The opposition is because universal health care shifts the costs from individual risk to individual income. Before I try to break down the more pragmatic nuance, I want to make sure that it the Sanders campaign's official position is that the tax structure proposed in the American Health Security Act, S. 1782 will not be the one he would push if elected president. However, until he discloses his actual numbers, many are using it as a framework for what UHS would look like in America because he sort of introduced the legislation.

The good news is that the proposed legislation would save the median income earner ($24,062) in the United States a little over $1,000 dollars each year in health care costs. I calculated $1,100 and politifact places it at $1,200 so I feel like I can at least somewhat trust my ability to add payroll taxes to income taxes and subtract employer subsidies and individual premiums.

However, this also placed my break even point on the bill at ~$38,000 in income. To extend that to households, that means that the second quintile ($65-100K) earning households would actually see their expected health care costs rise and obviously the top quintile would be hit harder (though that's where the term "middle class" becomes a bit more fuzzy).

To put that in perspective, that's Homer Simpson's family being out about 1-3 grand a year, $79K in 2015 inflation adjusted dollars. That, in my opinion, is punching too far down. Now, if he can rework the numbers so that it's Tom Scavo (~105K in 2015 dollars) taking Homer Simpson hit, Phillip Banks carrying something more in line with the original bill (I calced about 25K of his 265 would go to this bill), and Michael Bluth carrying the true Lion's share, then my opposition to universal health care would subside. However, this is why we are demanding the numbers because Homer Simpson is not the problem with income inequality.