Support NeoGAF

[noshten]

Apparently WSJ calculated the amount spend if all of Bernie Sanders programs make it through the house. They calculated a cost of 18 trillion.

It appears that there is a huge narrative that government doesn't know how to spend money. Whether it's due to corruption or incompetence but that's pretty much been the narrative in Republican circles for quite a while. I don't know if that constitutes that republican, conservatives, libertarians and people who don't vote - really are doing enough to make long lasting change in the system.
Indifference towards these problems which the less fortunate always run into - should really be starting to change since everyone has more access to information.

Considering now days you have access to some much information I don't understand how people consider the political process irrelevant. And choose to forsake it while these type of decisions can shape how well they and their kids do long term.

Still I personally believe that government spending should always be focused on people living better. Currently it seems we are on the backburner and it's always corporate interests first and better living second. But any nation should be striving to have more widespread programs to make life better and safety nets for the weakest members of society.
We have had enough time to see that the corporate entity doesn't really care about society if it's not bringing the margins.

Now obviously it's unrealistic in the current political climate to make such huge changes but still lets humor these programs when thinking about what we want from next decade.

"That is not the reality, and we will be responding to the Wall Street Journal on that. I think most of the expense that they put in there, the expenditures, have to do with a single-payer health care system," the independent Vermont senator said in an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday.
Sanders said the WSJ had "significantly exaggerated" those costs, and hadn't accounted for the benefits of "eliminating the cost that you incur with private health insurance."

"The truth of the matter right now is that as a nation, we spend far far more on health care per person than the people of any other nation. And yet we continue to have about 30 million people who have no health insurance, many more who are underinsured and we pay, again, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs," Sanders said. "No question to my mind that moving toward a Medicare-for-all, single-payer program is the most cost-effective way to provide health care to all of our people."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/15/9330931/bernie-sanders-spending-cost
http://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-wsj-18-trillion

 

[HariKari]

Infrastructure is the one thing that absolutely must get done, regardless of all the politically charged systems swirling around it or what party is in charge. Usually a pretty damn good ROI on such things. Neglected for far too long.

 

[kirblar]

It appears that there is a huge narrative that government doesn't know how to spend money.

It's very bad at micromanaging but It's very good at redistribution. This is a big part of why cash grants are far more successful than housing vouchers/food stamps - letting people maanage their own budget takes that work away from people without the knowledge of how to do it.

 

[Amentallica]

It's very bad at micromanaging but It's very good at redistribution. This is a big part of why cash grants are far more successful than housing vouchers/food stamps - letting people maanage their own budget takes that work away from people without the knowledge of how to do it.

And unfortunately that is how a lot of fraud, waste and abuse develops, although I do agree with you.

 

[Aaron Strife]

To be fair a lot (most) of that comes from the Medicare proposal which would supplement other programs like Medicaid or the Obamacare subsidies. Obamacare "cost" a trillion dollars but actually reduced the deficit because the new programs were offset by cuts to other programs and tax increases (which a Sanders administration would almost certainly propose as a means of paying for this stuff).

 

[Log4Girlz]

I did an exhaustive analysis and came to the conclusion it would cost infinity money. If I win the presidency, I would safe tons of monies by eliminating all government programs.

 

[kirblar]

And unfortunately that is how a lot of fraud, waste and abuse develops, although I do agree with you.

You usually end up with more waste trying to crack down on the fraud rather than just letting it rock, at least with welfare systems.

Contracts are another issue entirely.

 

[Africanus]

Spend money now to save quadrillions in the future.

However, his plans are hardly pragmatic.

 

[noshten]

It's very bad at micromanaging but It's very good at redistribution. This is a big part of why cash grants are far more successful than housing vouchers/food stamps - letting people maanage their own budget takes that work away from people without the knowledge of how to do it.

The thing is bureaucratic problems can be minimized in the next decade and the main thing is that a lot of small towns, counties etc seem to have absolutely horrific IT infrastructure systems.You'd be surprised at the amount of stone age systems I've run into where work can be absolutely optimized if Government spend more into IT Infrastructure, Applications, Services that can be utilized to make the whole system be fine tuned. There is still forms, faxes and other bullsh*t and I'm literally horrified how much time behind the times everything is.

 

[Piecake]

It's very bad at micromanaging but It's very good at redistribution. This is a big part of why cash grants are far more successful than housing vouchers/food stamps - letting people maanage their own budget takes that work away from people without the knowledge of how to do it.

they are also far more efficient and more cheaply administered. Plus, you get to that awful awful implied moral judgement that the poor are too stupid to manage their own money out of government

 

[docbon]

Infrastructure is the one thing that absolutely must get done, regardless of all the politically charged systems swirling around it or what party is in charge. Usually a pretty damn good ROI on such things. Neglected for far too long.

Probably my favorite example right here.

 

[Perfect Blue]

The Medicare For All one is hugely misleading. If something like that ever happened you bet there would be significant price control and cost saving measures put into place. It would effectively kill the "for profit" nature of healthcare in the US and move to have the prices reflect other nations with single-payer.

 

[linsivvi]

News Corp continues to publish misleading articles.

 

[darkace]

The idea that switching to a single-payer system would cost an additional 15 trillion is laughably ridiculous. The entire reason countries switched to single-payer is because it was far cheaper.

Edit: Like, seriously, 15 trillion?? If you're going to go off the deep end then at least really go for it and put down infini-billion-trillion or something.

 

[Valnen]

Social security benefits for the disabled definitely need an increase. The disabled get embarrassingly little support in this country.

 

[RDreamer]

The Medicare For All one is hugely misleading. If something like that ever happened you bet there would be significant price control and cost saving measures put into place. It would effectively kill the "for profit" nature of healthcare in the US and move to have the prices reflect other nations with single-payer.

There's also the fact that it's not an additional spending like something else might be. It's not like a war or something. It's redirecting spending. We're already spending a ton on healthcare, but instead of paying it to insurance companies we'd be paying it to the government, for instance.

 

[Amentallica]

You usually end up with more waste trying to crack down on the fraud rather than just letting it rock, at least with welfare systems.

Contracts are another issue entirely.

The costs are indeed high for investigating fraud, but what's recovered or mitigated is often considerably greater (in some departments, not all) and has greater long-term effects. Letting it rock is not a feasible choice. You'd see even worse conditions and cases of fraud when people realize that there are no OIGs and anyone willing to do shit. The effectiveness of oversight is arguable, but even the illusion of it mitigates a lot of FWAC.

 

[ViperVisor]

The Medicare For All one is hugely misleading. If something like that ever happened you bet there would be significant price control and cost saving measures put into place. It would effectively kill the "for profit" nature of healthcare in the US and move to have the prices reflect other nations with single-payer.

Of course. The friggin CBO stated the obvious in the early 90s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/16595

 

[Foffy]

Of course, it goes without saying that wanting a humane health care system in America will be one of the most expensive projects the government engages in. Even if the number used here might be inflated or not.

But it is absolutely a project worth pushing through if the people of that nation want to be considered civilized and decent human beings. Will America match that label? Every day it looks like it is running against it...

I am greatly disappointed in that Bernie is the only one still promoting a single system, whereas Hillary has backpedaled on this being the endgame for America. She's now for just ACA expansion and calling it a day. Even Obama has said ACA isn't enough, and single-payer must be the endgame. That's quite telling that one of his greatest accomplishments has been regarded merely as a stepping stone.

 

[MultiJhonny]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/

Here is a good article about this

 

[The Technomancer]

I mean, that's all? That should put so many things in perspective for people, 18 billion is fucking nothing on a national level for what he's proposing. Hell you could call it an 18 billion dollar experiment and it would still be worth doing

EDIT: I misread pretty badly

 

[unholyrevenger72]

The idea that switching to a single-payer system would cost an additional 15 trillion is laughably ridiculous. The entire reason countries switched to single-payer is because it was far cheaper.

Edit: Like, seriously, 15 trillion?? If you're going to go off the deep end then at least really go for it and put down infini-billion-trillion or something.

Maybe it's missing a dot and should be 1.5 trillion which just over half of what we spent on health care in 2013

 

[WedgeX]

The Wall Street Journal makes this "single payer = 15 trillion* *please see Gerald Friedman form UMass Amherst" claim.

But from Friedman's own article on the funding of a single payer versus the old pre-ACA healthcare system:

This analysis shows that it is possible to reform the U.S. health
financing system to make it more efficient and equitable.
Universal health care with comprehensive benefits could be
achieved under a single-payer system as embodied in HR 676.
Improved Medicare for All would cost less for 95% of households
and reduce the deficit by $154 billion in the first year.

Where the hell is the Wall Street Journal, hiding behind a paywall no less, getting these numbers that appear so ominous out of context?

Because I do not find it anywhere in his article, which WSJ supposedly cites.

edit:

Oh I see. Scare tactics at their finest. Bravo, WSJ. Brav-fucking-o.

Might as well extrapolate to de-fear the WSJ's jerkiness using their own source. So with Sander's plan, it would be approximately 15 trillion over the next ten years. Currently, we are expected to spend around 3.13 trillion each year which would be.....31.3 trillion dollars over the next ten years. More than half what would have occurred, according to the very source the WSJ trots out since they don't expect people to research, had Sander's sponsored single payer healthcare plan had been passed instead of the ACA. I shudder at what we would be facing without even the ACA. I hate the WSJ so much.

I mean, that's all? That should put so many things in perspective for people, 18 billion is fucking nothing on a national level for what he's proposing. Hell you could call it an 18 billion dollar experiment and it would still be worth doing

EDIT: I misread pretty badly

You didn't misread as badly as the WSJ was in misleading people.

 

[dabig2]

Even if true universal health care cost 15 trillion dollars, it's well worth it and we can afford it. Raise taxes on the appropriate, get money back into the hands of the poor and middle class so they can do what they do best - buy, buy, buy. Also cutting from our enormous defense budget would be nice too. Reapportion all of it into infrastructure and/or NASA.

 

[Giant Panda]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/

Here is a good article about this

Basically, America's total payment for healthcare will go down, it's just that the government will make up a larger portion of the remaining spending. Which makes sense with insurance companies out of the picture.

 

[shinra-bansho]

The Wall Street Journal makes this "single payer = 15 trillion* *please see Gerald Friedman form UMass Amherst" claim.

But from Friedman's own article on the funding of a single payer versus the old pre-ACA healthcare system:

Where the hell is the Wall Street Journal, hiding behind a paywall no less, getting these numbers that appear so ominous out of context?

[Their paywall is ineffective.]

I've only had a very very quick look, but the argument in the paper seems to be that there would be increased outlays but that these would be offset in part by efficiency gains and in part by new progressive taxation. I'm guessing they're taking the increased outlays and multiplying them out by a decade or something.

Will read properly if I have a chance later.

 

[dehydratedbabies]

But... Money! Money exists and it's important it does not grow on trees! Plus, the government can't do ANYTHING right! Ever drive on a road? Exactly!

In before the "Bernie can't win #QueenHillary2008" squad.

But seriously, thank you for an issue-based thread, OP.

 

[Elitist1945]

So as a Canadian, I'm wondering if I'm reading this correctly. Essentially he's going for free healthcare like in my country? As well as tuition-free college/university?

 

[norm9]

But... Money! Money exists and it's important it does not grow on trees! Plus, the government can't do ANYTHING right! Ever drive on a road? Exactly!

In before the "Bernie can't win #QueenHillary2008" squad.

But seriously, thank you for an issue-based thread, OP.

Bernie can't/won't win nomination.

 

[MacGurcules]

C'mon. Yeah, it's fifteen trillion dollars, but that's over ten years. And the bulk of it is single-payor healthcare which would end up saving about $15 trillion over the $30+ trillion we're projected to spend over the same period.

Not even accounting for the savings his other proposed policies might bring, that'd actually put us about $12 trillion ahead.

 

[Pryce]

So as a Canadian, I'm wondering if I'm reading this correctly. Essentially he's going for free healthcare like in my country? As well as tuition-free college/university?

From what I'm getting: Raise the taxes on the rich and move around funds (taxes) to have a universal health care system and free tuition.

 

[Somnid]

Let's put it this way, if you just redistributed 12 trillion dollars the economy will fundamentally change. Dollars will not work the way they did.

 

[dehydratedbabies]

So as a Canadian, I'm wondering if I'm reading this correctly. Essentially he's going for free healthcare like in my country? As well as tuition-free college/university?

Yes'm.

Bernie can't/won't win nomination.

#CorbynCan'tWin

 

[Elitist1945]

From what I'm getting: Raise the taxes on the rich and move around funds (taxes) to have a universal health care system and free tuition.

Well then that seems like a damn great idea to me. Especially as someone who's interested in moving to the States.

 

[zeemumu]

Even if true universal health care cost 15 trillion dollars, it's well worth it and we can afford it. Raise taxes on the appropriate, get money back into the hands of the poor and middle class so they can do what they do best - buy, buy, buy. Also cutting from our enormous defense budget would be nice too. Reapportion all of it into infrastructure and/or NASA.

Whether or not something is worth it tends to come after how much it costs, and people jump off at the cost step.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

Yeah, this pretty much backs what I was thinking. He has great intentions, and I would love for all these programs/incentives to exist...but it would be a financial nightmare to implement (not that any of these would make it through congress anyway).

Oh, and you can only "tax the rich" so much.

 

[HariKari]

Yeah, this pretty much backs what I was thinking. He has great intentions, and I would love for all these programs/incentives to exist...but it would be a financial nightmare to implement (not that any of these would make it through congress anyway).

Oh, and you can only "tax the rich" so much.

If it backs your poorly researched preconceptions, that was sort of the plan.

 

[RDreamer]

Yeah, this pretty much backs what I was thinking. He has great intentions, and I would love for all these programs/incentives to exist...but it would be a financial nightmare to implement (not that any of these would make it through congress anyway).

Oh, and you can only "tax the rich" so much.

It's a financial nightmare not doing single payer healthcare.

 

[Foffy]

So as a Canadian, I'm wondering if I'm reading this correctly. Essentially he's going for free healthcare like in my country? As well as tuition-free college/university?

Yes. He's trying to bring America into a developed nation status, other than the blind label that largely doesn't apply to most facets of this country.

You guys keep doing what you're doing in Canada. Might even be one of the first nations to get basic incomes, too. I greatly envy your reason, as someone "trapped" in a den of ignore-ance.

It's a financial nightmare not doing single payer healthcare.

The same applies to the ruined college education system, requiring mortgages to learn in the hopes you'll get a job in an eventually technologically-laden society where automation is the central catalyst to unemployment.

 

[linsivvi]

Yeah, this pretty much backs what I was thinking. He has great intentions, and I would love for all these programs/incentives to exist...but it would be a financial nightmare to implement (not that any of these would make it through congress anyway).

Oh, and you can only "tax the rich" so much.

Yes if Rupert Murdoch's filthy propaganda backs what you're thinking, then you need to think again.

Do some research and try to not believe a single word from that evil organization.

 

[noshten]

It's a financial nightmare not doing single payer healthcare.

Exactly this, I mean the amount spend on healthcare is just bloated costs associated with profit based monopoly. Tried withprivatized healthcare system and currently it's one of the most expensive systems in the World. Why? There is no safety net for the most vulnerable while charging everyone else huge fees through insurance and that cost is exponetated by fear of what will happen in a case where you are uninsured. This would be eliminated if there wasn't a monopoly. Government needs covering anyone who falls through the cracks. Once you have that minimum guarantee suddenly either all private healthcare based corporations change or go out of business. Certainly I don't try to place an umbrella of all companies out there but most don't have the patient's best interest in mind.

 

[Shamrock7r]

double post

 

[Shamrock7r]

Yes if Rupert Murdoch's filthy propaganda backs what you're thinking, then you need to think again.

Do some research and try to not believe a single word from that evil organization.

I'm still reading the article, but I'd like to see a good rebuttal on this piece. You seem to be pretty dead set against the info presented. Can your provide links/info that would help me understand how the budget plan for these programs lay out? I mean this sincerely. I am not educated enough on the matter.

 

[SolarPowered]

That honestly doesn't look bad if you take single payer out of the equation. I'm a little surprised tbh.

 

[ATF487]

The Wall Street Journal makes this "single payer = 15 trillion* *please see Gerald Friedman form UMass Amherst" claim.

But from Friedman's own article on the funding of a single payer versus the old pre-ACA healthcare system:



Where the hell is the Wall Street Journal, hiding behind a paywall no less, getting these numbers that appear so ominous out of context?

Because I do not find it anywhere in his article, which WSJ supposedly cites.

edit:

Oh I see. Scare tactics at their finest. Bravo, WSJ. Brav-fucking-o.

Might as well extrapolate to de-fear the WSJ's jerkiness using their own source. So with Sander's plan, it would be approximately 15 trillion over the next ten years. Currently, we are expected to spend around 3.13 trillion each year which would be.....31.3 trillion dollars over the next ten years. More than half what would have occurred, according to the very source the WSJ trots out since they don't expect people to research, had Sander's sponsored single payer healthcare plan had been passed instead of the ACA. I shudder at what we would be facing without even the ACA. I hate the WSJ so much.



You didn't misread as badly as the WSJ was in misleading people.

D*mn, he was my intro to microeconomics professor. Cool dude.

 

[Josh7289]

$18 trillion but it's not like the people of this country aren't already paying for health care, education, etc. I imagine many of us probably wouldn't pay any more with these proposals; our taxes might go up but we wouldn't have to pay for health care, etc., privately anymore. So, the benefit is that not only do more people have access to all these services, but we also wouldn't have to worry about losing them if we lose our job or have any other financial hardships.

I imagine a lot of the extra budget required would be made up for by increasing taxes on the wealthy, as well, which is fine because they don't pay much right now, especially compared to other countries.

 

[slit]

It always nice to see a list of things that will probably never happen in our lifetime.

 

[Foffy]

It always nice to see a list of things that will probably never happen in our lifetime.

Settle for less. The American way.

 

[injurai]

Settle for less. The American way.

Sounds like an Always Sunny episode.

 

[Arkeband]

I'm still reading the article, but I'd like to see a good rebuttal on this piece. You seem to be pretty dead set against the info presented. Can your provide links/info that would help me understand how the budget plan for these programs lay out? I mean this sincerely. I am not educated enough on the matter.

Thankfully there are a wealth of posts above you that pretty clearly rebut it.