How much would 'Medicare for All' cost?

[ducks]

Please tell me the cost and why the USA should have it

[ducks]

Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare for all' bill estimated to cost $32.6T

[Blake]

ducks is a sorry human being

[Pavlov]

Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare for all' bill estimated to cost $32.6TOver ten years that would be less than we're spending now, so thanks for bringing up that interesting fact.

[boutons_deux]

Even if $32T were accurate, we sheep get fleeced, overcharged EVERY YEAR for $1T in excess health costs costs every year, and that keeps increasing.

Medicare for All, whatever the cost, has enormous $$, humanitarian, and business savings. You could look it up.

[benefactor]

Get back to sweeping, retard

[resistanze]

Once again, what's the story with ducks? Is he actually mentally handicapped? Or is this the longest shtick in internet message board history?

[Brazil]

Once again, what's the story with ducks? Is he actually mentally handicapped? Or is this the longest shtick in internet message board history?

he is mentally handicapped...
probably the biggest idiot of this board and that's not a small achievement

[Will Hunting]

Once again, what's the story with ducks? Is he actually mentally handicapped? Or is this the longest shtick in internet message board history?
Neither, I think he’s a reflection of the bum fucking stupid trailer trash you’ll find in rural America.

There might be a hint of autism there but other than that I think there are tens of millions of Americans just like ducks.

[resistanze]

Neither, I think he’s a reflection of the bum fucking stupid trailer trash you’ll find in rural America.

There might be a hint of autism there but other than that I think there are tens of millions of Americans just like ducks.

:lol In terms of his views and inability to think independently on any issue, I certain agree he's not anything special.

But his consistent inability to spell anything correctly and form complete sentences...Holy fuck is that lack of education or some type of X-linked disorder?

[DMC]

Neither, I think he’s a reflection of the bum fucking stupid trailer trash you’ll find in rural America.

There might be a hint of autism there but other than that I think there are tens of millions of Americans just like ducks.

and they vote

[SpursforSix]

Even if $32T were accurate, we sheep get fleeced, overcharged EVERY YEAR for $1T in excess health costs costs every year, and that keeps increasing.

.

Of course it will keep increasing. BigAg, BigPharma, BigFood, and BigChem will ensure that.

[clambake]

don't forget BigAroma.

[Trill Clinton]

Once again, what's the story with ducks? Is he actually mentally handicapped? Or is this the longest shtick in internet message board history?

He's severely obese. Close to 600 pounds.

[Will Hunting]

He's severely obese. Close to 600 pounds.
:lol is this actually based off of anything?

[tenbeersbold]

Here's my take as I've lived under the US system and I've lived under the EU system of health care.

If you're poor or lower working class the EU is a better place to live as you get guaranteed health insurance no matter what
BUT there's a catch,the German health care system is creaky and old compared to the USA
They pressure doctors not to offer start of the art or latest treatments for cost saving purposes and the customer service aspect is frankly antiquated
So in essence advanced procedures that are routine for the USA are hard to come by or discouraged

I had a friend here who had a skin condition that he spent months going round to different German doctors,specialists the works,he even started to do his own research and found some new costly drugs that had proven effective in trials tests.He couldn't get a German doctor to prescribe them,some even got angry at him for trying to tell them.

A few months later he took a job back stateside and a US doctor got him on meds within a week that cleared up his skin condition that had tormented him for years in Germany.
Anyone here who has a serious condition or disease like cancer and has money goes to the US for treatment.

Germany does the basics better for EVERYONE but beyond that,the middle class and up gets screwed(there IS private insurance in Germany too but its basically only for higher earners) as they pay a lot for health insurance that by American standards isn't that good.

[Spurs Homer]

Please tell me the cost and why the USA should have it

About the same amount that Trump has looted in 2 years as fraud president.

[rmt]

Please inform me what government-run program has EVER come close to cost estimates? Medicare, Medicaid, SS, VA, ....

[Pavlov]

Please inform me what government-run program has EVER come close to cost estimates? Medicare, Medicaid, SS, VA, ....OK, what's Trump's healthcare plan for the US?

[spurraider21]

OK, what's Trump's healthcare plan for the US?
mumble mumble state lines mumble mumble

[boutons_deux]

OK, what's Trump's healthcare plan for the US?

paraphrasing from his campaign LIE: better, cheaper, everyone covered

We all know doing is much simpler than saying.

or, easier done than said

[rmt]

Deflection - what is the title of this thread?

[Will Hunting]

mumble mumble state lines mumble mumble
Lol that state lines thing was so lame

[Chris]

Pretty soon the question will be: how much will it cost for Netflix for all? "Big Federal government gonna solve all my problems by taxing the rich man!"

[midnightpulp]

Pretty soon the question will be: how much will it cost for Netflix for all? "Big Federal government gonna solve all my problems by taxing the rich man!"

The low marginal rates we've had since Reagan was elected are actually the outlier. We think it's standard, because most of us weren't alive when the marginal rates were much higher. I'm not interested in petty partisan bullshit and follow the numbers. Since Reagan's tax cuts, middle class growth has stalled/declined while the top earners proverbially laugh all the way to the bank.

https://rwer.wordpress.com/2017/08/13/the-fall-of-the-us-middle-class-2/

You can correlate the declining middle class growth with Reagan's cuts:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8b8f0d680d64e7b3bbb3108bad100aa2-c

I used to be a Libertarian since it made logical sense to keep the government (which are historically untrustworthy entities) out of our personal lives as much as possible, especially the economy. I'm still a Libertarian on social matters, but I think it's been proven that cuts for the rich do not "trickle down." The rich use those cuts for stock buybacks and/or hoard it to feed off the interest.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/now-we-know-where-the-tax-cut-is-going-share-buybacks-2018-02-22

Fun fact: Buy backs used to be illegal until 1982. Who was the president then?

The shareholder primacy concept has made economic Libertarianism untenable. All CEOs care about is making shareholders happy over the short-term (quarterlies). Stock buybacks are a way of artificially boosting share prices. It's also why the Libertarian concept that companies will be environmentally, publicly, and socially responsible because they have incentive since it increases their bottom line (i.e. a company wouldn't willingly pollute land it owns because it would translate into making that land eventually worthless) is fanciful. They'll do whatever is necessary to keep share prices robust over the short-term.

[midnightpulp]

And America prides itself on being some kind of bootstrap meritocracy. Let's live it up to that ideal then. Some dipshit CEO who runs a company into the ground will get a 7 figure severance package, while the guy on the line could get laid off whenever for whatever. Doesn't sound like much of a meritocracy to me. Sounds like a system that favors a select few.

[Spurtacular]

ducks is a sorry human being

:lol Cuck triggered by a question.

[phxspurfan]

in summary:


Dems: tax the 1%, that will solve all our problems! f*&k the 1% I can't relate to them!

Repugs: immigrants stole our jeorghbs! f&^k the non whiteys I can't relate to them!


Love our 2 party system!

[Pavlov]

Deflection - what is the title of this thread?I just want to know what Trump's medical plan for the US is so I can compare the two.

Dude's had two years in office. What's his plan?

[Blake]

:lol Cuck triggered by a question.

Derp triggered by me

[AaronY]

Pretty soon the question will be: how much will it cost for Netflix for all? "Big Federal government gonna solve all my problems by taxing the rich man!"
Goddamn, you are so fucking stupid.

[Will Hunting]

The low marginal rates we've had since Reagan was elected are actually the outlier. We think it's standard, because most of us weren't alive when the marginal rates were much higher. I'm not interested in petty partisan bullshit and follow the numbers. Since Reagan's tax cuts, middle class growth has stalled/declined while the top earners proverbially laugh all the way to the bank.

https://rwer.wordpress.com/2017/08/13/the-fall-of-the-us-middle-class-2/

You can correlate the declining middle class growth with Reagan's cuts:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8b8f0d680d64e7b3bbb3108bad100aa2-c

I used to be a Libertarian since it made logical sense to keep the government (which are historically untrustworthy entities) out of our personal lives as much as possible, especially the economy. I'm still a Libertarian on social matters, but I think it's been proven that cuts for the rich do not "trickle down." The rich use those cuts for stock buybacks and/or hoard it to feed off the interest.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/now-we-know-where-the-tax-cut-is-going-share-buybacks-2018-02-22

Fun fact: Buy backs used to be illegal until 1982. Who was the president then?

The shareholder primacy concept has made economic Libertarianism untenable. All CEOs care about is making shareholders happy over the short-term (quarterlies). Stock buybacks are a way of artificially boosting share prices. It's also why the Libertarian concept that companies will be environmentally, publicly, and socially responsible because they have incentive since it increases their bottom line (i.e. a company wouldn't willingly pollute land it owns because it would translate into making that land eventually worthless) is fanciful. They'll do whatever is necessary to keep share prices robust over the short-term.
I don’t disagree at all with what your post is arguing for, but I’d actually say that if you’re looking at all of American history, the high marginal rates we had post New Deal and pre-Reagan were the outlier, and the strong middle class America had during that time period was also an anomaly. Outside of that time period the rich havent carried the tax burden in this country and when they haven’t wealth inequality has only grown.

I’d actually say that since the beginning of civilization, a strong middle class has always required substantial government intervention outside of a few freak occurrences (ie when the Black Plague created a labor shortage and gave the working class bargaining power it never had).

Its also a simple matter of arithmetic at this point. There’s two ways income is generated - either through labor or through capital. As it stands in America labor generated income carries the tax burden even though it becomes a smaller percentage of total income generated every year when compared to capital generated income. With automation and globalization it’s not a matter of if but when capital generated income surpasses labor generated income in this country, yet no one gives a shit about how the cap gains tax is effectively half of what the top marginal rate is.

[midnightpulp]

I don’t disagree at all with what your post is arguing for, but I’d actually say that if you’re looking at all of American history, the high marginal rates we had post New Deal and pre-Reagan were the outlier, and the strong middle class America had during that time period was also an anomaly. Outside of that time period the rich havent carried the tax burden in this country and when they haven’t wealth inequality has only grown.

I’d actually say that since the beginning of civilization, a strong middle class has always required substantial government intervention outside of a few freak occurrences (ie when the Black Plague created a labor shortage and gave the working class bargaining power it never had).

Its also a simple matter of arithmetic at this point. There’s two ways income is generated - either through labor or through capital. As it stands in America labor generated income carries the tax burden even though it becomes a smaller percentage of total income generated every year when compared to capital generated income. With automation and globalization it’s not a matter of if but when capital generated income surpasses labor generated income in this country, yet no one gives a shit about how the cap gains tax is effectively half of what the top marginal rate is.

Yeah, I was thinking about 20th century America primarily, especially the period when "America was Great." Capital gains rate definitely needs to be raised. Still at 15% on the net? That's unacceptable for what is basically passive income that leeches off the "wealth creation" of others. Oh, but those lower tax rates frees up yet more money for the rich to "create jobs" :lol

[Will Hunting]

Yeah, I was thinking about 20th century America primarily, especially the period when "America was Great." Capital gains rate definitely needs to be raised. Still at 15% on the net? That's unacceptable for what is basically passive income that leaches off the "wealth creation" of others. Oh, but those lower tax rates frees up yet more money for the rich to "create jobs" :lol
I think the top long term cap gains tax rate is 20% for higher incomes but it had been at 15% for awhile.

The other thing that politicians in both parties have destroyed is the estate tax, a tax that dirt poor Republicans rail against as a :cry death tax :cry even though it doesn’t affect them and never will :lol

I can’t think of anything better to tax than the estate some rich asshole who didn’t do anything to work for it inherits.

[midnightpulp]

I think the top long term cap gains tax rate is 20% for higher incomes but it had been at 15% for awhile.

The other thing that politicians in both parties have destroyed is the estate tax, a tax that dirt poor Republicans rail against as a :cry death tax :cry even though it doesn’t affect them and never will :lol

I can’t think of anything better to tax than the estate some rich asshole who didn’t do anything to work for it inherits.

I read a quote that said dirt poor Republicans think of themselves as temporarily humiliated millionaires :lol That said, I get the logic of their stance, i.e. if we're willing to tax those more successful than us at 70% or whatever, we should also be willing to be taxed at the same rate. It's only fair, right? Why "punish" those more successful? I find it to be a false equivalence, though.

If we analogize income to calorie intake, a uber-rich person is much further away from "starvation" than an ordinary person. If a hundred thousand dollar per year income is a 4000 calorie per day diet, taxing that at 70% would reduce that person's intake to 1200 calories per day. A pretty meager diet for an averaged size male. A ten million dollar per year income is a 400,000 calorie per day diet :lol. Even if you tax the income at 90%, he's still "eating better" than the ordinary person.

It's not about class warfare or punishment. The rich can simply take the tax hit much easier. Oh, but again, how will they "create jobs" if taxed so high! As you implied, they're actually creating ways to supplant human labor more than anything :lol

[Will Hunting]

I read a quote that said dirt poor Republicans think of themselves as temporarily humiliated millionaires :lol That said, I get the logic of their stance, i.e. if we're willing to tax those more successful than us at 70% or whatever, we should also be willing to be taxed at the same rate. It's only fair, right? Why "punish" those more successful? I find it to be a false equivalence, though.

If we analogize income to calorie intake, a uber-rich person is much further away from "starvation" than an ordinary person. If a hundred thousand dollar per year income is a 4000 calorie per day diet, taxing that at 70% would reduce that person's intake to 1200 calories per day. A pretty meager diet for an averaged size male. A ten million dollar per year income is a 400,000 calorie per day diet :lol. Even if you tax the income at 90%, he's still "eating better" than the ordinary person.

It's not about class warfare or punishment. The rich can simply take the tax hit much easier. Oh, but again, how will they "create jobs" if taxed so high! As you implied, they're actually creating ways to supplant human labor more than anything :lol
The whole lower tax = more jobs scare tactic only works because the average American has no fucking idea how taxes work. Labor is a fully tax deductible expense, so any income that's taxed is getting taxed after all the employees have been paid. Hiring decisions are always made with the pre-tax bottom line in mind for that reason.

Even the most basic understanding of how income taxes work is enough to know that unless the income tax rate is 100% then it has no impact on hiring decisions. If you can add $200,000 of revenue by hiring someone who in total costs $100,000 a year then you're going to do it unless income is taxed at 100% which no one is advocating for.

Now, if you want to talk about what is a hiring deterrent, the fact that said employee probably costs 10% more than he otherwise would because of our shitty employer-based private healthcare system that employers in other industrialized countries don't have to worry about :lol

[rogcl1]

I just want to know what Trump's medical plan for the US is so I can compare the two.

Dude's had two years in office. What's his plan?

Trump's plan is for the poor and middle class to lose everything, suck the life out of them, and then eventually die off , leaving more for him and his rich, shyster ,cronies.

[CosmicCowboy]

So do you guys sincerely believe you are going to pay for "Medicare for all" by simply increasing the tax on millionaires?

[DarrinS]

Trump's plan is for the poor and middle class to lose everything, suck the life out of them, and then eventually die off , leaving more for him and his rich, shyster ,cronies.

Seems logical

[boutons_deux]

Trump's plan is for the poor and middle class to lose everything, suck the life out of them, and then eventually die off , leaving more for him and his rich, shyster ,cronies.

Trash isn't that smart, strategic

It's the oligarchy/Repug handing him and his Exec the policies, laws, rules to enrich the rich, and oppress everybody else into precarity, fear of job loss, restricted wages, poverty.

[midnightpulp]

So do you guys sincerely believe you are going to pay for "Medicare for all" by simply increasing the tax on millionaires?

Whether it pays for healthcare or not is a bit beside the point. Primary point is that rich should be taxed more, a lot more. Now I know you're relating that idea to yourself being a small business owner where you compare your situation to a Fortune 500 company (i.e. "If I get taxed 70%, I'll have to close up shop! If they get taxed at that rate, there will be massive layoffs, price hikes, and panic in the streets!!!"), but no one is suggesting taxing the local "mom and pop" contractor or restaurant owner who might be millionaires to that extent (in this context, we're not considering people with sub-10 or 20 million dollar net worth "rich," although, yes, they should be taxed more than people making 40K per year). A person like Bezos can stuff a few billion into the bank and make millions per year off the interest, which is only taxed at 15%.

I'm sympathetic to tax breaks for small business owners since that cash will most likely go back into the business and not be stashed in "investments or stocks." Universal healthcare would also help small business owners a great deal more since providing benefits for their employees will no longer be an expense they have to worry about.

The money seems to be there already to fund a single payer system. 22% of the tax dollar goes to healthcare already. That's more than the UK. Yet they can figure it out, but we can't? A lot of the bloat here comes from downright immoral tactics by private drug, insurance and medical companies who charge exorbitant prices for medicine, services, and equipment. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2017/02/10/a-6000-price-hike-should-give-drug-companies-a-disgusting-sense-of-deja-vu/#13d039c371f5). In fact, hospitals take in 331.00 for every 100.00 of their costs (I don't even want to know what the margins of drug companies are). "Hey, those are pretty low margins compared to other businesses!" But I believe the concept of "Do No Harm" is fundamentally incompatible with the profit motive.

"Well, if there's no profit, how are they going to fund new R&D and attract the best and the brightest?"

How does the military do it? There's your answer.

[midnightpulp]

The whole lower tax = more jobs scare tactic only works because the average American has no fucking idea how taxes work. Labor is a fully tax deductible expense, so any income that's taxed is getting taxed after all the employees have been paid. Hiring decisions are always made with the pre-tax bottom line in mind for that reason.

Even the most basic understanding of how income taxes work is enough to know that unless the income tax rate is 100% then it has no impact on hiring decisions. If you can add $200,000 of revenue by hiring someone who in total costs $100,000 a year then you're going to do it unless income is taxed at 100% which no one is advocating for.

Now, if you want to talk about what is a hiring deterrent, the fact that said employee probably costs 10% more than he otherwise would because of our shitty employer-based private healthcare system that employers in other industrialized countries don't have to worry about :lol

Hot off the presses. Tax cuts creating more jerbs!!!


Foxconn Technology Group is reconsidering plans to make advanced liquid crystal display panels at a $10 billion Wisconsin campus, and said it intends to hire mostly engineers and researchers rather than the manufacturing workforce the project originally promised.
Announced at a White House ceremony in 2017, the 20-million square foot campus marked the largest greenfield investment by a foreign-based company in U.S. history and was praised by President Donald Trump as proof of his ability to revive American manufacturing.

Foxconn, which received controversial state and local incentives for the project, initially planned to manufacture advanced large screen displays for TVs and other consumer and professional products at the facility, which is under construction. It later said it would build smaller LCD screens instead.
Now, those plans may be scaled back or even shelved, Louis Woo, special assistant to Foxconn Chief Executive Terry Gou, told Reuters. He said the company was still evaluating options for Wisconsin, but cited the steep cost of making advanced TV screens in the United States, where labor expenses are comparatively high. "In terms of TV, we have no place in the U.S.," he said in an interview. "We can't compete."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/foxconn-reconsidering-plans-to-make-lcd-panels-at-wisconsin-plant/ar-BBSWEzu?ocid=spartanntp

"Hiring engineers and researchers." Translation: Our plant is going to be a largely automated process that we'll get a few nerds to monitor. We'll take the remaining cash saved from the tax cut and use it to dole out executive bonuses.

I'm also looking forward to the day this rush to automation blows up in "their" faces. If no one has jobs, who the fuck is going to buy all their cheap, plastic shit?

[boutons_deux]

It seems that people think MfA costs would be on top of current costs.

But MfA would be paid for from pre-tax payroll deductions, just like employer group plans, SS now.

So instead of money going to BigInsurance, it would go to Medicare, with no option of opt out, just like SS.

BigInsurance and its investors would take a monstrous hit, which is the whole idea of killing for-profit health care.

At least that's how MfA should be done.

But MfA won't be done, at all. For-profit healthcare BigCorp will kill truly effective MfA.

[CosmicCowboy]

It seems that people think MfA costs would be on top of current costs.

But MfA would be paid for from pre-tax payroll deductions, just like employer group plans, SS now.

So instead of money going to BigInsurance, it would go to Medicare, with no option of opt out, just like SS.

BigInsurance and its investors would take a monstrous hit, which is the whole idea of killing for-profit health care.

At least that's how MfA should be done.

But MfA won't be done, at all. For-profit healthcare BigCorp will kill truly effective MfA.

Ahhh....mandated payroll deduction....so the single mother working at Walmart pays for the health care of the ones too lazy to work at all. Nice plan Boo. Not so progressive, though.

[midnightpulp]

Ahhh....mandated payroll deduction....so the single mother working at Walmart pays for the health care of the ones too lazy to work at all. Nice plan Boo. Not so progressive, though.

Is Americans being too lazy a work much of a problem, though? Our unemployment rate has always been among the world's best. Disabilities do exist.

[CosmicCowboy]

Is Americans being too lazy a work much of a problem, though? Our unemployment rate has always been among the world's best. Disabilities do exist.

Disabilities qualify for medicaid.

[boutons_deux]

Ahhh....mandated payroll deduction....so the single mother working at Walmart pays for the health care of the ones too lazy to work at all. Nice plan Boo. Not so progressive, though.

a percentage isn't flat tax, so loved by the wealthy

and MfA would not be capped like SS, and would be applied to earned and unearned income.

[midnightpulp]

Disabilities qualify for medicaid.

Then maybe the freeloader problem isn't as big a problem as perceived?

[CosmicCowboy]

Then maybe the freeloader problem isn't as big a problem as perceived?

Well, there are apparently about 20 million of them.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/30/blog-posting/are-90-million-americans-not-working-or-looking-wo/

[midnightpulp]

Well, there are apparently about 20 million of them.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/30/blog-posting/are-90-million-americans-not-working-or-looking-wo/

From 2013, when the unemployment rate was at 7.4 percent. It's down to 4.8 now. They also admitted 20 million was just a loose approximation. The 20 million number also doesn't mesh with the 7.4 rate at the time. The civilian labor force was 156 million. Doing the math, that would leave 10 million people unemployed.

[CosmicCowboy]

From 2013, when the unemployment rate was at 7.4 percent. It's down to 4.8 now. They also admitted 20 million was just a loose approximation. The 20 million number also doesn't mesh with the 7.4 rate at the time. The civilian labor force was 156 million. Doing the math, that would leave 10 million people unemployed.

Unemployment rate only counts those actively looking for work. We could quibble all day about the number, but bottom line is all working people from poorest to richest will pay for the health care of those that choose not to work or work for cash in the underground economy..

[CosmicCowboy]

Funny, under Boos plan you guys would have paid for my wife's health care who hasn't worked for 30 years.

[midnightpulp]

Unemployment rate only counts those actively looking for work. We could quibble all day about the number, but bottom line is all working people from poorest to richest will pay for the health care of those that choose not to work or work for cash in the underground economy..

The article didn't talk about or seem to factor in people with disabilities. Hell, schizophrenia alone affects 3.2 million Americans, most of whom will be of working age since the disease tends to show up in adulthood. Many schizophrenics are unable to work. The underground economy problem can be solved by legitimizing those employees with work visas (assuming you're talking about illegals) to get them into the system and paying taxes, as we've talked about in the other thread.

I think the trade off of covering a relatively small number of freeloaders vs. covering the amount of working people who don't have health care would be worth it. How we gonna pay for it? See my other post. We already pay more in taxes toward health care per capita than any other country in the world yet for some reason don't have a single payer system despite the fact. Sounds like a lot of money is getting wasted on bullshit.

[midnightpulp]

Funny, under Boos plan you guys would have paid for my wife's health care who hasn't worked for 30 years.

"We" already pay for her protection should a foreign enemy ever invade us. Local tax payers pay for the roads she uses, the fire department she would have to call in an emergency, etc, etc. I don't see how a socialized military and other such services are "acceptable" for conservatives, but socialized healthcare is a no-go.

[CosmicCowboy]

"We" already pay for her protection should a foreign enemy ever invade us. Local tax payers pay for the roads she uses, the fire department she would have to call in an emergency, etc, etc. I don't see how a socialized military and other such services are "acceptable" for conservatives, but socialized healthcare is a no-go.

Decent point. Nice to have a conversation in here with someone intelligent. It's quite unusual.

[midnightpulp]

Decent point. Nice to have a conversation in here with someone intelligent. It's quite unusual.

Well, one of the problems with political debate in this country right now is that both sides are just trying to piss each other off and/or moralize their positions in service of "virtue signaling." I don't see that as productive. I'm also for political opem mindedness and believe you shouldn't lock yourself into a single right/left ideology for life and be willing to change your views as the social/political landscape changes. I used to lean more Libertarian economically, but as I mentioned in another post, I think the shareholder primacy concept has made the Libertarian economic model (for big corporations, at least) untenable in the real world.

[Spurs Homer]

The health care issue cannot be truly fixed until we get rid of money in our politics. If we somehow made it where our lawmakers were on a fixed salary - and made it illegal and impossible - to accept any money from any donors - period -

then those lawmakers would make laws that only benefited the people.

It will never happen as "money is the mother's milk of politics."

Until then - the people with the money hire the people who will payoff the lawmakers - who will then make laws that benefit the people paying them.
They will also use their money to make sure the right judges are ruling on their cases to favor corporations and the wealthy at a disproportionate rate.

Any time there might be a real chance of change happening and favoring the middle class or the poor- the people with the money will hire the Rush limbaugh's,hannitys and carlsons of the world to immediately throw around the "socialism" word and the entire machine will parrot this 24/7 and the money will flow and flow until any change is quashed and we return to the status quo.

(Just remember the tax cuts gifted to the rich last year - did this get questioned and debated and examined and vetted? No - suddenly - paying for something that would benefit the rich - went through like magic - easy, unchallenged, praised as a miracle that would "pay for itself!")

The status quo - where the poor and middle class accuse each other of ruining the country and battle each other for crumbs while the rich look down upon them and laugh at their masterpiece they created. It has worked marvelously for hundreds of years.

[Pavlov]

Funny, under Boos plan you guys would have paid for my wife's health care who hasn't worked for 30 years.Don't the other workers who pay into her plan already pay for her health care?

I mean why do Trump supporters pretend they don't use insurance at all?

Is she in the underground economy you were talking about?


Disabilities qualify for medicaid.Pretty sure that's Medicare.

[CosmicCowboy]

Don't the other workers who pay into her plan already pay for her health care?

I mean why do Trump supporters pretend they don't use insurance at all?

Is she in the underground economy you were talking about?

Pretty sure that's Medicare.

I don't understand your question. None of my employees pay for health insurance for them or their family. I pay 100%.

As to disability medicare/medicaid it depends if they are SSDI or SSI.

[Pavlov]

I don't understand your question. None of my employees pay for health insurance for them or their family. I pay 100%.You're right. You don't understand.:lol

[CosmicCowboy]

You're right. You don't understand.:lol


Don't the other workers who pay into her plan already pay for her health care?



How would other workers pay into her health plan if they don't pay anything?

[Pavlov]

How would other workers pay into her health plan if they don't pay anything?So only your workers and families are covered by that insurance company?

That's a really small insurance company tbh.

[CosmicCowboy]

So only your workers and families are covered by that insurance company?

That's a really small insurance company tbh.

That's a fucking stupid and asinine strawman even for you.

[Pavlov]

That's a fucking stupid and asinine strawman even for you.
Unless you can prove only employers are contributing to the insurance company from which your wife benefits, workers are paying for her health care.

Period.

[CosmicCowboy]

Unless you can prove only employers are contributing to the insurance company from which your wife benefits, workers are paying for her health care.

Period.

Sweet. So I can stop paying her premiums and those workers will pay for her health care. It's chump magic!

[CosmicCowboy]

Unless you can prove only employers are contributing to the insurance company from which your wife benefits, workers are paying for her health care.

Period.

Sweet. So I can stop paying her premiums and those workers will pay for her health care. It's chump magic!

[Pavlov]

Sweet. So I can stop paying her premiums and those workers will pay for her health care. It's chump magic!:lol CC angrily builds a straw man.

Sorry I ruined your narrative. Working people are paying for your nonworking wife's health care with their premiums.

That's all. No reason to get pissy about it. I don't blame you for taking advantage of that opportunity.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol CC angrily builds a straw man.

Sorry I ruined your narrative. Working people are paying for your nonworking wife's health care with their premiums.

That's all. No reason to get pissy about it. I don't blame you for taking advantage of that opportunity.

That is bullshit. She has insurance because I pay her premium. If I didn't pay her premium she wouldn't have insurance. Simple as that.

[spurraider21]

That is bullshit. She has insurance because I pay her premium. If I didn't pay her premium she wouldn't have insurance. Simple as that.
are you familiar with the concept of a risk pool?

[Pavlov]

That is bullshit. She has insurance because I pay her premium. If I didn't pay her premium she wouldn't have insurance. Simple as that.


are you familiar with the concept of a risk pool?:lmao

Seriously, how do Trump supporters think insurance works?

[CosmicCowboy]

are you familiar with the concept of a risk pool?

Sure. Another strawman. She wouldn't be in the risk pool if I didn't pay her premium. "other workers" aren't paying for her insurance.

[Pavlov]

Sure. Another strawman. She wouldn't be in the risk pool if I didn't pay her premium. "other workers" aren't paying for her insurance.That's your strawman.

Paying for her health care, CC.

You're paying her premium.

You and those other workers and employers are paying for her health care.

[CosmicCowboy]

That's your strawman.

Paying for her health care, CC.

You're paying her premium.

You and those other workers and employers are paying for her health care.

bullshit

Her healthcare is delivered through the payment of her monthly premiums, service copays, and deductibles. Without those, her health care would not be delivered. It has nothing to do with other employers or workers other than being in a common risk pool where they receive healthcare for their payments. I'm not paying for theirs and they aren't paying for hers.

[Pavlov]

bullshit

Her healthcare is delivered through the payment of her monthly premiums, service copays, and deductibles. Without those, her health care would not be delivered. It has nothing to do with other employers or workers other than being in a common risk pool where they receive healthcare for their payments. I'm not paying for theirs and they aren't paying for hers.:lmao

[spurraider21]

bullshit

Her healthcare is delivered through the payment of her monthly premiums, service copays, and deductibles. Without those, her health care would not be delivered. It has nothing to do with other employers or workers other than being in a common risk pool where they receive healthcare for their payments.
so if in a given year, her covered healthcare expenses end up exceeding what you've paid by way of premiums/copays/deductibles, they'll just stop paying for her treatments? that would seem to defeat the purpose of insurance tbh


I'm not paying for theirs and they aren't paying for hers.
this is you not understanding what a risk pool is.

[CosmicCowboy]

so if in a given year, her covered healthcare expenses end up exceeding what you've paid by way of premiums/copays/deductibles, they'll just stop paying for her treatments? that would seem to defeat the purpose of insurance tbh


this is you not understanding what a risk pool is.

I know exactly what a risk pool is, asshole.

[spurraider21]

I know exactly what a risk pool is, asshole.
you've described it as though your wife is her own risk pool

[Pavlov]

you've described it as though your wife is her own risk poolI PAY FOR HER POOL EXCEPT FOR ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO PAY FOR HER POOL

[midnightpulp]

Here's the question we should all be asking: The US has a higher per capita tax expenditure on healthcare than countries with tax payer funded universal healthcare systems. This means the money is already there. So where it is going? Are we that incompetent and/or corrupt as a society we can't figure it out?

Here's where the money is going. Stupid shit like 6000% increases on drugs and 10K per 5 minute MRI exam. Shit like this is unacceptable:


In the wake of its competitors' recalls, Alembic last July more than tripled the price of 17 of its own formulations of valsartan.
Those price hikes ranged from 329 percent to 469 percent, according to data from the health care analytics firm Elsevier.

And guess who is paying for those increases if the user of the meds is on Medicare/Medicaid? The tax payer. This is where the money is going. You cut shit like this out through strict price controls, the money is there for a single payer system in the US.

I've said it in this thread before that the profit motive is fundamentally incompatible with the Do No Harm concept.

[koriwhat]

as much as it'd would cost for you to get a brain transplant that'll at least give you one good brain cell to work with.