I'll let actual health economists explain:

https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/dont-confuse-changes-federal-health-spending-national-health-spending

Anyway. My point is that "additional federal spending" estimates from all those indpendent studies are - shocker lol - IN ADDITION to current federal spending. When I said those independent analyses concluded M4A would essentially double the budget, that's what that means... $30T+ IN ADDITION to what the gov will already need to spend over a decade not only on healthcare but social security, defense, etc. Notice in the Warren plan appendix I linked from her website, her advisors/experts labelled the independent estimates as "ADDITIONAL Federal Spending Over 10 Years" in Table 2:

https://assets.ctfassets.net/4ubxbgy9463z/2Tg9oB55ICu2vtYBaKKcVr/d124e0eeb128ad3a8d8ab8a6ccae44c0/20191031_Medicare_for_All_Cost_Letter___Appendices_FINAL.pdf#page=5

Tbh I'm not actually surprised that either Bernie or Warren sought to come up with their own federal spending estimates lol (and unsurprisingly, they're so much lower than 5 out of 7 of those independent analyses). Politically, they have every incentive to do so. But it's super unlikely that an increasing number of independent experts would converge on an estimate interval "that" tight (~30T +/- a few trillion) - with their analyses conducted using different cuts of data and methodologies and microsimulations and the whole nine - and the true dollar amount needed NOT be in that interval. So ya. I'm rolling with them.


>
>The most important part in Jayapal's statement was "game the
>system". The insurance industry is not stupid and they will
>do everything possible to keep their riches.

Yes, I agree. This is why industries must be properly regulated. Laws, regulations, enforcement, etc. These are things.


For example with
>Warren's 3 year transition public option proposal nothing is
>stopping the insurance companies from financing great plans
>for 3 years and giving people everything they want so that
>people sour on the idea of M4A being better

Um, this would be ideal behavior from the private sector actually. Lol. Quality up, prices down.


and then when we
>stop pursuing it they go back to the crap that they provide
>now making us have to start the process all over again. This
>is just one of a million possible scenarios.
>

OR the government (exec, congress, AND judiciary) could actually do its job keeping them in check and they won't. Why do you only focus on that 1 extremely laissez-faire scenario out of the "million possible"?

>
>Again you are forgetting about UNDER insured, a lot of people
>are covered but can't afford the copays and deductibles so
>they are essentially not covered.

You couldn't be more wrong. I know what it is like to have coverage but lack access. And, ironically, I've experienced it in a single-payer system. My position is influenced by comparing that experience what I've experienced in the US healthcare system. I'm sorry that doesn't fit your narrative, or that some of the single-payer problems I've seen are being predicted in some of these independent analyses.

For example, estimation of how utilization may change (due to factors on the supply side and demand side) by one of the groups that's examined M4A (RAND, whose experts estimate the gov will need $31T in additional revenue to implement M4A over 10 years):

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3106.html

Excerpt from their summary of what could happen with respect to provider burden, paycuts, etc:

Accounting for Supply Constraints for Services

"Although, on average, we assume payment levels would be the same as they are in the status quo in 2019, providers’ willingness and ability to provide health care services—including the additional care required by the newly insured and those benefiting from lower cost sharing—would most likely be limited. The extent and distribution of unmet care would depend on providers’ payer mix under current law and their responses to Medicare for All payment levels. For example, some providers may elect to not participate in a Medicare for All plan (and instead enter in private contracts with individuals, an arrangement permitted in some single-payer bills), providers may alter when they retire, and potential medical students and trainees could change their career choices. As a result, some patients might experience longer wait times for care or face unmet needs.

RAND’s Health Care Payment and Delivery Simulation Model (PADSIM) accounts for how providers’ supply of services might respond to changes in payment (White et al., 2016). In our analysis of the NYHA, which included similar assumptions to those described above regarding how payment would change under a single-payer plan, PADSIM estimated that the supply of physician and hospital services would adjust such that unmet demand would approximately equal 50 percent of the new demand. We apply this 50 percent factor to our utilization estimates for 2019 to account for supply constraints in the current analysis. In a sensitivity analysis, we considered how the results would change if this supply constraint were alleviated."

^^So again - even just looking at providers (eg.doctors, surgeons,dentists, therapists,etc) their modeling supports that with the paycuts outlined in M4A, the increase in utilization could distort medical labor participation so much that it would feel like HALF OF ALL PATIENTS IN THE US can't access a provider when they need it. Not unlike the under-insured people you claim M4A would help, just more of the population and healthcare access limited due to wait-times, long distances, packed scheduling, etc instead of cost. And this is just looking at the effect of dramatically changing provider burden and payment.. I've ranted on okp before about other characteristics of the US population that would likely ramp up demand.. namely how numerous, violent, overweight, chronically ill, and stressed Americans are compared to other countries' populations in addition to one of the country's largest demographics (Boomers) living longer in their old age with these issues.


>
>>The Wall Street Journal reports that new
>>government health insurance systems like the public option
>>represent “stepping stones to single payer.”"
>
>The reason they are against even that is because they don't
>want to give an inch. The insurance industry fought the ACA
>too which helped enrich them. It is a barbaric system and in
>their perfect world it wouldn't change one iota. To
>counteract that level of evil you have to go at them full
>bore, no half measures, no middle ground. A moral society has
>to break the grip of people profiting off of other's
>sickeness, misery and death, it's beyond obvious.
>
>Don't be deliberately naive, Pete has 39 billionaire donors,
>https://www.businessinsider.com/kamala-harris-more-billionaire-donors-than-any-other-democratic-candidate-2019-11
>Bernie has 0, every other candidate is just going to continue
>the status quo, if people are fine with that just admit it but
>change isn't coming from anyone else.
>
>The bottom line is that all these arguments against M4A are
>ridiculous and anyone who isn't a lobbyist, or an insurance
>exec that gives weight to them is just on their side and
>helping stop progress. There is no other way around it, in
>the richest country in the world the only reason to not have
>M4A is to placate the insatiable greed of the oligarch class.
>As that Politico article stated their is unlimited money out
>there fighting against M4A and anyone who believes they are
>dong it because they are on our side and looking out for our
>interests is simply delusional.
>

Oh hush. If yall can't even handle some technical questions about glaring financial conflicts in your guy's policies, perhaps what you have is a religious movement not a political movement. And *STILL* your complete dismissal of my questions, which I'll ask for the last time: a)does Bernie's camp have a plan to guarantee/stabilize that 4% tax rate on everybody above $29k and b)given his intended use of the wealth tax to diminish the tax base it would apply to by 50%, what are other ways that revenue stream could be replaced?? Because 15y is not that far in the future. If you propose State Maintenance of Effort could replace/supplement Wealth tax revenue, I could see that (~$3T could replace ~$1T). But please do not continue this back and forth unless your response includes insight about those two specific issues. They are completely fair concerns and the only two things I want to understand better about Bernie's M4A plan right now. Thanks.