3 ms·
> Sanders has not specified which one clearly yet afaik. That's absolutely not true. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804/text https:
by ncallaway 8y ago
> Sanders has not specified which one clearly yet afaik.
That's absolutely not true.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/180...
- conanbatt 8y agoDidn't know this existed, thanks for sharing. (I got my other impression by Sander's fb which I follow). If I understood this text correctly, this will be: An optional insurance plan (SEC. 105) An insurance that gets tax benefits (SEC. 701) An insurance that has incredibly perverse utilization incentives (SEC. 202) I would be quite on board on this plan if it weren't funded with special taxation, and it gave itself no promise of benefit for being the state, not because I think its a good one, but because it will confirm its a terrible one.