Gotta stop you right there, partner, you're posting malarkey. You're confusing her transition plan for her funding plan, and even then you're wrong about her transition plan. The funding plan accounts for the entire cost of M4A and does not raise middle-class taxes, it chooses to instead increase taxes on the wealthy and wall street while cutting defense spending.
And the entire point of her transition plan is to avoid having to negotiate with Mitch and the Republicans by making the first step (show and prove M4A by giving it to 40% of the population and build support to give it to the other 60% by year 3) eligible to be passed by a simple Senate majority via budget reconciliation. It's Bernie's plan that will require being bullied by Republicans because he's doing all of M4A in one step, which means it can't be passed via reconciliation due to the provision abolishing private insurance, and because he refused to endorse getting rid of the filibuster it will need 60 votes, which gives Mitch the veto over all of his legislative plans (M4A, GND, etc).
Also you can only do budget reconciliation once every fiscal year, so Bernie's position here is that he will attempt only 1 legislative item every year, so if M4A is voted down (it will be) he's burned his one legislative attempt for the year. Even his opening gamble of forcing an M4A vote to the floor in week 1 of his Presidency is a worse position than hers because it will, at most, have the support of
maybe 15 Senators and suffer an embarrassing defeat, gifting the Republicans even more negotiating leverage when the time comes for Bernie to walk his plan back. And even the idea of Bernie negotiating down his opening M4A gambit doesn't make sense because it's incredibly difficult to resubmit your budget orders once already sent out.
This is why it's useful to have someone who understands the system and thinks things through on a deeper level in power
at least he's getting his money's worth, fukk winning 
