make 100 million dollars annually, your (Medicare-for-all) tax will also be taxed at 5 percent. If you make 1 billion dollars annually, your (Medicare-for-all) tax would be taxed at 5 percent. This way the higher income earners will be paying more into the program than the lower income earners. That would allow the lower income earners to pay lower premiums while the program is still getting the funds it needs.

The $50,000 annual income or $4,166 monthly income would be taxed at 5 percent.

In this hypothetical example the 5 percent (Medicare-for-all) tax would equal $2500 annually or $208 monthly in (Medicare-for-all) taxes.

I wouldn't have patients paying any deductibles for medical care and treatments.
I would have a 20 percent copayment for any and all medical services and treatments to help fund the program.

Once the government have everyone enrolled in the Medicare-For-All program, that would give the government a much greater leverage than they ever had in negotiating lower prices with the medical community.
When you have one or two hundred million people as your clients, you will definitely have a lot of leverage in negating for lower prices with the medical community.
This negotiating leverage would greatly reduce the cost of health care.

The medical community will no longer have to be concern about not being paid. That will save the medical community a lot in administrative cost.

Everyone who is currently paying monthly premiums, annual deductibles, and co-payments with their (private) insurance company, will no longer need the private insurance coverage. All the money that you will no longer be paying through the private health insurance would offset your cost related to Medicare-for-all. In fact, when it's all said and done you may actually end up paying less money in this hypothetical scenario.

As I said at the beginning, I am not an expert.
None of this is factual. None of this factual. None of this is factual.
This is only a made up scenario.
This is only an opinion.
Take everything I am say here "with a grain a salt".

THANK YOU! I need to run errands but I'll look at this a bit later.

Couple quick points

This hypothetical scenario already includes a 2.9% tax rate for Medicare (that's part of existing tax structure).

This hypothetical person is not currently insured and currently has no insurance payments through their employer.

. And that includes location.

Absolute agreement with you on that, CI.

Bro, I’ll try to get close enough to get pics. I’m making a Bernie for President sign.

I initially thought he might announce at that time, but the scenario doesn't seem like the best stage for it.

Glad to see those superior research skills at work, CI.

I actually do believe in Medicare-for-all/Single payer.
I believe that Medicare-for-all/Single Payer would work.
I believe if it's done right, that it would be a wonderful program.
My last post, is how I would implement the program.
Other people may have different ideas of how they would implement the program.

Wonder how much Bill Gates and Bezos would chip in.

If my suggestion was implemented it would be 5 percent of their (annual) income.
That would greatly help fund Medicare-for-all/Single Payer.

(Grin) You know it! A great improvement over Bezos’ current contribution of $0.00.

I’ve been wrong before, but my feels make me prioritize getting my white ass in the Mt Zion Church, ‘cause I feel Bern is announcing there.

Not all relationships end happily. Glad that your's turned out well.

There were ample grounds to impeach Reagan. Being guilty of impeachable acts does not necessarily = impeachment. Only the Republicans could make it happen.

Baby, THIS is what I’m talkin’ ‘bout.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-staffing-fend-off-potential-primary-challenge-60469029

President Donald Trump's re-election campaign is staffing up to fend off any potential primary challenger.

The Virginia-based campaign is announcing Friday that former White House official Nick Trainer will lead its delegate and party organization efforts ahead of the 2020 Republican National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.

There doesn't appear to be a swell for Romney. I wonder who would give it a go.