Sanders: Of course I’ll raise your taxes. Why do you ask?

posted at 9:21 am on January 26, 2016 by Jazz Shaw

After last night’s town hall event on CNN where the Democrat candidates took a final opportunity to address the voters in Iowa, I came away with yet another thing to like about Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders. If nothing else, the guy has the admirable trait of honesty going for him. When the moderator asked if he wouldn’t need to jack up tax rates to put all of his wild eyed proposals into effect, he provided the sort of clarity we so rarely see in politicians. Of course he’s going to raise taxes! (Daily Caller)

Monday during the Democratic Forum hosted by CNN and moderated by Chris Cuomo, Sanders said, “Yes, we will raise, we will raise the, we will raise taxes, yes we will.”

Sanders suggested, “But also, let us be clear Chris [Cuomo], because there’s a little bit of disingenuity out there. We may raise taxes but we are also going to eliminate private health insurance premiums for individuals and for businesses.”

Speaking of a little bit of disingenuity, the part that Bernie failed to mention is that his proposals add up to a staggering $18T over ten years. Even with the massive tax hikes he’s talking about, they only cover roughly $6.5T in new revenue over the same period. Now, math wasn’t my major in school, but wiser heads have already determined that this would be the largest expansion of national spending and debt since the massive buildup during World War 2. But unlike other politicians, Sanders was willing to own up to a piece of the tax hike, so he’s got that going for him.

I wonder if he realizes that he couldn’t even get the Democrats in Congress to sign on for those levels of taxes and spending?

For some reason, this reminded me of the “touching moment” during one of Bernie’s events which everyone was talking about yesterday. It took place when a young woman described how hard it was to raise children on her own on an income of $12K per year.

It’s so hard to do anything to pay your bills, you’re ashamed all the time…when you can’t buy presents for your children it’s really really really hard – and I work 3, 4, 5 jobs sometimes, always minimum wage, I have a degree, divorced and it’s just I’m waiting for disability to come through so my parents have to support me – it’s just hard.

The woman was clearly depressed and had a lot on her mind, but if you watch the video at the link you’ll see that Bernie missed out on a couple of opportunities here. For one thing, he stayed at the podium rather than going down to comfort her one on one. But in terms of this tax policy discussion, there was another piece of low hanging fruit he missed. Just think how much better it would have been if Sanders had walked up to the woman, put his hand on her shoulder, and said, “Don’t worry, young lady. After my plans go into effect the rest of the country will be in the same boat as you so we can all commiserate together. Well… not actually me, of course. I’ll be living in a mansion overlooking the reflecting pool making a half million a year. But the rest of you shall stand in solidarity.”

Man… I missed my calling. I should be his speech writer.

BernieSandersPodium


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

That’s the face of a man who hears voices.

CurtZHP on January 26, 2016 at 9:24 AM

Walter Mondale vs GOPe-hated, former actor, Democrat turned Republican 2.0

Should be interesting

Rogue on January 26, 2016 at 9:25 AM

Pinko Commie Sanders Stealth Hopey/Changey
Wealth Redistribution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on January 26, 2016 at 9:26 AM

Everything hinges on whether or not Shillary is actually indicted for her felonious acts. If she is George Bernie moves into first, but does Biden jump into the race? I think he does. And then what? Will Biden build enough momentum to win the nomination, or will the Republican nominee be facing George McGovern Bernie Sanders? Of course even if Shillary isn’t indicted she still might lose to George Bernie.

NotCoach on January 26, 2016 at 9:28 AM

Speaking of a little bit of disingenuity, the part that Bernie failed to mention is that his proposals add up to a staggering $18T over ten years. Even with the massive tax hikes he’s talking about, they only cover roughly $6.5T in new revenue over the same period.

Those are conservative estimates of his spending added to the 19 trillion we already owe.

Salaries are decreasing due to the flood of foreign workers of all stripes so that 6.5T revenue is a generous estimate. But lets go with what you have:

18T MORE
+19T NOW
——–
37T
-6.5T Leaves?

Starvation, destitution, ruin. We’re headed that way. Detroit 2 dot oh.

dogsoldier on January 26, 2016 at 9:28 AM

I work 3, 4, 5 jobs sometimes, always minimum wage, I have a degree, divorced and it’s just I’m waiting for disability to come through so my parents have to support me – it’s just hard.

Something doesn’t add up.

Plus, I wonder what her degree is.

darwin on January 26, 2016 at 9:29 AM

See, Bern’s promising before the election that we won’t be able to keep our plan. He’s worse than FDR promising a comfortable retirement with SS. Why is it that Bern always looks like he needs a dose of pepto.

Kissmygrits on January 26, 2016 at 9:31 AM

For some reason, this reminded me of the “touching moment” during one of Bernie’s events which everyone was talking about yesterday. It took place when a young woman described how hard it was to raise children on her own on an income of $12K per year.

Here’s a crazy thought. Don’t f’ing have kids if you only make 12 grand a year!

Doughboy on January 26, 2016 at 9:32 AM

This is being a little unfair to Bernie, Jazz. He also said that the combination of raising taxes and eliminating insurance fees will save individuals $5,000.00 per year.

Now I personally believe that to be nothing more than Socialist Math™, but still, it’s an accurate representation of what he said.

OT: NPR Erases Israel From The Map

Magicjava on January 26, 2016 at 9:32 AM

I work 3, 4, 5 jobs sometimes, always minimum wage, I have a degree, divorced and it’s just I’m waiting for disability to come through

Excuse me!?

OldEnglish on January 26, 2016 at 9:33 AM

Plus, I wonder what her degree is.

darwin on January 26, 2016 at 9:29 AM

Transgendered Art History Studies.

CurtZHP on January 26, 2016 at 9:33 AM


Taxing the 1%, but it will hit everybody:
——————————————–

Bernie Sanders Promises To Raise Taxes On All Americans

Published on Oct 18, 2015
**************************

Billionaires are not the only ones Sanders wants to increase the tax burden on, he also suggested that in order to pay for paid family and medical leave, all Americans would have to pay more to the government in the form of an increased payroll tax.
==========================

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN_l-SM__9k

canopfor on January 26, 2016 at 9:34 AM

darwin on January 26, 2016 at 9:29 AM

Oh, bugger! If only I could cut/paste faster!

OldEnglish on January 26, 2016 at 9:34 AM

See, Bern’s promising before the election that we won’t be able to keep our plan. He’s worse than FDR promising a comfortable retirement with SS. Why is it that Bern always looks like he needs a dose of pepto.

Kissmygrits on January 26, 2016 at 9:31 AM

You know who loves him some Bernie? This guy loves him some Bernie!

I don’t identify as liberal, I identify as progressive-marxist.

libfreeordie on April 30, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Enough said.

NotCoach on January 26, 2016 at 9:35 AM

I wonder if he realizes that he couldn’t even get the Democrats in Congress to sign on for those levels of taxes and spending?

Wait, we still need Congress?

Ukiah on January 26, 2016 at 9:36 AM

$19 trillion in debt, what’s the Bern to do, hit the debt reset button?

woodhull on January 26, 2016 at 9:37 AM

Something doesn’t add up.

Plus, I wonder what her degree is.

darwin on January 26, 2016 at 9:29 AM

womyn’s studies
philosophy
english literature
theater
african american studies
art history
film and media studies

probably from a private school that charged 40k tuition a year.

animal02 on January 26, 2016 at 9:38 AM

$19 trillion in debt, what’s the Bern to do, hit the debt reset button?

woodhull on January 26, 2016 at 9:37 AM

The debt is nothing but a capitalist theft of the people’s labor, and such theft is not legitimate, so we just simply default. Problem solved!

Disclaimer: Any bad things that happen after such a default are clearly the anti-people intellectuals conspiring to undermine the coming utopia.

NotCoach on January 26, 2016 at 9:42 AM

Like any good Leftist, Bernie wants just two things:

– All of your money.
– Government that decides how that money will be spent.

It’s really that simple.

justltl on January 26, 2016 at 9:47 AM

Gee- I wonder what kind of tweets Trump could make about a socialist who honeymooned in the Soviet Union and wrote about womens rape fastasies.

Should be interesting.

gerrym51 on January 26, 2016 at 9:48 AM

Like any good Leftist politicians, Bernie wants just two things:

– All of your money.
– Government that decides how that money will be spent.

It’s really that simple.

justltl on January 26, 2016 at 9:47 AM

FIFY

Magicjava on January 26, 2016 at 9:50 AM

That’s the face of a man who hears voices.

He actually kind of reminds me of the old creepy guy in Poltergeist 2.

OrbeaRider66 on January 26, 2016 at 9:50 AM

I work 3, 4, 5 jobs sometimes, always minimum wage, I have a degree, divorced and it’s just I’m waiting for disability to come through

If she’s at The Bernie Show, it must be a mental disorder ‘disability’. This crap is better than a 40’s film noire. An ancient Socialist with the young (indoctrinates) in his camp and an old broad with the Crony Kapitalists in hers.The other side has a Crony Capitalist seeking more rent for his stay in the WH, with better candidates in far second. Whut a kuntry.

vnvet on January 26, 2016 at 9:51 AM

Someone should try an ad where you put a bunch of Sanders quotes to the Curb Your Enthusiasm music. And then end with a wuh-wuh music.

Ukiah on January 26, 2016 at 9:53 AM

Buy presents for her children? What about food, clothes and shelter?

Techster64 on January 26, 2016 at 9:54 AM

I work 3, 4, 5 jobs sometimes, always minimum wage, I have a degree, divorced and it’s just I’m waiting for disability to come through

vnvet on January 26, 2016 at 9:51 AM

Something wrong with having multiple kids when your situation is so dire, I wonder how much welfare/foodstamps/etc assistance she receives.

Ukiah on January 26, 2016 at 9:55 AM

So how will Bernie make up the extra cash he needs for his programs?

First he came for the billionaires. Then he came for the millionaires. Then he came for………….

GarandFan on January 26, 2016 at 10:00 AM

There is no way that a human being in the United States of America is making $12,000 annually. Period. The minimum wage is still on average 7.25 hourly so working full-time that would put your annual wage just north of $15,000. And no tax accountant worth his weight would tell a someone making that much to pay a third of their income in taxes, and most at that wage would not even qualify for health benefits.

One thing I don’t like about the Dems is the notion that they can lie about their circumstance, and then use that lie to harm everyone else in society.

chrisbolts on January 26, 2016 at 10:00 AM

On the other hand, elimination of the need for private insurance would save $10 trillion+ over that period.

Where does the $18 trillion figure come from?

urban elitist on January 26, 2016 at 10:00 AM

He can definitely count on 47% support floor.

Rix on January 26, 2016 at 10:01 AM

Expecting Crazy Uncle Bernie to not raise taxes is like expecting Stalin to close the gulags, Reno to not fry Branch Davidians, Killary to stop harassing Slick’s sexual assault victims, or Hustler AG Loretta Lynch to indict Cankles for obvious national security and national secrets breaches.

It’s their nature.

viking01 on January 26, 2016 at 10:02 AM

Magicjava on January 26, 2016 at 9:50 AM

Sadly, at this point in time, your statement is applicable.
Even for those politicians who espouse capitalism and freedom, the lure of all that money and unrestrained power is irresistible.

Thus the need to periodically water the tree of liberty- to remind all of them to resist the urge and to eliminate those that can’t.

justltl on January 26, 2016 at 10:03 AM

Gee whiz. An honest nazi.

HotAirian on January 26, 2016 at 10:03 AM

When 51% of the people pay no effective federal income tax then lunatics like Sanders can actually get elected.

Leftists always play to the worst in human nature: greed, selfishness, envy, hate, racism, tribalism, etc. They always have and they always will.

Sad.

visions on January 26, 2016 at 10:05 AM

Plus, I wonder what her degree is.

darwin on January 26, 2016 at 9:29 AM

Transgendered Art History Studies.

CurtZHP on January 26, 2016 at 9:33 AM

womyn’s studies
philosophy
english literature
theater
african american studies
art history
film and media studies

probably from a private school that charged 40k tuition a year.

animal02 on January 26, 2016 at 9:38 AM

Maybe she was a Hillary plant at a Bernie rally.

leftamark on January 26, 2016 at 10:06 AM

On the other hand, elimination of the need for private insurance would save $10 trillion+ over that period.

Where does the $18 trillion figure come from?

urban elitist on January 26, 2016 at 10:00 AM

You might be a leftist moron if math is beyond you…

Ending private health insurance does not eliminate healthcare expenses. That $10 trillion will still be spent, it just won’t be funneled through insurance companies. And considering how inefficient the government is one of two things will happen: Greatly increased costs, or rationing. So Bernie’s cost of doing business is likely much higher than $18 trillion.

NotCoach on January 26, 2016 at 10:07 AM

The problem is that half of the country pays no federal income tax now, and many actually get paid some of someone else’s tax through EICs. Many of them would gladly vote for more taxes, thinking that it means more free sh*t™ for them.

I am fearful that a Sanders presidency is not an absurd notion but an actual possibility in this version of America.

hillbillyjim on January 26, 2016 at 10:09 AM

On the other hand, elimination of the need for private insurance would save $10 trillion+ over that period.

Where does the $18 trillion figure come from?

urban elitist on January 26, 2016 at 10:00 AM

where does the free care come from?

WryTrvllr on January 26, 2016 at 10:09 AM

$6.5 trillion in new revenue? HAHAHAHA Hey. Remember that time in 1993 when a newly elected Bubba calculated how much cold cash the IRS could confiscate if tax rates were 100%?? Their triangulating tushes were wiggling at the prospect!

Keep dreaming, Bernie.

locomotivebreath1901 on January 26, 2016 at 10:09 AM

Single-payer already exists in America: On reservations for Native Americans.

These are very mature, federally run “single-payer” “Medicare for all” bureaucracies overseen by Progressives, lock, stock and barrel.

To think that Sanders and his followers would want to force this awful system onto the rest of America is unconscionable. It’s downright evil, to be honest.

visions on January 26, 2016 at 10:10 AM

And considering how inefficient the government is one of two things will happen: Greatly increased costs, or rationing. So Bernie’s cost of doing business is likely much higher than $18 trillion.

NotCoach on January 26, 2016 at 10:07 AM

Both.

See NHS in UK.

hillbillyjim on January 26, 2016 at 10:12 AM

When 51% of the people pay no effective federal income tax then lunatics like Sanders can actually get elected.
Leftists always play to the worst in human nature: greed, selfishness, envy, hate, racism, tribalism, etc. They always have and they always will.
Sad.
visions on January

The people are corrupted, no doubt, but what about the educated media?

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2016 at 10:12 AM

I wonder if he realizes that he couldn’t even get the Democrats in Congress to sign on for those levels of taxes and spending?

That’s why I can withstand a Sanders Presidency. He won’t get his domestic agenda implemented with a GOP Congress. He’s just not as nasty as Dear Liar.

rbj on January 26, 2016 at 10:13 AM

where does the free care come from?

WryTrvllr on January 26, 2016 at 10:09 AM

Skittle-pooping unicorns!

Taste the Rainbow!!

CurtZHP on January 26, 2016 at 10:13 AM

Like any good Leftist, Bernie wants just two things:

– All of your money.
– Government that decides how that money will be spent.

It’s really that simple.

justltl on January 26, 2016 at 9:47 AM

You forgot one other thing

– I still get all of mine

Zomcon JEM on January 26, 2016 at 10:15 AM

The people are corrupted, no doubt, but what about the educated media?

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2016 at 10:12 AM

We have educated media?! I never noticed.

Rix on January 26, 2016 at 10:16 AM

If Americans choose Bernie or Hillary in a general I am going to severely reduce my work hours, take advantage of whatever I can get from the government and semi-retire. I’ve tried to keep my spirit and have paid more than my fair share in taxes but after these last 8 years and foreseeing that outcome the next generation can have the reigns and take care of me.

tej on January 26, 2016 at 10:17 AM

On the other hand, elimination of the need for private insurance would save $10 trillion+ over that period.

Where does the $18 trillion figure come from?

urban elitist on January 26, 2016 at 10:00 AM

You might be a leftist moron if math is beyond you…

Ending private health insurance does not eliminate healthcare expenses. That $10 trillion will still be spent, it just won’t be funneled through insurance companies. And considering how inefficient the government is one of two things will happen: Greatly increased costs, or rationing. So Bernie’s cost of doing business is likely much higher than $18 trillion.

NotCoach on January 26, 2016 at 10:07 AM

My we are all forgetting the obvious stuff this morning. You forgot about the savings from no longer having to provide care to all the patients the system will kill. The VA shows the way!!

Zomcon JEM on January 26, 2016 at 10:18 AM

The people are corrupted, no doubt, but what about the educated media?

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2016 at 10:12 AM

Brainwashed J-school libwits.

hillbillyjim on January 26, 2016 at 10:20 AM

You forgot one other thing

– I still get all of mine

Zomcon JEM on January 26, 2016 at 10:15 AM

Yep.
Leftists and politicians always exclude themselves and their cronies from having to suffer the consequences of their actions.

justltl on January 26, 2016 at 10:26 AM

I’m sure every medical professional is jumping at the chance to work for the government at the pay scale and schedule they will have to abide by. A brain surgeon paid $150,000,nurses working 80 hour weeks.There will never be enough money for Medicare for all.

docflash on January 26, 2016 at 10:28 AM

$6.5 trillion in new revenue? HAHAHAHA Hey. Remember that time in 1993 when a newly elected Bubba calculated how much cold cash the IRS could confiscate if tax rates were 100%?? Their triangulating tushes were wiggling at the prospect!
Keep dreaming, Bernie.
locomotivebreath1901 on January 26, 2016 at 10:09 AM

People will be in the streets gunning down tax collectors Long before 100% tax rates.

ConstantineXI on January 26, 2016 at 10:29 AM

You might be a leftist moron if math is beyond you…

Ending private health insurance does not eliminate healthcare expenses. That $10 trillion will still be spent, it just won’t be funneled through insurance companies. And considering how inefficient the government is one of two things will happen: Greatly increased costs, or rationing. So Bernie’s cost of doing business is likely much higher than $18 trillion.

NotCoach on January 26, 2016 at 10:07 AM

It’s funny to be called a moron by someone with a mid-two digit IQ.

First — there’s no claim that health care expenses are eliminated. Just that, if you’re going to get all hysterical about the Bernie tax increases, you have to consider the $10 trillion offset which would effectively cut the health care portion by two-thirds.

Second, nothing is more inefficient than the U.S. insurance system. This is why Western countries with single-payer systems spend significantly less per person on health care than the U.S.

urban elitist on January 26, 2016 at 10:37 AM

bernie’s plan pays for itself far better than any of the Republican plans do.

everdiso on January 26, 2016 at 10:38 AM

Simple math says if you eliminate premiums which include the insurance company’s profit and replace it with a tax based system that does not have to include profits plus is able to negotiate lower drug costs due to the huge size and number of participants, you will will be better off financially.

Remember health insurance is not health care. Doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. provide health care… insurance companies don’t. Now whether you think a profit in insurance that you have to pay on top of actual healthcare is right or even necessary is a question of ideology. But the economics of it surely works in Bernie’s favor.

proverbs427 on January 26, 2016 at 10:39 AM

I am fearful that a Sanders presidency is not an absurd notion but an actual possibility in this version of America.

hillbillyjim on January 26, 2016 at 10:09 AM

I predict it will happen. Dear God, I pray I am wrong, but we were warned of this in 1917. “Russia will spread its errors.” And it has, most horrifyingly with the acceptance of abortion. I do believe Russia was the first nation to legalize the barbaric evil and with the American leftists leading the march, we followed. 40 years of embracing this horror and we are seeing the chastisement we have earned falling upon us.

But most are more concerned about their pocketbooks. God have mercy.

pannw on January 26, 2016 at 10:44 AM

Bernie and Hillary don’t realize there are not enough millionaires and billionaires to pay for all of their schemes so therefore they will have to try to tax the rest of us to get the revenue. They are so stupid but the 51 percent to doesn’t pay any taxes are more ignorant. I wonder how many years this nation will last?

garydt on January 26, 2016 at 10:44 AM

… it’s just I’m waiting for disability to come through so my parents have to support me…
Excuse me!?

OldEnglish on January 26, 2016 at 9:33 AM

Mental disabilities are hard. Must have free money to fix.

As a former full time college prof., this, to me, sounds a lot like too many typical “graduates”. “Educated” to be pawns.

RL on January 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM

It’s funny to be called a moron by someone with a mid-two digit IQ.

urban elitist on January 26, 2016 at 10:37 AM

Still 50 points above yours, I’d wager.

First — there’s no claim that health care expenses are eliminated.

Heh. your post again.

On the other hand, elimination of the need for private insurance would save $10 trillion+ over that period.

Second, nothing is more inefficient than the U.S. insurance system. This is why Western countries with single-payer systems spend significantly less per person on health care than the U.S.

By rationing care. Efficiency does not mean reduced cost. The single payer systems around the world are so horribly inefficient they have to ration care in order to keep costs under control. If we went to a single payer system in the US, and spent the exact same number of dollars for care as we do now, we would all be worse off because care will be rationed.

Look, I know you believe in unicorns and fairy dust, but the rest of us understand reality.

NotCoach on January 26, 2016 at 10:53 AM

The money that they taxes us
That’s known as revenues
They compound up collaterals
Subtracts the residue

Don’t worry about the principal
And interest it encrues
They’re shipping all that stuff to foreign lands
The country’s in the very best of hands

From the musical Li’l Abner

sadatoni on January 26, 2016 at 10:55 AM

bernie’s plan pays for itself far better than any of the Republican plans do.

everdiso on January 26, 2016 at 10:38 AM

What’s hilarious is that you think this is clever.

Let us assume for a moment that Republicans have no plan. In what universe does creating something that costs money to run possibly present itself as more cost efficient than doing nothing? Because doing nothing always means costing nothing. Doing nothing always pays for itself.

NotCoach on January 26, 2016 at 10:56 AM

Yes we’re going to take your money, but think about all the awful awesome goodies you’re going to get in return! Its like the DMV for ALL your stuff!

LilyBart on January 26, 2016 at 11:02 AM

There is no way that a human being in the United States of America is making $12,000 annually. Period. The minimum wage is still on average 7.25 hourly so working full-time that would put your annual wage just north of $15,000. And no tax accountant worth his weight would tell a someone making that much to pay a third of their income in taxes, and most at that wage would not even qualify for health benefits.

One thing I don’t like about the Dems is the notion that they can lie about their circumstance, and then use that lie to harm everyone else in society.

chrisbolts on January 26, 2016 at 10:00 AM

Well, you forgot that “Part-Time” is now less than 30 hours a week.

However, if she’s working 3-5 jobs at minimum wage, she should easily be able to get 40 hours a week in.

So, there’s a huge math or honesty problem going on.

LoganSix on January 26, 2016 at 11:04 AM

bernie’s plan pays for itself far better than any of the Republican plans do.

everdiso on January 26, 2016 at 10:38 AM

Hell yes! Just look what it’s done for the Greek economy — and that NHS in the U.K. is the bomb.

It’s funny to be called a moron by someone with a mid-two digit IQ.

urban elitist on January 26, 2016 at 10:37 AM

It’s truly sad that education in America has turned seemingly intelligent people into babbling brainwashed drones. Do they teach psychic internet IQ analysis along with the leftist drivel nowadays, elitist?

hillbillyjim on January 26, 2016 at 11:04 AM

It’s funny to be called a moron by someone with a mid-two digit IQ.

urban elitist on January 26, 2016 at 10:37 AM

Urban elitist now doing free psychic internet IQ analyses!

Thanks in advance. Can’t wait!

hillbillyjim on January 26, 2016 at 11:11 AM

Urban elitist now doing free psychic internet IQ analyses!

Thanks in advance. Can’t wait!

hillbillyjim on January 26, 2016 at 11:11 AM

Heh.

NotCoach on January 26, 2016 at 11:12 AM

Communists are happy to spend your money.

Bubba Redneck on January 26, 2016 at 11:17 AM

By rationing care. Efficiency does not mean reduced cost. The single payer systems around the world are so horribly inefficient they have to ration care in order to keep costs under control. If we went to a single payer system in the US, and spent the exact same number of dollars for care as we do now, we would all be worse off because care will be rationed.

Look, I know you believe in unicorns and fairy dust, but the rest of us understand reality.

NotCoach on January 26, 2016 at 10:53 AM

The so-called “rationed” systems have health care costs dramatically lower than on the U.S., and several countries have achieved similar wait times at lower cost.

And, come to think of it, if you could pay 40% less for insurance for your entire life, but has to wait an extra month for hip replacement surgery, would you take that deal? There’s a reason people in the UK and Canada accept longer waits for elective surgery — they save tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, without any reduction in the quality of emergency or routine care.

The French and the Germans on the other hand, don’t wait any longer than the Americans, but still save money.

Oh — and nowhere else do you lose health care coverage when you need it most: when you have a chronic condition or a low-paying job.

Blanket assertion about the absolute superiority of American medical are pretty much always made without reference to any real facts or statistics.

urban elitist on January 26, 2016 at 11:23 AM

Remember health insurance is not health care. Doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. provide health care… insurance companies don’t. Now whether you think a profit in insurance that you have to pay on top of actual healthcare is right or even necessary is a question of ideology. But the economics of it surely works in Bernie’s favor.

proverbs427 on January 26, 2016 at 10:39 AM

Huh? The health care insurance companies are buying up and now or will soon own most of the hospitals, medical centers and employ the doctors and nurses. The profit through competition is much lower than a government run and staffed agency. Your entire comment is flawed but now I understand what Bernie is conveying to his cult.

tej on January 26, 2016 at 11:28 AM

urban elitist on January 26, 2016 at 10:37 AM

Yep, we aren’t cheap.

We do however have the best acute procedure outcomes in the world and we screen more than anyone. We have been the defacto safety valve for the Canadian system for years – because they can’t treat their own population with their system.

If you want to quibble with cost – and it is a fair area to quibble about – why did the estimates for Obamacare costs over the decade double within just a few years, to the point now where the govt will no longer even give an estimate? So if cost is a problem, and Ocare was so great, why did Ocare make it even more expensive?

There is many many things to evaluate and consider about the cost of the US system. But the govt has driven that cost from day one. From Medicare to Medicaid (which has been shown to be essentially useless), to the VA which kills its patients. The govt is expensive and as they expand control, their performance deteriorates. Why is concierge medicine expanding? Because people want access to doctors they want to see and the govt is making that more and more difficult. How many of the top 100 cancer hospitals in the country are in the majority of exchange plans? It’s not too many.

You need to come up with some better arguments – we haven’t covered any more people and the coverage to keep the uninsured levels essentially static are through Medicaid – again, essentially worthless.

Zomcon JEM on January 26, 2016 at 11:31 AM

Actually the hospitals are buying up individual practitioners. Insurance companies aren’t buying hospitals. They make their money on the margin of risk. 4-6% generally. And OCare is driving small insurance companies out of business – consolidating it in the big 2 or 3.

Zomcon JEM on January 26, 2016 at 11:33 AM

There’s a reason people in the UK and Canada accept longer waits for elective surgery — they save tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, without any reduction in the quality of emergency or routine care it’s because they have no choice unless they are rolling in dough.

hillbillyjim on January 26, 2016 at 11:37 AM

urban elitist on January 26, 2016 at 11:23 AM

Again – what are the outcomes?

If you are in western Canada and have an emergency during delivery will they have space to help you or will they have to put you in a medivac copter and come to the US?

Who determines how important the MRI is that will be delayed 6 months before the surgery is even scheduled?

Is our population unhealthy – yep, and why? Because of a govt backed low fat diet that made diabetes explode? Yeah.

I won’t argue cost.

But I will argue speed and outcome against anybody everytime. And of course our experience with the current govt systems which suck.

Zomcon JEM on January 26, 2016 at 11:40 AM

we are also going to eliminate private health insurance premiums employees

Clarified for the guy who’s all about jobs.

Occams Stubble on January 26, 2016 at 11:42 AM

Listen, if we want to say only the rich can get service, just like only the rich can buy a mansion, fine. Because that is what you will get with any of the liberal left’s ideas on healthcare.

But let’s at least not lie about what the track record is of govt systems in terms of outcomes and access.

Zomcon JEM on January 26, 2016 at 11:44 AM

I found details of the plan, don’t worry they’ll “save money on the other side” once the Government is in charge and paying for it so it won’t lose nearly as much as 12 Trillion.

See the government is good at keeping costs down, trust the man who is speaking.
But it is weird that 60 minutes got his name wrong and called him Trump and not Sanders.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-60-minutes-scott-pelley/

Donald Trump: There’s many different ways, by the way. Everybody’s got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, “No, no, the lower 25 percent that can’t afford private.” But–

Scott Pelley: Universal health care?

Donald Trump: I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.

Scott Pelley: The uninsured person is going to be taken care of how?

Donald Trump: They’re going to be taken care of. I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people. And, you know what, if this is probably–

Scott Pelley: Make a deal? Who pays for it?

Donald Trump: –the government’s gonna pay for it. But we’re going to save so much money on the other side.

I’m not clear where the other side is; can someone ask Sanders…

Oh, and clarify to 60 Minutes that Trump isn’t a socialist who was speaking to them telling them he’d use the government to fund and take care of everybody… he’s Conservative.

His supporters keep telling me he is after all.

gekkobear on January 26, 2016 at 11:48 AM

Actually the hospitals are buying up individual practitioners. Insurance companies aren’t buying hospitals. They make their money on the margin of risk. 4-6% generally. And OCare is driving small insurance companies out of business – consolidating it in the big 2 or 3.

Zomcon JEM on January 26, 2016 at 11:33 AM

ZeroCare is a sham. It is a scheme that benefits the big boys on the block who participated in crafting the thing, and insures their profitability and growth — not to mention the continuing mutual back-scratching between the various players and the politicians.

The thing that is the most harmful is that it builds in disincentives for the best and brightest to go into medicine, and for many caring and gifted folks who otherwise would be interested in nursing and related fields.

I have lost three GPs so far, to early retirement and consolidation-related forced moves, but it’s reassuring that “if I like my doctor, I can keep my doctor”.

That the liberals here continue to uphold APACA is testament to their detachment from reality.

hillbillyjim on January 26, 2016 at 11:50 AM

The French and the Germans on the other hand, don’t wait any longer than the Americans, but still save money.

urban defeatist on January 26, 2016 at 11:23 AM

Starting in the 90’s I worked for over a decade in Germany for a city government. The system was based on requiring people on welfare to retrain and get a damned job if they are no longer employable in their own field.

Moreover, after a work-related accident began causing me to miss several days of work a month, the insurance company[ies] refused to pay for a simple laser treatment that was the only real remedy – creating a minor scandal at the time among the medical community. To the credit of those who valued my work, my local doctors worked with a surgeon to fix the problem.

The essentiareason for this problem was traceable to the introduction of millions of former DDR residents who’d never paid into the system [should sound familiar to anyone with a coherent thought process] and had, with countless other government give-aways, suddenly denied those of us basics who’d paid into the system, but had been nonetheless living on a comparative shoestring in terms of their personal income, which is in good part the way many Germans live.

The other reason was our US decades-long subsidizing of the entire economy with stationed troops that eliminated any huge defense bills against the East Block bullies.

You do not have any idea whereof you speak, moron.

RL on January 26, 2016 at 11:50 AM

Listen, if we want to say only the rich can get service, just like only the rich can buy a mansion, fine. Because that is what you will get with any of the liberal left’s ideas on healthcare.

But let’s at least not lie about what the track record is of govt systems in terms of outcomes and access.

Zomcon JEM on January 26, 2016 at 11:44 AM

Health care delivery is expensive in the US because of government.

1)Cannot purchase over state lines
2)Government requirements of policy coverages regardless of need or want.
3)No tort limits and no loser pay.

IIRC, the whole insurance racket with employers paying goes back to FDR and wage controls.

animal02 on January 26, 2016 at 11:57 AM

Health care delivery is expensive in the US because of government.

1)Cannot purchase over state lines
2)Government requirements of policy coverages regardless of need or want.
3)No tort limits and no loser pay.

IIRC, the whole insurance racket with employers paying goes back to FDR and wage controls.

animal02 on January 26, 2016 at 11:57 AM

All good points.

The costs got out of hand in the first place partly due to the built-in disconnect between the consumer and the provider.

hillbillyjim on January 26, 2016 at 12:06 PM

Bernie has confirmed a couple things for us:

1. Socialists don’t understand economics or human nature
2. If you promise things that you can’t possibly deliver, the stupidity of the average American voter will still vote for you because you promised

I firmly believe that the vast majority of voters in America are stone-cold stupid and that we are doomed….

Hank_Scorpio on January 26, 2016 at 12:21 PM

“…Bernie missed out on a couple of opportunities here.”

Indeed he did! Two ‘snark-free’ things could have been said and arranged at this moment…

1 – “I’m going to instruct my staff to stand at the exits, hats-in-hand and collect donations for your situation.”

2 – “What’s your degree ma’am? We’re going to have a gathering up front here at the end of the rally for anyone willing to assist this woman either in finding a job in her field or otherwise help us with any ideas for her to become better, more permanently employed.”

Given that your typical progressive/socialist views charity as a government rather than individual function, little money would be collect, and few (if any) participants would stay for the post-rally gathering.

Ricard on January 26, 2016 at 1:13 PM

You didn’t think free was free?/

CWforFreedom on January 26, 2016 at 1:20 PM

Simple math says if you eliminate premiums which include the insurance company’s profit and replace it with a tax based system that does not have to include profits plus is able to negotiate lower drug costs due to the huge size and number of participants, you will will be better off financially.

Remember health insurance is not health care. Doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. provide health care… insurance companies don’t. Now whether you think a profit in insurance that you have to pay on top of actual healthcare is right or even necessary is a question of ideology. But the economics of it surely works in Bernie’s favor.

proverbs427 on January 26, 2016 at 10:39 AM

You’re young, naive, and economically illiterate.

The math is not that simple. Hardly.

Again, you prove liberals are simple in nature.

The profit motive has reduced costs in all sorts of industry…including the medical industry.

CWforFreedom on January 26, 2016 at 1:26 PM

There’s a reason people in the UK and Canada accept longer waits for elective surgery…

urban elitist on January 26, 2016 at 11:23 AM

Let’s talk about a U.K. event that I’m familiar with; a woman needed gall bladder surgery. Not only did she have to wait a couple months, but when the time came she had developed and infection that precluded the surgery. She was prescribed the designate amount of antibiotics but that did not clear the infection. Because she was given the ‘correct’ dosage she was not allowed additional antibiotics (she had no private insurance). The condition eventually cleared and she was placed back on the waiting list and received her gall bladder operation….1 year later than originally scheduled.

Ricard on January 26, 2016 at 1:26 PM

You’re young, naive, and economically illiterate.

The math is not that simple. Hardly.

Again, you prove liberals are simple in nature.

The profit motive has reduced costs in all sorts of industry…including the medical industry.

CWforFreedom on January 26, 2016 at 1:26 PM

Not only are they simple, but they think statically.

10 Million ‘X’ are sold every year…….Add a $10 tax on ‘X’ and we will raise 100 Million in revenue. (ignoring human nature that will cause sales of ‘X’ to decline 20%)

I see this played out at all level, from local to feds.

Just Stupid.

animal02 on January 26, 2016 at 1:35 PM

Doesn’t this old commie fart just look insane? Hillary does too, but he looks like he’s about 5 minutes from full on Alzheimer disease.

Andy__B on January 26, 2016 at 1:51 PM

The struggling young divorcee is an obvious plant.

Supposing that the minimum wage is $7.50/hr (it is a bit more in some places), $12K/year is exactly 32hrs/week for 50 weeks.

32 hours/week is the threshold for employers to provide benefits. But, if that 32 hours is split among more than one job, then you are full-time by one standard, and without benefits by another standard.

Also, $12K is a line below which conventional wisdom suggests that one should not be required to pay taxes.

For her story to be true, and using the median of four jobs, this college graduate cannot find one good job, but works four different 8-hour-per-week jobs at minimum wage.

Task a campaign analyst with creating the most financially sympathetic case possible, and this is what their algorithm would spit out.

That aside, one must ask the question of who is at fault for the job market remaining so bad that a degreed individual cannot find a reasonably compensated position? Who has been in control of the jobs market for the last seven years? Isn’t unemployment back below 5%?

Freelancer on January 26, 2016 at 3:19 PM

His supporters keep telling me he is after all.

gekkobear on January 26, 2016 at 11:48 AM

I haven’t heard any of Trump’s supporters call the man a Conservative.

I’m going to vote for him…and I have no illusions on that score.

And most – if not all – of his supporters feel the same.

Solaratov on January 26, 2016 at 4:04 PM

That aside, one must ask the question of who is at fault for the job market remaining so bad that a degreed individual cannot find a reasonably compensated position? Who has been in control of the jobs market for the last seven years? Isn’t unemployment back below 5%?

Freelancer on January 26, 2016 at 3:19 PM

College degree does not equate to marketable skills. Look at the list of previously posted degrees that likely will not land you in the job market in those fields.

ON the other hand…..my daughter majored in fine arts i.e painting. Thought I was going to end up supporting her fro decades. Damn if she didn’t land her first job at 50k in marketing at a Tier One auto supplier. I am both thrilled and dumbstruck.

animal02 on January 26, 2016 at 4:26 PM

College degree does not equate to marketable skills. Look at the list of previously posted degrees that likely will not land you in the job market in those fields.

animal02 on January 26, 2016 at 4:26 PM

You don’t need to tell me. I have no degree, and nearly a dozen MBAs and CPAs in my team are constantly in need of guidance and supervision about the specific tasks for which they are supposed to have been educated. I am continually disturbed at how often they need to be re-trained on simple activities involved with the creation of reports, presentations, and fairly pedestrian analyses. Meanwhile, I have no formal training for the area of responsibility I oversee, but have assimilated the necessary awareness, comprehension, and information-handling skills to remain successful.

And to be sure, in the industrial sectors in this region, any degree offers some measure of recommendation for an applicant’s ability to commit to a term of work. Whether they are a specific fit for any particular position is dependent on dozens of additional factors, but a person who has spent that much time in a classroom should at least be able to adapt a resume for multiple fields of work, and do better than four minimal part-time jobs.

Bottom line, I don’t believe her story, and accuse that she was a plant from the beginning, a straw case to support the need for Sanders’ particular brand of government largesse. Let’s have a reporter investigate her as carefully as they did Joe the Plumber, and see what’s what.

Freelancer on January 26, 2016 at 6:39 PM

A lot of so-called analysts saying what bernie is proposing is impossible.

He’s basically proposing single payer via medicare, which is what every other major first world nation does. Canada, UK, etc.

But for some reason (read: corporate interests in keeping healthcare expensive) people are saying this is impossible.

It’s like.. dude.. every other country already does it.

triple on January 26, 2016 at 11:04 PM

Forget the money aspect – if you live in a country where people routinely go bankrupt because they get sick, then something is wrong with that system and it needs to be fixed.

triple on January 26, 2016 at 11:08 PM

Definitely a Mondale situation: everyone knows Democrats will raise taxes, but you never actually say that!

Now, Mondale lost every state but his own. How is it looking for Bernie?

virgo on January 26, 2016 at 11:24 PM

Forget the money aspect – if you live in a country where people routinely go bankrupt because they get sick, then something is wrong with that system and it needs to be fixed.

triple on January 26, 2016 at 11:08 PM

You prefer a system in which people are left to die to keep government functionaries from looking bad?

GrumpyOldFart on January 27, 2016 at 6:53 AM