As those who study actual operations know, the funds to pay taxes and buy government securities come from government spending (or lending). This is a point that the staff people in charge at the Fed, U.S. Treasury, and on Wall Street all recognize as reality, and more and more neoclassical types have come to embrace. So Bernie's taxes are not about "paying" for his healthcare plan, but about controlling inflation that the spending might cause without those tax increases. His plan might increase total health care spending, even while lowering per unit prices, by expanding total healthcare output. The question is what does it do to inflation? As far as I know, the BLS, CBO, and Fed have not been asked to investigate a credible inflation forecast about Bernie's plan. That would probably break protocol as their job is not to investigate proposals by candidates, but what the Congress instructs them to investigate.
Bernie is advised by Stephanie Kelton to some degree. Bernie's tax proposal is probably not based on Kelton's advice, but on assumptions about what the Congress might require, and what the American people readily believe. I'm a radical and would tell the American people the truth and where the Congress can stick it, but that's my view and I might be wrong. MMT gradualism might be the best course for Bernie as he is not up to answering all the questions that are involved, and it's not like this is actually a free society with a deliberative democracy, where this could be discussed on the merits, but a fascist oligarchy with inverted-totalitarian characteristics.
I would suspect we can probably do Bernie's MFA plan without any major tax increases on anyone, provided the right investments are made in the healthcare supply, and an overall output gap remains. I have been critical of his proposed tax increases. But I understand why he includes them as a matter of his political calculus. Nevertheless, they are probably overkill.
We are vastly oversupplied in terms of real resources to provide an abundant quality of life to every man, women, and child on this planet. The question or problem is always about the geographic and group distinctions that impact distribution, and what we are doing to the environment. Taxes in my view should be about protecting the environment and our stock of real resources. As such, taxes should be adaptive, not static, but optimized towards price stability with respect to the real resources used to supply output available for sale. The pre-distribution is the right place to regulate inequality, because it's currently what causes most of it. Government policy, for no public purpose, causes more inequality than nature disposes among individual men. Market outcomes are a consequence of the institutional structure created by government.
Activities that cause environmental harm need to be regulated for public purpose, whether by taxes that create disincentives for said activities or criminal statues. We are all personally responsible for our environment. Enforcement mechanisms are needed. So I'm against income and payroll taxes whether corporate or individual. That is the wrong way to regulate or balance the economy. Taxes should primarily be levied against economic land rents and activities that negatively impact the environment. If government is going to levy income and payroll taxes, it should enable some type of opportunity for tax payers to earn some type of inflation offsetting "green" or "public service" tax credits to eliminate said tax liabilities. I would contribute some hours of my otherwise free time at a recycling plant, for instance, to keep more dollars in my pocket than otherwise.
Back to healthcare: We have a healthcare clinician and provider SHORTAGE. No matter what type of payment or delivery system we have, we're screwed. Healthcare clinicians and providers are not BORN clinicians or providers, but PRODUCED by a society that values public investment in their education for public purpose. Bernie's Universal Education plan is, as far as I know, the only the plan by any major candidate that addresses this major issue on the supply side. And THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE (TINA) to the public investments needed to produce the doctors, mid-levels, specialists, nurses, and allied health professionals that we need to have a 21st century healthcare system of any sort, public or private. So as far as I'm concerned, you are not serious about health reform unless you are addressing this FUNDAMENTAL issue in the labor supply. It would do Bernie's campaign well to point this out.
Furthermore, we have major private and public regulation issues that restrict the labor supply in healthcare that we have. We have 50+ different medical boards in the United States of America. They are doing all kinds of redundant double work, and not protecting the public in the same way that a national medical board could. We also have an issue from the private side in the form of Board Certification requirements for physicians. While ostensibly these requirements are to protect the public, health insurance companies use such requirements to reduce reimbursements; malpractice insurance companies may charge higher prices to insure or deny insurance to non Board Certified physicians; the physician lobby advocates it to keep their wages higher; and the different Board Specialties love it because it means they can charge physicians thousands of dollars to stay Board Certified. Meanwhile all kinds of Board Certified Physicians make major medical mistakes and commit all kinds of felonies. So color me skeptical of the intent of these private regulations. Are there "Free Market" reforms we can make to healthcare? Absolutely, government and the private sector is restricting the supply and flexibility of healthcare labor for no public purpose.
But so long as the merit of an idea is judged by the political contributions of those who espouse it, these issues will never be discussed. Bernie is the all-time leading CHAMPION of Campaign Finance Reform. Without CFR, there is no reformist ideology, conservative or liberal, that stands to change governance in America. We will only slip more deeply into ruin with each passing decade of waste and abuse. Bernie is a voice for those across the spectrum concerned with political corruption. It's no surprise that we see the repugnant Republican front-runners, Trump and Cruz, attempting to adopt Sanders' populist world-view on rampant political corruption. Meanwhile, Hill-Dog (Hillary Clinton) has no authentic way to capitalize on the aggressive populist wave driving voter registrations in both parties. She is not apart of that movement or club, and never will be. Hill-Dog's healthcare plan amounts to Bernie's during the healthcare debate for a public option. Hill-Dog is for Bernie's 2nd choice.
Full disclosure: I work in healthcare staffing. I've had to get on the phone with hospitals and clinics and teach them how to bill payers for physician reimbursements on too many occasions. In short, there's a lot that hospitals and clinics do not seek reimbursement for because they do not know how to do so correctly with their payers. Those costs have to be socialized or absorbed in some way. The amount of administrative time that clinics and hospitals spend on payer billing nonsense has likely never been thoroughly investigated on the macro scale required to accurately assess the true costs of the current system's multi-part billing system and requirements.
Furthermore, healthcare staffing agencies, such as my own, contribute to massive healthcare spending mark ups through market power; whereas, nationalized health staffing agencies could easily eliminate or reduce those costs with more efficient staffing outcomes.