Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare for All' would increase taxes, offer coverage without copays

[mystery-ak]

Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare for All' would increase taxes, offer coverage without copays
by Kimberly Leonard | Sep 13, 2017, 10:19 AM

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is introducing a bill Wednesday that would expand the Medicare program to all Americans, covering a range of medical services paid for by higher taxes.

But the bill does not spell out how large the tax increase would be, and efforts to pass a single-payer plan at the state level have failed, including in Vermont, where the cost was determined to be too great.

An analysis of a similar plan Sanders introduced when he was running for the Democratic nomination for president, from the left-leaning Urban Institute, projected that such a system would increase federal spending by $32 trillion over a decade. With more costs shifting to the federal government, the analysis projected that the private sector would spend $22 trillion less than it otherwise would have and states would spend $4 trillion less.

more
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-would-increase-taxes-offer-coverage-without-copays/article/2634247

[Free Vulcan]

Bernie's solution is 'well, because government' that expands the govt into healthcare because liberals like govt.

How about we do everything we can to make insurance and health care affordable by the free market, then deal with the pre-existings and high risks by Medicare or similar? Seems a cheaper alternative.

[Applewood]

Democrats and Republicans are determined to shove government-run health care down our throats.  If Bernie's idea fails, make no mistake.  Both parties will keep trying till they get absolute power over our very lives. 

By the way:

"An analysis of a similar plan Sanders introduced when he was running for the Democratic nomination for president, from the left-leaning Urban Institute, projected that such a system would increase federal spending by $32 trillion over a decade. With more costs shifting to the federal government, the analysis projected that the private sector would spend $22 trillion less than it otherwise would have and states would spend $4 trillion less."

Uh...do these analysts think we really are that stupid?   If the costs are shifted to the federal government, WE are the ones who are still going to pay.  We aren't saving a damm thing.