Tag: Bernie Sanders

Coronavirus: Conservatives planning to slash Social Security
Just below the surface of the crises currently engulfing the nation is a debate over Social Security, with wide-ranging consequences. The Democratic Party is on board for expanding, not cutting, Social Security. The Republican Party is planning to slash Social Security.

Support for expanding Social Security makes sense, as Social Security provides a large measure of economic security to tens of millions of retirees, people with disabilities and others. And, the vast majority of the public supports its expansion. After supporting a number of bipartisan attempts to cut Social Security over the last several decades, Vice-President Biden now favors expanding it, if elected president.

President Trump campaigned on the promise of never cutting Social Security, though his actions in office have shown that to be a lie. If he gains a second term, efforts to cut are likely.

What is most concerning, though, is that Senator Mitt Romney is leading a charge, with many Democrats in tow, to implement a fast-track process to cut Social Security and Medicare, behind closed doors. He also wants to eliminate unemployment insurance expansion which has been critical to the lives of 43 million recently unemployed Americans as a result of the pandemic. Sixty House members now support Romney’s dangerous idea.

In sharp contrast, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, including Senators Bernie Sanders, Ed Markey and Kamala Harris, are proposing to give workers a $2,000 monthly stipend as part of the next coronavirus stimulus package. They want to make sure that working Americans have the money to pay for basic necessities throughout this pandemic, including expanded unemployment insurance, paycheck protection help for small businesses and larger Social Security payments to retirees.

Outright emergency payments at a time of serious economic hardship is a far cry from a conservative proposal that would exploit people’s desperation by giving them some money now from the Social Security Trust Funds if they agree to take less Social Security later. As David Sirota writes in Jacobin, what’s so especially inexcusable and unseemly about this proposal is that it would require tens of millions of people with literally no savings to protect themselves by using money that they will need for their economic wellbeing, at the same time as Congress literally gives tens of billions of dollars to companies with billions of dollars in reserves.

The proponents of this inequitable proposal are effectively suggesting that government handouts to profitable businesses, without proof of need and no payback, are acceptable. But, in their view, individuals should self-finance, increasing their current economic security by trading away their future economic security. If fiscal neutrality is the goal, why not impose corporate and individual wealth taxes, which would be far more equitable?

Biden is now on the side of Americans, tweeting “Give people coronavirus economic relief and don’t hold their hard-earned benefits hostage.” Working families’ economic security depends on him prevailing in November. And, when he does, all of us will need to hold him to his promise to expand, not cut Social Security.

Here’s more from Just Care:
June 10, 2020
Americans strongly support Medicare for kids
Just as educating children benefits the entire society, keeping them healthy and restoring them to health when they are sick is important for all of us. Perhaps that is why expanding Medicare to children is so popular.

A Data for Progress poll conducted in April found that an overwhelming sixty percent favor “extending universal health care to all American children by giving all Americans under the age of 26 coverage in a government health plan modeled off of Medicare, known as ‘Medicare for Kids.’” That percentage jumps to 71 percent among those under age 45 and an even more overwhelming 82 percent of Democrats.

Here are the results:

The reason for the overwhelming popularity is obvious. Universal national health insurance for children is not only morally right; it is also a profoundly wise policy. Children, on average, have the lowest health care costs. Spending that small amount to invest in that care buys a lifetime of health. Shockingly, at the moment, the nation is moving in the opposite direction. Increasing numbers of children have joined the ranks of the uninsured. Medicare for Kids would reverse that trend overnight.

Medicare for Kids is also winning politics. In an April piece for the American Prospect, Joel Dodge highlighted the Data for Progress polling results and laid out the case for why presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden should propose Medicare for Kids. Dodge makes a compelling case that Biden’s embrace of the idea is an excellent way to win over Bernie Sanders’s supporters.

As Dodge points out, support for the idea is not new. Rather, it has been impressively durable over time. Data for Progress has tested the issue before. Like the new polling which found that the proposal has a 28 percentage-point margin of support, a similar poll Data for Progress conducted a year ago, in May 2019, found that the proposal enjoyed a 27-percentage-point margin of support.

But the idea goes back much further than that. When President Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security, he explored proposing universal, government-provided health insurance, but decided to wait until Social Security was enacted and implemented. By then, though, the nation’s attention necessarily shifted to fighting World War II. His successor, Harry S. Truman, championed universal health insurance but was blocked by Republicans.

President Lyndon Johnson, legislative genius that he was, decided to use an incremental approach. He and his advisors debated whether to start with retirees, a population desperately in need of health insurance, or children, who would be less expensive and for whom early intervention could mean a lifetime of good health. They decided to begin with older adults because the need was so great.

Despite higher medical needs, on average, most older adults had no health insurance at all. Some could not obtain insurance at any cost because of pre-existing conditions. Those who could obtain insurance generally paid three times more than younger people despite having, on average, half the income. Perhaps the fact that older Americans always vote played a role, as well.

In any event, Johnson successfully shepherded Medicare through Congress, and it joined Social Security in establishing the foundation of economic security for seniors. The plan was that Medicare would quickly be followed by a Kiddicare or Medikids program covering our nation’s children, and other expansions, with the ultimate goal of Medicare for All.

But then the nation took a detour. Though President Richard Nixon expanded Medicare to cover people with disabilities, conservative forces, which preferred private-sector solutions and expansion of means-tested Medicaid, prevailed. Republican President Ronald Reagan famously asserted “Government is the problem,” and Democratic President Bill Clinton, “The era of big government is over.”

Thanks to Senator Bernie Sanders, who transformed the conversation with his run for president in 2016 and 2020, the Data for Progress polling suggests that the nation is now back on track. The coronavirus pandemic, which is shining a bright spotlight on the nation’s dysfunctional health care system and the wisdom of expanding an improved Medicare system beyond seniors and people with disabilities, is adding momentum to the movement. More than a half-century after advocates decided to make Medicare for Kids a second step, following Medicare for seniors and people with disabilities, it finally will happen. It will, that is, if Biden and others mobilize the vast number of supporters that Data for Progress shows us are out there.

Ethan Winter co-authored this post, which was originally published on May 21, on Data for Progress. Ethan Winter(@EthanBWinter) is an analyst at Data for Progress.

Here’s more from Just Care:
May 25, 2020
Coronavirus: Sanders’ legislation would pay for everyone’s care during this pandemic through Medicare
Last Friday, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced the Health Care Emergency Guarantee Act which guarantees everyone in the US the ability to get health care without having to pay deductibles, coinsurance or other out-of-pocket costs during the coronavirus pandemic. Six other senators cosponsored the legislation: Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.)

The goal of the legislation is to ensure no one skips or delays care during this pandemic because of the cost. Americans should be able to get care without worry about whether they can afford it. The legislation covers all costs for people who are uninsured and all out-of-pocket costs for everyone else. And, it would stay in place until everyone was able to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

The legislation, which is like the Medicare Crisis program sponsored by Representative Pramila Jayapal, is cost-effective and comprehensive. It relies on Medicare to cover people’s care, including prescription drugs, with federal dollars. In Sanders’ words, “When so many people in this country are struggling economically and terrified at the thought of becoming sick, the federal government has a responsibility to take the burden of health care costs off the backs of the American people. The legislation we are introducing today does just that.”

The public is solidly behind Senator Sanders’ proposal. A Data for Progress poll finds that nearly three in four voters (73 percent) favor having the federal government pay for people’s out-of-pocket health care costs during the pandemic. Notably, a majority of Republicans (58 percent) favor the legislation.

Far fewer voters support a proposal passed in the House of Representatives that pays the health insurance premium of people who have lost their employer coverage, through COBRA. Not only is Sanders’ proposed legislation less costly, it is also more comprehensive. If Congress pays for people’s COBRA coverage, people are still left with deductibles and coinsurance, along with restricted networks and other bureaucratic hassles. Deductibles in employer health plans average $1,800 a year. Moreover, people who did not have employer coverage who lost their jobs are left without any coverage.

In fact when voters understand the difference between the two proposals, 61 percent favor Sanders’ bill versus 14 percent who favor the COBRA bill. The COBRA bill benefits health insurers most; they would reap tens of billions of dollars in revenue if the Senate passes it. It only benefits the uninsured who had employer coverage if they can afford the out-of-pocket costs of their care

The Sanders bill also prevents hospitals and other health care providers and debt collectors from collecting medical debts, forbids private insurance companies from raising out-of-pocket costs and mandates data collection and reporting regarding COVID-19 health disparities.

Everyone in the country needs to be able to get treatment for the novel coronavirus before it is safe to reopen the economy. Moreover, the pandemic reveals how critical it is to everyone that anyone who is sick can get the care they need as quickly as possible. That is how to contain the virus.

More than 30 national organizations and unions support the Health Care Emergency Guarantee Act. You can read the bill here.

Here’s more from Just Care:
May 20, 2020
Coronavirus: How best to guarantee everyone access to care
In the face of the coronavirus pandemic, members of Congress are proposing all sorts of ways to help people get health care. One Democratic proposal would be a handout to the health insurance industry; it would cover insurance premiums for ex-workers but require them to pay high deductibles and coinsurance. Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal have a cost-effective proposal that would guarantee everyone 100 percent coverage and easy access to health care.

The Sanders-Jayapal bill, the Health Care Emergency Guarantee Act, would have the federal government pay through Medicare all costs for COVID-19 care that are not covered through their insurance. And, for anyone without insurance, the federal government would pay for the full cost of their health care. No one would have to pay the deductible or coinsurance in order to get needed care. No one would fall into medical debt if they sought care. And, no one would go without health care because they could not afford it.

From the perspective of the federal government, the Sanders-Jayapal solution would be cost-effective. The federal government would only pay for services people received. It would not pay the cost of people’s insurance, which would require it to pay even for people not getting care. Moreover, it would pay doctors and hospitals Medicare rates which are lower than private insurance rates.

The Sanders-Jayapal bill has the added advantage of creating a single real-time electronic billing record for all Covid-19 care. The data would help to track the virus as it moves around the country and provide guidance as to where resources need to be deployed.

Here’s more from Just Care:
April 22, 2020
Biden’s policy agenda benefits older adults far less than Sanders’
Mark Weisbrodt writes for MarketWatch about the divide between Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders on Social Security and Medicare. Sanders commands more support from younger voters than Biden by a margin of 47 percent to 13 percent. Curiously, older adults lean Biden over Sanders by a margin of 25 percent to 11%, even though Sanders’ Social Security and Medicare reform proposals are far more beneficial to older adults than Biden’s.

Today, 27 million Americans live above the poverty line because of Social Security. Sanders has advocated to strengthen Social Security since he became a Senator in 1991. Biden has argued for cuts to Social Security since 1984 and as recently as 2013. Biden supported the chained CPI, which would have reduced Social Security benefits.
Only now, with a large cohort of Democrats behind raising Social Security benefits, does Biden support increasing Social Security benefits. But, Biden has historically failed to accept that Social Security can be strengthened easily. Sanders, in sharp contrast, has argued that Social Security can close a longterm and relatively small funding gap.

Older adults also may not realize how much Medicare for All would help them, expanding their benefits and lowering their out-of-pocket costs. Sanders’ Medicare for All bill would be a huge improvement over Medicare today, covering 100 percent of the cost of dental, hearing and vision care as well as long-term services and supports. The typical person with Medicare pays nearly $6,000 a year out-of-pocket for health care, almost 25 percent of average income. With Medicare for All, older adults and people with disabilities would have that money to spend on other things.

Vice President Biden does not plan on improving Medicare benefits at all. His health care plan focuses almost exclusively on helping people who get coverage through the state health exchanges under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). And, his health reform agenda does little to ensure people can afford the deductibles and coinsurance imposed by ACA plans, let alone to rein in costs.

Here’s more from Just Care:
March 11, 2020
Would a public option reduce your out-of-pocket health care costs?
Democratic presidential candidates’ health care reform proposals are designed to improve upon your current coverage. But, how? Would a public option reduce out-of-pocket health care costs and guarantee Americans access to affordable health care?

If you have traditional Medicare or a Medicare Advantage plan, Vice President Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg‘s public option proposals offer little guarantee of reducing your health care costs. They are largely designed to provide more options to working people and people without insurance today. Health care reforms proposed by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, in stark contrast, would reduce your costs substantially, ending Medicare premiums, deductibles and coinsurance and adding important benefits, including vision, hearing, dental coverage as well as home and community-based care.

If you have employer coverage, Biden and Buttigieg offer you a Medicare-like option. You could get your health insurance through a Medicare-like system rather than a corporate health insurer if you chose. Would that help?

Biden’s and Buttigieg’s public option proposals could help some people afford insurance coverage they cannot afford today. But, it’s not at all clear their plans would help with out-of-pocket costs. Shefali Luthra reports for Kaiser Health News that a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll reveals that about four in ten people with employer health coverage have trouble paying medical bills. About 50 percent of them delay or forego care because they can’t afford it. And, about one in six of them have to make “difficult sacrifices” to pay for their care.

Except at the margins, Biden’s and Buttigieg’s public option proposals appear to be of little help to people with employer coverage who struggle to afford their care. They do not fill gaps in people’s coverage; they still require you to pay a lot for your health care. And, they do not offer people additional benefits that many need, such as dental, vision, hearing and home care.

In short, the key advantage of their public option proposals is that Americans can choose not to rely on corporate insurers or employer health plans for their coverage; they give people a choice of a public plan. But, public option proposals are not likely to save Americans any money or ensure they can afford their care. Only Medicare for All proposals significantly reduce the cost of care for working people and guarantee its affordability.

People say they prefer the public option to Medicare for All. But, most do not know that their health care costs will continue to rise under public option proposals. Once people understand that the public option does little to make health care affordable, Medicare for All should garner their support.

Here’s more from Just Care:
November 27, 2019
Top Democratic presidential candidates support strengthening Social Security
The top four Democratic presidential candidates may be split on health care reform, two favor the public option and two favor Medicare for All. But, Nancy Altman writes in Forbes that all four top candidates, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, support strengthening and expanding Social Security. No matter who becomes the Democratic candidate, if you support expanding Social Security, it will be critical to vote.

Social Security is a national treasure that virtually all Democratic members of Congress support expanding. In fact, nine out of ten members of the House of Representatives support Congressman John Larson’s Social Security 2100 Act. If enacted, Social Security benefits would rise, and its Trust Fund would be strong for many many decades.

Increasing Social Security benefits would help older Americans in retirement. Today, a large portion of older adults struggle to afford their basic needs. Few people can rely on pensions or retirement savings. Many rely almost exclusively or heavily on Social Security for their income. Social Security income is guaranteed and cost-effective, unlike Wall Street stock investments and 401(k) plans.

Most Republicans in Congress would like to cut Social Security benefits even though their constituents overwhelmingly support Social Security. They strive to create a wedge between older adults and younger Americans. In fact, young Americans need Social Security both when they retire and, now, to help support their parents and grandparents. Without adequate Social Security benefits, young Americans would be left worrying even more about their parents’ financial well-being.

Social Security is social insurance, meaning that everyone contributes to it and everyone who contributes benefits. It builds social solidarity. Americans all count on it for themselves and their families. Social Security is an earned benefit, unlike other federal and state social programs that are for particular populations in need. For our personal and collective security, we must ensure its continued well-being.

Social Security benefits need to be coupled with coverage for home and community-based care. Medicare for All, which Senators Sanders and Warren support, covers these long-term services. Buttigieg proposes giving people $90 a day to help with these costs, which is far more than the US guarantees older adults today. But, his plan does not come close to providing the most vulnerable Americans with adequate coverage.

Here’s more from Just Care:
November 27, 2019
Social Security benefits will rise 1.6 percent in 2020
As a result of inflation, people on fixed incomes watch their incomes decline in value over time. Fortunately, Social Security’s benefits are adjusted every year automatically to offset increases in inflation. Its modest, but vital, benefits do not erode over time. In 2020, Social Security benefits will rise 1.6 percent. This adjustment is not an increase in benefits. It simply allows people to tread water, to help people maintain their purchasing power.

Unfortunately, the government’s cost of living adjustment for Social Security is based on inflation experienced by workers and not by retirees and people with disabilities who are unable to work. Older people and people with disabilities have, on average, higher health care costs; those costs tend to rise considerably faster than overall inflation. For that and other reasons, people receiving Social Security generally experience higher cost of living increases than workers, and Social Security adjustments are inappropriately low. Even with the adjustments, Social Security benefits have less value from one year to the next. Nevertheless, inadequate adjustments are better than none.

In 2020, people on Social Security will receive an average cost of living adjustment or COLA of $24 a month or $288 a year. Some of this increase, about $8.80 a month, will go to covering the increase in their standard Medicare Part B premium. The 2020 standard Part B premium is projected to increase from $135.50 to around $144.30 a month.

Social Security benefits, which are modest, but vital, should be increased, as US Representative John Larson, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders have all proposed. And, Congress should enact a better, more accurate measure of inflation for people receiving Social Security benefits. After a lifetime of work, Americans should have enough guaranteed Social Security income to maintain their standards of living.

Congress also should improve Medicare by expanding it to cover such vital services as hearing aids, dental work, and vision care. Premiums, copays, and deductibles should be eliminated. And everyone should be covered. Medicare for All will improve the nation’s health outcomes, while costing far less than what we spend today.

It is long past time to enact a more accurate cost of living adjustment for Social Security, expand its benefits, improve Medicare, and extend it to everyone. That is profoundly wise policy. It also represents the views of the vast majority of us.

If you want Congress to expand Social Security, please sign this petition.

Here’s more from Just Care:
October 16, 2019
How Biden, Sanders and Warren’s plans to strengthen Social Security compare
Today, one in five older adults struggle to survive on an annual income of $13,500, And, 8.8 percent of older Americans live in poverty; half of Americans 55 and older have no retirement savings. The three Democratic presidential frontrunners–Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren–all have plans for strengthening Social Security. It’s helpful to understand how their plans compare at this time.

To be clear, it is still early days and plans are still evolving. Vice President Joe Biden’s thinking on Social Security has shifted dramatically for the better, but he has not come out with a detailed plan. Senator Bernie Sanders has long had a bold vision. Senator Elizabeth Warren, with the benefit of Sanders’ vision, has taken it to a whole new level. Meanwhile, Republicans have plans only to privatize Social Security and cut it.

Privatizing Social Security: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren all recognize that one way to put Social Security at serious risk is to privatize it in any way shape or form–effectively put some or all of your Social Security contributions that you pay today as premiums towards Social Security life insurance, disability insurance, and retirement premiums, into Wall Street investments.

That conservative plan substitutes people’s guaranteed Social Security benefits for whatever is left over after brokerage fees are paid, money that is subject to the ups and downs of the stock market. Moreover, privatizing Social Security will greatly increase Social Security’s projected shortfall, since the private investment in the market would divert money now going to pay benefits.

Means-testing Social Security benefits: Joe Biden once appeared to support means-testing Social Security benefits, a Republican plan for cutting or eliminating benefits for wealthier Americans. Now Biden, as well as Sanders and Warren, oppose benefit cuts. While means-testing Social Security benefits may sound reasonable, it turns Social Security from an earned benefit, based on work, not need, into a welfare program.

We already have a needs based program for low income seniors and people with disabilities – the Supplemental Security Income program. Social Security is designed to benefit everyone. Changing that would end Social Security as we know it.

Raising the full retirement age: Biden has said in the past that he is willing to consider raising the full retirement age for Social Security benefits, as many Republicans propose, though his opposition to benefit cuts suggests he no longer supports this unfair cut.

Sanders and Warren appreciate the dangers of raising the full retirement age for Social Security any further. It used to be 65. For people born in 1960 or later, it will be 67. Republicans would like to raise it to 70. But, raising the full retirement age for Social Security is a disguised across-the-board benefit cut for all retirees.

Although it may sound like retirees would simply have to wait longer to get their full benefits, that is inaccurate. Even if you work until age 70 or later, you get lower benefits because Congress changed the retirement age listed in the statute. You never catch up.

Worse, this form of benefit cut is especially harmful to those in physically demanding jobs and those who leave the work force early to care for family members. Raising the full retirement age means that people who must claim benefits early will receive even less than they receive under current law – amounts which are already much too low.

Inflation-protecting Social Security benefits: Today, Social Security benefits increase each year based on the Consumer Price Index experienced by urban workers, which means that they do not increase as much as the typical retiree’s costs increase.

Sanders and Warren want to adjust Social Security benefits upward, based on a cost of living adjustment experienced by older adults. That would likely – and appropriately — increase the inflation adjustment since older adults and people with disabilities spend more on health care costs, which are increasing faster than most other goods and services.

Republicans, in contrast, want to adjust Social Security benefits downward with a cost of living adjustment that imagines somehow that retirees could redirect their spending to lower-cost goods and services, a “chained CPI.”

Increasing Social Security benefits: Biden says he supports increasing Social Security benefits for some Americans, including retirees with low incomes who worked at least 30 years. He would increase their Social Security benefits to at least 125 percent of the federal poverty level. He would also increase benefits for the oldest Americans and for widows and widowers.

Warren and Sanders propose to increase every American’s Social Security benefits. Warren would increase benefits to all by $2,400 a year ($200 a month). Sanders would increase benefits to all by about half that amount.

In addition, like Biden, Warren proposes to increase benefits for those who are widowed. She also proposes to provide credit towards future benefits for those who take time out of the paid workforce to be family caregivers and to restore the student benefit. Like Biden and Sanders, she wants to increase benefits for people who earned low incomes pre-retirement, so that their Social Security benefits in retirement are above the federal poverty level.

Increase the Social Security benefits of some public-sector workers: Today, teachers and other public sector workers, in jobs not covered by Social Security, receive less in Social Security benefits on the work they do that Social Security covers. Biden and Warren propose to repeal the applicable provisions so that public-sector workers’ benefits are calculated without regard to the non-covered work.

How to pay for Social Security expansion? Biden, Sanders and Warren all support raising the cap on Social Security contributions, which is currently at $132,900. Biden’s proposal is vague, saying only that he wants wealthy Americans to pay the same Social Security tax rate as middle-income Americans. Sanders and Warren are more specific, proposing that those who earn more than $250,000 pay on those large salaries.

Sanders proposes that people who earn more than $250,000 a year contribute at a rate of 6.2 percent, with their employers matching their contributions at the same rate, as is the case with lower-wage workers. Warren proposes that people who earn more than $250,000 a year contribute at a rate of 7.4 percent, also matched by their employers. Over about two decades that gap between $132,900 and $250,000 closes, at which point all workers will contribute to Social Security on all of their wages (though, under the Warren plan, at a higher rate.)

In addition, Sanders proposes adding a tax of 6.2 percent and Warren, an additional 14.8 percent, on investment income for the wealthiest Americans. Of note, 98 percent of working Americans would not see any increase in their taxes. Yet, the Warren plan ensures that all Social Security benefits can be paid in full and on time for more than a quarter of a century, and the Sanders plan, for more than half a century.

Here’s more from Just Care:
October 3, 2019
Pelosi drug proposal would bring down drug prices
Politico reports on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s drug pricing proposal. If Politico’s information about key elements is accurate, Americans could see prices cut in half for scores of the most widely used drugs. And, the Medicare Part D drug benefit finally will have an out-of-pocket limit.

The Pelosi proposal, as Politico describes it, could link the cost of 250 commonly used brand-name drugs to their average price in six wealthy nations. Since Americans tend to pay about twice as much for drugs as people in Canada and Great Britain, we could see these drug prices drop by 50 percent.

The government would negotiate drug prices for drugs responsible for the highest costs to Medicare and the US health care system. These drugs represent about half of Part D spending and include insulin. Why Pelosi’s proposal only covers 250 drugs and not every drug is an open question.

If the federal government is unable to negotiate fair drug prices with drugmakers, it would use international reference pricing to set these drugs’ prices. They would be set at no more than 1.2 times the average price in six countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom. International reference pricing is a policy, originally introduced in the Senate by Bernie Sanders and in the House by Ro Khanna, which President Trump has said he supports.

Under the draft proposal, if drugmakers refuse to negotiate with the federal government or sell at the established price to both the government and private health insurers, they would face severe financial penalties. They would pay an excise tax of 75 percent of the gross sales of the drug the prior year. Pharmaceutical companies would face penalties if they offered the drug at the negotiated price to Medicare but did not offer the drug at the negotiated price to private insurers.

While the financial penalty should be severe enough to induce pharmaceutical companies to sell their drugs at the established price, the Khanna and Sanders bills go a step further to ensure drug availability. Their bills would take away a pharmaceutical company’s exclusive license and give licenses to generic drugmakers if the pharmaceutical company set its drug’s price higher than the average in five wealthy nations.

Pharmaceutical companies would not be permitted to increase the price of a drug more than the rate of inflation for as long as there was little or no competition for that drug. Pharmaceutical companies would incur financial penalties if they raised the price of any drug covered under Medicare Parts B or D above the rate of inflation after 2016 and did not either lower the drug’s price or refund the excess charge to Medicare.

Government savings from paying lower prices for drugs under Medicare Part D would go to the NIH to fund more drug research.

Here’s more from Just Care:
September 11, 2019