>where are you getting 20%?

and they included their estimate of the necessary tax hike (Bernie's financing plan says 4% for households earning $29k+).

I refuse to link it tho, because it was a Heritage Fdn study lol... I skimmed for the math only (which, tbf, they were pretty forgiving to Bernie on. They estimated the ~20% tax hike on a federal spending increase of ~$24T+, which is closer to the lower bound of estimates where other independent studies have been converging).

But ya. The paper is called "How Medicare for All Harms Working Americans" (lol). Hopefully some less partisan groups will take a stab at trying to estimate the tax issue tho. I liked that the estimated pricetag was looked at from across the spectrum.


>for most people it would be a
>decrease in what theyre spending on health care now. they
>would get a lot more though.
>
>if you look at the total cost of health care, individual
>people and america as a whole would spend less and get more.

total cost of health care = NHE tho, so america as a whole yes because NHE goes down a bit, but not necessarily individually. Certainly not if a substantial tax hike is in the cards. This conflating of federal spending and NHE the left does has really messed up the discourse on this tbh.

>will some individuals spend more? yes. warren would make only
>the super wealthy pay more. bernie would make the well off and
>above pay more.

Correct on Warren, consistent with her pledge. Incorrect on Bernie: Only households of 4 earning less than $29k p.a. would be exempt from paying what he "says" will be a 4% payroll tax increase:

"Creating a 4 percent income-based premium paid by employees, exempting the first $29,000 in income for a family of four;"

(https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/medicare-for-all-2019-financing)

But that 4% isn't locked in stone, and independent analyses are starting to trickle in estimating a necessary tax hike much higher than that.

>
>im slightly above median income, i have a ton of debt. i could
>afford to pay for health care. im sure some families around
>the same income would not. anyone that actually needs to use
>health care would end up spending less under medicare for all
>than any public option or current system.

Well, you don't know that. In your case, your 5% was less than the 8.5% Pete's plan would guarantee. Why would you switch? But not everyone is in your situation. And some people are too impoverished to afford any coverage at all, and they would benefit most. I know you're not a fan of his public option and that's fair, I have no problem with that. But let's not go so far as erasing the obvious value propositions for some people lol.


>ive been thinking of why petes attack has bothered me. is it
>at all something other than "hey your not being nice to my
>currently preferred candidate"????? yes. we know when the
>general election comes trump will not give any details on what
>he wants to do. he will say the dem candidate wants to take
>away your benefits, tax you more, turn us into venezuela. what
>benefit is there to lock yourself into specific details on how
>to pay for the policy now? very little if any,

that was petes
>argument when i first started paying attention him. he wasnt
>going to lock himself down to anything. it made sense.

Hmm, interesting. I remember his argument being that he wanted to lay out the values animating his policy first, because he felt Repubs have been better at rallying their base around shared interests than Dems. I do remember him saying something about being careful not to be so inflexible that one ran into difficulty trying to govern... but that's a bit different than mapping out how proposals will be funded imho.

Taxpayers probably don't need a spreadsheet lol, you're right. But I think the way a candidate approaches government spending says a lot not only about their competence but about their leadership and ability to allocate my tax dollars responsibly. And Pete's been talking about fiscal responsibility more as of late, too... which is music to the ears of a taxpayer like me, personally.

why is
>he then trying to push other dem candidates to lock themselves
>into details now? because he knows it will give him and others
>ammunition to attack them on. in my view, unfairly. these
>details should be worked out once the policy is actually being
>voted on. laying them out now just puts you in a position to
>be attached. right now and if you have to make concessions
>once the policy is being put in place.
>thats why i didnt like how he kept pushing. its clear that
>facts and details dont matter in our elections. warren should
>have recognized that. oh well. best case she learns from this
>and is able to hit back better and be ready when trump tries
>the same. worst case, shes out and were looking at bernie vs
>whoever survives the "electability" contest and wins the
>fundraisers backing.
>
>how is the public option going to be defended vs trump? how do
>you think trump will attack it?

Ya I hear where you're coming from, and I think I just disagree. Strongly. It's cool tho.

And re: how 45 might attack Pete's public option, I don't know lol. I think it's got pretty solid armor tho, tbh. He's not trying to sunset an industry, he's not raising anyone's taxes, he's expanding coverage to the uninsured vs Repubs trying to take coverage away from people, and it will be funded in part due to prescription drug pricing reform which even 45 himself has endorsed.

Tbh I think Pete doesn't offer that many attack lines for 45 to pursue, in contrast to some of the stuff from Bernie's past that could make 45 actually look good in comparison. They're just so different. But I also suspect 45 might opt to go more personal if it came to Pete. Which I think might only inspire folks' sympathy?? Lol. Who knows tho.