>I'm not an expert by any means on this funding but I think
>the big thing you are missing is what is referred to as
>maintenance of effort funding which already exists and brings
>the needed NEW revenue way down. From this great article
>https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/10/30/how-to-approach-medicare-for-all-financing/
> "The first thing you do is bring in existing spending on
>Federal Health Programs and State Health Programs, the latter
>through a maintenance of effort requirement. That gets you
>$1.761 trillion.
>
>Then you can assume that Other Private ($0.308 trillion)
>remains the same, getting you to $2.069 trillion."
>
>Sorry that I also linked Bernie's old financing document, the
>2019 one is here
>https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/medicare-for-all-2019-financing?id=860FD1B9-3E8A-4ADD-8C1F-0DEDC8D45BC1&download=1&inline=file
>


favor and yall try to obfuscate that by playing down the ambiguity in your numbers and focusing almost exclusively on persuasion and information warfare. It's not that hard.

First of all, neither the financing proposal you linked before or the updated one you link here make any mention of State Maintenance of Effort. And, even if they did, it wouldnt close the gap in funding between $16T and $30T. Under current law State spending is like less than 10% of annual National Health Expenditure, or roughly 0.3T-0.4T (lazy math, but consistent with what Bruenig mentions in your link). So over 10y, State Maintenance of Effort helps Bernie raise "maybe" a few more trillion. Not enough.

Furthermore, the funding sources in Bernie's updated financing proposal you link are:

-7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers, exempting first $2 million in payroll;
-4 percent income-based premium paid by employees, exempting first $29,000 for family of four;
-Eliminating health tax expenditures
-More Progressive Income Tax eg. marginal tax rate of up to 70 percent on those making above $10 million;
-Making the estate tax more progressive, including a 77 percent top rate on an inheritance above $1B;
-Wealth tax;
-Closing Gingrich-Edwards Loophole/Mandate payroll and Medicare taxes for S-Corporations;
-Fee on large financial institutions;
-Repealing corporate accounting gimmicks eg.LIFO corporate accounting

so pretty much identical to the funding sources listed in his older financing plan (and in alignment with recommendations Bruenig makes in his article), except that he nixed the one-time offshore tax (slightly shady but ignoring bc has nothing to do with my point) and threw in an estate tax (LOL @ a 77% top rate ever passing into law btw). Given that his older financing plan could barely raise 16T and is very similar to the updated one, EVEN IF we incorporate State Maintenance of Effort (again, only a few trillion, and he doesn't even propose it anyway) that might get him to where Warren's proposal is at (~20T) but it's extremely unlikely he'd be able to raise $10T+ with an estate tax. So like, no.

You also didn't even bother with my questions about why/how long he can even guarantee a 4% rate on taxpayers given the weaknesses in his M4A financing, or how the wealth tax revenue even makes sense given he wants to shrink that tax base by half in 15 years. You were quick to slip in those Warren and Pete disses tho. Obfuscater! Lol

>
>Now the problem with a public option is obvious and Rep
>Jayapal lays it out well here
>https://twitter.com/RepJayapal/status/1197702718967746565 I
>don't know what is going on behind the scenes which has her
>speaking the truth here but then also constantly defending
>Warren's public option but the facts remain the same
>

Ya I've seen you try to push the anti-selection argument on here too, and it's just a weak argument imho. Less than 10% of the US population is uninsured, and their composition doesn't magically change depending on whether they gain coverage via single-payer plan or public option. The gov is paying for them either way. So whatever risk there is in covering them via public option exists for covering them under single-payer too.

Besides, the most impoverished working-class people, seniors, or children are likely already on Medicaid/CHIP with States covering the bulk of their care. The uninsured are mostly people disenfranchised by their States' failures to expand Medicaid, self-employed folks, hardest-to-reach indigent folks (eg. homeless), etc. And because this small segment of the population has been very well characterized, from a public health perspective this actually makes it a bit easier for policymakers to tailor an intervention (in this case, a public health insurance plan) specifically to them.

There's even clues in Pete's plan that tailoring the public option to the most vulnerable uninsured was his intent eg. the free/no-copay prescription drug benefit (which would be enormous therapeutic and financial relief for the most chronically sick polypharmacy folks, but more or less just an attractive marketing feature for healthy people buying-in). Imho, he budgeted for the worst-case scenario and structured his pay-fors around that (Which is smart policy design, and the complete opposite of Bernie's M4A approach).


>And never forget this about your boy Pete
>https://readsludge.com/2019/10/18/as-he-attacks-medicare-for-all-mayor-pete-gets-campaign-cash-from-health-care-executives/


See! Lol. And I'm not susceptible to your dissuasion tactics. Mostly because I choose to just read through a policy, or court doc, or (reputable) data analyses to shape my opinion on these people. Nice try tho.

But to your point: if Pete's so cozy with the healthcare industry lobby why did Partnership For America's Healthcare Future (the lobbyist coalition in the article Mista K links at the bottom of #345) put out this statement trashing his public option?:

https://americashealthcarefuture.org/partnership-statement-on-latest-one-size-fits-all-government-controlled-health-insurance-system/

Excerpt:

"The fact is, a new government-controlled health insurance system – whether it’s called the public option, Medicare buy-in, or ‘Medicare for all who want it’ – would ultimately lead to a one-size-fits-all system that would cause Americans to pay more and wait longer for worse care,” said Lauren Crawford Shaver, the Partnership’s executive director. “These proposals are not ‘moderate’ alternatives to Medicare for all, as some would claim, and would put too much control over Americans’ health care in the hands of politicians. With about 90 percent of Americans covered today and the majority satisfied with their current health care, our nation’s leaders should instead focus on solutions that improve and build upon what’s working and fix what isn’t.”The Wall Street Journal reports that new government health insurance systems like the public option represent “stepping stones to single payer.”"


Besides, since he doesn't accept Corporate PAC money all those health industry donors are just folks that happen to work in the sector. Case in point: Bernie is only a few spots below Pete: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/07/20dems-are-taking-money-healthcare/. I mean sure there's execs... but also some laughably harmless people too lol come on. Like OH NO NOT A DIRECTOR FROM THE INDIANAPOLIS COALITION FOR PATIENT SAFETY.