The Democratic plan for a 42% national sales tax

[ducks]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/the-democratic-plan-for-a-42-national-sales-tax-202549219.html

[FuzzyLumpkins]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/the-democratic-plan-for-a-42-national-sales-tax-202549219.html

That's an article regurgitating a conservative think tank's bullshit. I bet you cannot find a single democrat that supports such a thing.

[ElNono]

Totally credible

[CosmicCowboy]

They would never support a sales tax because it's regressive.

[Trainwreck2100]

Calls the thread "Democratic plan" then posts the conservative plan

[SnakeBoy]

They would never support a sales tax because it's regressive.

They list other options of what it would take to fund medicare for all


A 32 percent payroll tax
A 25 percent income surtax
A 42 percent value-added tax (VAT)
A mandatory public premium averaging $7,500 per capita – the equivalent of $12,000 per individual not otherwise on public insurance
More than doubling all individual and corporate income tax rates
An 80 percent reduction in non-health federal spending
A 108 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increase in the national debt
Impossibly high taxes on high earners, corporations, and the financial sector
A combination of approaches

Democrats don't support having a plan to pay for their proposal so I imagine none of these are acceptable.

[ducks]

Yahoo headline not mine
Yahoo liberal

[Millennial_Messiah]

I would be in favor of that if it meant less income taxes. Income taxes are the major cancer. I don't spend much and I think this would go a long way in stemming the tide of all this ruthless millennial spending on crap they don't need and crap that goes to waste.

[boutons_deux]

Sales taxes are regressive taxes

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They list other options of what it would take to fund medicare for all


A 32 percent payroll tax
A 25 percent income surtax
A 42 percent value-added tax (VAT)
A mandatory public premium averaging $7,500 per capita – the equivalent of $12,000 per individual not otherwise on public insurance
More than doubling all individual and corporate income tax rates
An 80 percent reduction in non-health federal spending
A 108 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increase in the national debt
Impossibly high taxes on high earners, corporations, and the financial sector
A combination of approaches

Democrats don't support having a plan to pay for their proposal so I imagine none of these are acceptable.

or the ones that have actually been proposed like the wealth or stock transaction taxes. nevermind that the projections are all based on conservative wishcasting accounting a la all the bullshit supplyside nonsense we've been fed for the last 40 years.

[SnakeBoy]

I would be in favor of that if it meant less income taxes. Income taxes are the major cancer. I don't spend much and I think this would go a long way in stemming the tide of all this ruthless millennial spending on crap they don't need and crap that goes to waste.

The article isn't about replacing current taxation. It's just how to pay for medicare for all.

[spurraider21]

instead of paying the premiums you were already going to pay, you call it a tax instead. for most, cost goes down. for wealthier, cost goes up

singe payer can drive down overall costs by removing middleman insurance companies. billions in profits/salaries/bonuses that can be taken off the top. plus a singe payer system would be in a much stronger position to negotiate costs of services and drugs

[SnakeBoy]

instead of paying the premiums you were already going to pay, you call it a tax instead. for most, cost goes down. for wealthier, cost goes up

singe payer can drive down overall costs by removing middleman insurance companies. billions in profits/salaries/bonuses that can be taken off the top. plus a singe payer system would be in a much stronger position to negotiate costs of services and drugs

That's the part these articles leave out. Idk why Dem candidates other than Bernie struggle so much to explain this.

[spurraider21]

That's the part these articles leave out. Idk why Dem candidates other than Bernie struggle so much to explain this.
bernie has said it tbh... its warren who has tried to avoid soundbites by just saying "costs will go down." one of my criticisms of her, but she knows that right wing media will cut the clip where she says "taxes will go up" and play it on a loop

bernie has said your taxes will go up but you'll no longer make separate payments for premiums/copays/deductibles

[Millennial_Messiah]

instead of paying the premiums you were already going to pay, you call it a tax instead. for most, cost goes down. for wealthier, cost goes up

singe payer can drive down overall costs by removing middleman insurance companies. billions in profits/salaries/bonuses that can be taken off the top. plus a singe payer system would be in a much stronger position to negotiate costs of services and drugs

the premiums are the least of the problem though, the worst is the stupid ass high bills you still get even with health insurance.

[spurraider21]

the premiums are the least of the problem though, the worst is the stupid ass high bills you still get even with health insurance.
yeah now imagine never having to worry about that

sounds terrible.

[boutons_deux]

Finance medicare for fall by switching current group plan salary deductions and shifting it all to the govt.

Then add taxes like sales taxes on all now-tax-free financial transactions.

Close corporate tax avoidance/evasion loopholes.

Cut $300B+ from MIC spending.

[Millennial_Messiah]

yeah now imagine never having to worry about that

sounds terrible.

I don't think anything was mentioned of those costs which are the major bugaboo. They were just talking health insurance premiums.

If I can get a plan that waives or drastically reduces costs of drugs, co-pays (office visits), no coinsurance, no deductible and a small out of pocket max (like $500 a year), sign me up

[spurraider21]

I don't think anything was mentioned of those costs which are the major bugaboo. They were just talking health insurance premiums.

If I can get a plan that waives or drastically reduces costs of drugs, co-pays (office visits), no coinsurance, no deductible and a small out of pocket max (like $500 a year), sign me up
you dont know what medicare for all is, do you?

[Millennial_Messiah]

you dont know what medicare for all is, do you?

I know Medicare is 80-20 coinsurance with no deductible or max out of pocket. That's what my grandmother had and she had to get a supplemental to help pay most of the other 20%. Medicare isn't a silver bullet like in parts of the EU.

[spurraider21]

I know Medicare is 80-20 coinsurance with no deductible or max out of pocket. That's what my grandmother had and she had to get a supplemental to help pay most of the other 20%. Medicare isn't a silver bullet like in parts of the EU.
so no, you aren't familiar with medicare for all.

under the various medicare for all proposals, just about all of them scrap the 80-20 split and the government pays 100% of all medical costs. under the sanders plan, the only exception would be prescription drugs, which would be capped at $200 per year


Medicare-for-all (Senate and House)

Both Medicare-for-all bills would eliminate cost sharing completely. This means no monthly premiums, no copayments for going to the doctor, and no deductible to meet before coverage kicks in.
The only place where enrollees might pay out of pocket is under the Sanders plan, which does give the government discretion to allow some charges for prescription drugs — but even that would be capped at $200 per year.

some of the other proposals include keeping the 80-20 split or some variance of that, those are the "medicare buy-in" proposals, as opposed to the "medicare for all" proposals

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18103087/medicare-for-all-explained-single-payer-health-care-sanders-jayapal (https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18103087/medicare-for-all-explained-single-payer-health-care-sanders-jayapal)

[boutons_deux]

"Medicare isn't a silver bullet like in parts of the EU."

... because it's both under-financed and health care is unregulated and exorbitantly overpriced.

The oligarchy will NEVER permit its legislative whores to pass a true single-payer/Medicare-for-all.

eg, Liebermann alone, a whore to CT insurance companies, blocked the single-payer that Obama campaigned on.

[CosmicCowboy]

I know Medicare is 80-20 coinsurance with no deductible or max out of pocket. That's what my grandmother had and she had to get a supplemental to help pay most of the other 20%. Medicare isn't a silver bullet like in parts of the EU.

exactly.

Get a $50,000 knee replacement and you are gonna pay $10,000. There is no max out of pocket. The supplements are gonna cost you $250 a month and they still don't pay everything.

[baseline bum]

"Medicare isn't a silver bullet like in parts of the EU."

... because it's both under-financed and health care is unregulated and exorbitantly overpriced.

The oligarchy will NEVER permit its legislative whores to pass a true single-payer/Medicare-for-all.

eg, Liebermann alone, a whore to CT insurance companies, blocked the single-payer that Obama campaigned on.






Ben Nelson fucked Obama over on the public option too. Piece of shit Harry Reid couldn't get it through the senate. Too bad the Democrats haven't had anyone in the senate with the balls of Pelosi for years. She delivered a public option that would have made the ACA so much cheaper and better.

[boutons_deux]

Ben Nelson fucked Obama over on the public option too. Piece of shit Harry Reid couldn't get it through the senate. Too bad the Democrats haven't had anyone in the senate with the balls of Pelosi for years. She delivered a public option that would have made the ACA so much more affordable.

PO never got to Ben "Horse's Ass" Nelson's level.

Why the Dems hired BigInsurance-whore Nelson, who hired BigInsurance Exec to write ACA, is a mystery.

Just another way Dems fuck it up when they are in power.

[spurraider21]

exactly.

Get a $50,000 knee replacement and you are gonna pay $10,000. There is no max out of pocket. The supplements are gonna cost you $250 a month and they still don't pay everything.
current medicare is a drain because the risk pool is non-existent. the entire risk pool is old people who are prone to getting surgeries, needing medication, and treatment. the idea is if you add the entire population to the risk pool, you no longer need the 80/20 share just to make it viable.

hence the medicare for all proposal that bernie and warren are behind. read the link above, ffs

[CosmicCowboy]

current medicare is a drain because the risk pool is non-existent. the entire risk pool is old people who are prone to getting surgeries, needing medication, and treatment. the idea is if you add the entire population to the risk pool, you no longer need the 80/20 share just to make it viable.

hence the medicare for all proposal that bernie and warren are behind. read the link above, ffs

pie in the sky.

What about the 50% that pay no income tax now? what will they pay for medicare for all?

[boutons_deux]

pie in the sky.

What about the 50% that pay no income tax now? what will they pay for medicare for all?

raise the Federal minimum wage to $20 / hour over a couple years, get 10Ms of working poor off public assistance, off Medicaid, and shift those savings to help pay for their health care.

[spurraider21]

pie in the sky.

What about the 50% that pay no income tax now? what will they pay for medicare for all?
the concept of expanding the risk pool is pie in the sky? i dont think so.

its been made plenty clear that the burden will be shifted to the wealthier, not to the lower/middle class. overall costs will go down when you remove the need to fund the middle-man insurance companies

[ducks]

Boutons bitches about everything
Why he bothers to even live in USA

[CosmicCowboy]

the concept of expanding the risk pool is pie in the sky? i dont think so.

its been made plenty clear that the burden will be shifted to the wealthier, not to the lower/middle class. overall costs will go down when you remove the need to fund the middle-man insurance companies

The wealthy being the 50% that pay taxes.

[ducks]

raise the Federal minimum wage to $20 / hour over a couple years, get 10Ms of working poor off public assistance, off Medicaid, and shift those savings to help pay for their health care.

If they raise the min wage go 20
McDonald’s will cost 60 for 2 people

[ducks]

They raised the min wage in az movies and everything went up more then the min wage did !

[Millennial_Messiah]

under the sanders plan, the only exception would be prescription drugs, which would be capped at $200 per year


so that's bullshit. If you have type 1 diabetes with no chance of a cure (unlike type 2, say, which is reversible) you have to pay the full big pharma price after you've reached $200 per year worth? that's fucking retarded if I understood it correctly.

just make all prescription drugs $5 per 30 day supply and call it a day.

[Millennial_Messiah]

exactly.

Get a $50,000 knee replacement and you are gonna pay $10,000. There is no max out of pocket. The supplements are gonna cost you $250 a month and they still don't pay everything.
insurance is only a big chunk of the problem, but they need to regulate doctor/provider profits as well. There's no reason a two-hour procedure should cost $50K. The greedy pigs in white charge $100K (!!) for a routine pacemaker surgery, of course with insurance the patient pays only a percentage, but patient pay healthcare will always be the worst scum on earth until the pigs in white are regulated along with the insurance companies.

[SnakeBoy]

bernie has said it tbh... its warren who has tried to avoid soundbites by just saying "costs will go down." one of my criticisms of her, but she knows that right wing media will cut the clip where she says "taxes will go up" and play it on a loop

bernie has said your taxes will go up but you'll no longer make separate payments for premiums/copays/deductibles


That's the part these articles leave out. Idk why Dem candidates other than Bernie struggle so much to explain this.

[spurraider21]

so that's bullshit. If you have type 1 diabetes with no chance of a cure (unlike type 2, say, which is reversible) you have to pay the full big pharma price after you've reached $200 per year worth? that's fucking retarded if I understood it correctly.

just make all prescription drugs $5 per 30 day supply and call it a day.
naturally, you understood incorrectly. 200 out of pocket is the cap

[spurraider21]

SnakeBoy my bad, didnt catch that. :tu

[Millennial_Messiah]

naturally, you understood incorrectly. 200 out of pocket is the cap

ok, then that is fine. As long as the first 200 are covered to some extent, like 80-20 or a $15 copay or something and then after $200 everything is free until January 1st of the next year.

[spurraider21]

The wealthy being the 50% that pay taxes.
nah. overall cost to most of the middle class (yes, including taxpayers) would likely drop. whatever new taxes they'd pay would be lower than their premium and out of pocket expenses they're paying now. burden increases progressively

[spurraider21]

ok, then that is fine. As long as the first 200 are covered to some extent, like 80-20 or a $15 copay or something and then after $200 everything is free until January 1st of the next year.
so you're still complaining about a policy that has you paying $0 out of pocket for any medical expenses, but asks that you pay $200 annually for some prescription drugs, demanding that that fucking $200 be covered? :lol

[Millennial_Messiah]

current medicare is a drain because the risk pool is non-existent. the entire risk pool is old people who are prone to getting surgeries, needing medication, and treatment. the idea is if you add the entire population to the risk pool, you no longer need the 80/20 share just to make it viable.

hence the medicare for all proposal that bernie and warren are behind. read the link above, ffs
I mean, I'm already paying large amounts of Medicare income tax in addition to my regular federal income tax, so why should I not get what I pay for already? Not fair. What happens to those who work hard and for good money and only live to say, 47? The filthy government stole your money and completely ripped you off. Same reason I don't mess with IRAs/401k's.

[Millennial_Messiah]

so you're still complaining about a policy that has you paying $0 out of pocket for any medical expenses, but asks that you pay $200 annually for some prescription drugs, demanding that that fucking $200 be covered? :lol

how much are the premiums though? If they're zero, then yeah... but that $200 would probably be gone on the first or second prescription considering how much US big pharma charges.

[spurraider21]

overall costs would go down just from the perspective that the insurance companies no longer get their vig

thats not even disputable and is very easily calculated. but a single payer system also puts you in a much better position to negotiate the actual cost of services/drugs, where the savings could be astronomical (see price difference between here and canada for insulin, for example)

[clambake]

I mean, I'm already paying large amounts of Medicare income tax in addition to my regular federal income tax, so why should I not get what I pay for already? Not fair. What happens to those who work hard and for good money and only live to say, 47? The filthy government stole your money and completely ripped you off. Same reason I don't mess with IRAs/401k's.:lol you sir are a riot!

[spurraider21]

how much are the premiums though? If they're zero, then yeah... but that $200 would probably be gone on the first or second prescription considering how much US big pharma charges.
brah read what i've been saying throughout this thread. ur bitchin about 200 annually compared to the system we currently have? lol

[Millennial_Messiah]

:lol you sir are a riot!

Explain?

[spurraider21]

I mean, I'm already paying large amounts of Medicare income tax in addition to my regular federal income tax, so why should I not get what I pay for already? Not fair. What happens to those who work hard and for good money and only live to say, 47? The filthy government stole your money and completely ripped you off. Same reason I don't mess with IRAs/401k's.
and what happens to those people who are 15 years old but need surgery and chemotherapy but havent paid taxes yet? fuck them?

thats how a risk pool works

[Millennial_Messiah]

brah read what i've been saying throughout this thread. ur bitchin about 200 annually compared to the system we currently have? lol

200 annually with no premiums is definitely affordable for all except the completely unemployed. And even those can probably get welfare through TANF to cover that.

[clambake]

Explain?

read everything again.

[spurraider21]

200 annually with no premiums is definitely affordable for all except the completely unemployed. And even those can probably get welfare through TANF to cover that.
how are the completely unemployed currently getting treatment and medication?

the people who lose out on this are generally the wealthy who are going to pay for more than "their share"

you know, these guys https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html

[Millennial_Messiah]

and what happens to those people who are 15 years old but need surgery and chemotherapy but havent paid taxes yet? fuck them?

thats how a risk pool works
Definitely not fuck them, but their parents have likely paid taxes and such. So medicare for all would consider pre-people too such as minors? Wouldn't that eliminate the need for Medicaid and CHIP.

Then what is the incentive to advance biomedical technology to the point where people live to be 110, 120, 150 on average (with higher quality long lives)? If such a system would bankrupt the economy. In the US nothing is ever done for the good of humanity, just for the good of the overall economic system.

[Millennial_Messiah]

how are the completely unemployed currently getting treatment and medication?

the people who lose out on this are generally the wealthy who are going to pay for more than "their share"

post-2012 ACA plans which usually offer low premiums, copays and deductibles but are otherwise garbage (tiny network, quack doctors etc). In texas there are 2, Oscar and Ambetter and they're both shit.

[clambake]

wow

[spurraider21]

Definitely not fuck them, but their parents have likely paid taxes and such. So medicare for all would consider pre-people too such as minors? Wouldn't that eliminate the need for Medicaid and CHIP.

Then what is the incentive to advance biomedical technology to the point where people live to be 110, 120, 150 on average (with higher quality long lives)? If such a system would bankrupt the economy. In the US nothing is ever done for the good of humanity, just for the good of the overall economic system.
ok then what about a 20 year old who has paid some taxes for a few years and has a catastrophic illness requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars. sometimes you have those people. sometimes you have the 47 year old who never got sick then suddenly dropped dead who paid for nothing. thats called a risk pool

[spurraider21]

Then what is the incentive to advance biomedical technology to the point where people live to be 110, 120, 150 on average (with higher quality long lives)? If such a system would bankrupt the economy. In the US nothing is ever done for the good of humanity, just for the good of the overall economic system.
plenty of medical advancements have been made without the profit motive. thats ludicrous. you think university researchers are making billions?

[Millennial_Messiah]

plenty of medical advancements have been made without the profit motive. thats ludicrous. you think university researchers are making billions?

they're certainly making well into the six figures, that's for sure. With next to no progress since the 1970s.

wake me up when US life expectancy gets on par with the rest of the civilized world. As of last year, we're 43rd... pathetic. You have countries where it's close to 90 avg. and here it's barely 80, even a shade less for us men.

[spurraider21]

they're certainly making well into the six figures, that's for sure. With next to no progress since the 1970s.

wake me up when US life expectancy gets on par with the rest of the civilized world. As of last year, we're 43rd... pathetic. You have countries where it's close to 90 avg. and here it's barely 80, even a shade less for us men.
wow, so those countries with nationalized healthcare have better medical advancements than our for-profit system?

[Millennial_Messiah]

wow, so those countries with nationalized healthcare have better medical advancements than our for-profit system?

Yes.

BUT... Caveat. Immigrants to these EU nationalized healthcare nations can't participate unless they pay in.

[spurraider21]

Yes.
awesome. so your notion that the industry will collapse without a profit motive was debunked by you yourself :tu


BUT... Caveat. Immigrants to these EU nationalized healthcare nations can't participate unless they pay in.
what does the latter have to do with the former?

[Millennial_Messiah]

awesome. so your notion that the industry will collapse without a profit motive was debunked by you yourself :tu


what does the latter have to do with the former?
then again, the lines are really long, and whether an individual is treated/attempted to be saved in those countries often falls onto a utilitarian decision, and sometimes people end up having to pay a premium for private healthcare even in those places. A rich couple will have to pay to save their 94 year old mother/mother in law because there's a lot of younger people who need care first because they're more "important" or whatever. It's a double edged sword so there really is no perfect answer until we have biomedical enhancements.

[spurraider21]

then again, the lines are really long, and whether an individual is treated/attempted to be saved in those countries often falls onto a utilitarian decision, and sometimes people end up having to pay a premium for private healthcare even in those places. A rich couple will have to pay to save their 94 year old mother/mother in law because there's a lot of younger people who need care first because they're more "important" or whatever. It's a double edged sword so there really is no perfect answer until we have biomedical enhancements.
lines are long here too depending on where you live. thats a function of how many facilities/doctors there are relative to the population/demand. thats not going to change based on the coverage system.

but im not surprised to hear the death panel conspiracy theory lives on

[Millennial_Messiah]

lines are long here too depending on where you live. thats a function of how many facilities/doctors there are relative to the population/demand. thats not going to change based on the coverage system.

but im not surprised to hear the death panel conspiracy theory lives on
I'm not denying that patient pay healthcare is garbage, I'm just pointing out the downsides of socialized healthcare.

[spurraider21]

I'm not denying that patient pay healthcare is garbage, I'm just pointing out the downsides of socialized healthcare.
long lines are not exclusive to socialized healthcare... thats a product of supply and demand. how many healthcare facilities there are vs how many people need services.

thats independent of socialized vs privatized systems, though.

[Millennial_Messiah]

long lines are not exclusive to socialized healthcare... thats a product of supply and demand. how many healthcare facilities there are vs how many people need services.

thats independent of socialized vs privatized systems, though.

Technically Yes, but it tends to be a worse problem in socialized healthcare systems, since there are less providers in the industry because there is less gold to be dug. Let's face it... humans in general, not only Americans, are on the greedy side of optimal, on average.

Then you have the other confounding factor that Americans eat way too much candy and fast food compared to the EU, and you get a higher demand, which in turn creates a really high supply of providers looking to profiteer off a larger supply of patients. For as much as they'll say otherwise, the doctors and providers' organizations really want you to smoke like a chimney, eat fast food 3 times a day, and loaf around the couch and snack on potato chips and candy whenever you're not wolfing down a burger and fries combo. It's kind of obvious as to why.

There's really a lot more to consider and more to the picture than meets the eye

[spurraider21]

Technically Yes, but it tends to be a worse problem in socialized healthcare systems, since there are less providers in the industry because there is less gold to be dug. Let's face it... humans in general, not only Americans, are on the greedy side of optimal, on average.
this is the problem when you talk out of your ass, as usual

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Physicians/Per-1,000-people

[monosylab1k]

https://i.postimg.cc/WzcQtN33/558-F340-D-E6-D3-46-E3-A3-E6-31-AFD8026160.jpg

[CosmicCowboy]

they're certainly making well into the six figures, that's for sure. With next to no progress since the 1970s.

wake me up when US life expectancy gets on par with the rest of the civilized world. As of last year, we're 43rd... pathetic. You have countries where it's close to 90 avg. and here it's barely 80, even a shade less for us men.

Drugs and suicide blow the averages.

[baseline bum]

https://i.postimg.cc/WzcQtN33/558-F340-D-E6-D3-46-E3-A3-E6-31-AFD8026160.jpg

It's bad because the ###### two doors down gets his healthcare costs lowered too.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm pretty sure that middle class taxes will go up more than they currently pay for insurance if free health care for all passes.

[spurraider21]

I'm pretty sure that middle class taxes will go up more than they currently pay for insurance if free health care for all passes.
what is your pretty sure assessment based on?

[CosmicCowboy]

what is your pretty sure assessment based on?

What is your blue sky optimism based on?

[spurraider21]

What is your blue sky optimism based on?
A) your burden of proof since you are the one who was pretty sure about it

B) knocking out the insurance company middle man is a built in cost cutting mechanism. our medical costs are already much higher per person than just about every other developed nation. single payer system provides the best avenue to drive those costs down by increasing negotiating leverage against providers

C) if overall cost is driven down, and the tax which will fund it is progressive in nature, its very hard to come up with numbers where middle class taxpayers have an increased net cost

[CosmicCowboy]

A) your burden of proof since you are the one who was pretty sure about it

B) knocking out the insurance company middle man is a built in cost cutting mechanism. our medical costs are already much higher per person than just about every other developed nation. single payer system provides the best avenue to drive those costs down by increasing negotiating leverage against providers

C) if overall cost is driven down, and the tax which will fund it is progressive in nature, its very hard to come up with numbers where middle class taxpayers have an increased net cost

What's your definition of the "rich" that will pay for your insurance?

[ducks]

I would rather pay my 400 a month to insurance then to the gov for my insurance
Gov stuff does not work well

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What's your definition of the "rich" that will pay for your insurance?

Really who cares?

He gave about 5 reasons to back his position to your zero. Is it that hard to admit he might have a point?

[SnakeBoy]

Really who cares?

He gave about 5 reasons to back his position to your zero. Is it that hard to admit he might have a point?

Really who cares when we are not getting single payer in this country?

[rmt]

It's laughable that some of you think that the government can ever run anything well or within budget (remember Obamacare website)? Instead of insurance middlemen, we will have a myriad of government workers (with their corresponding pensions) to "administer" this FREE healthcare. And instead of new drugs, medical devices, and boosts to OUR pensions/401ks (which are invested in said insurance companies), we will have rationed, govt-deemed(non)essential benefits, DMV-style healthcare and primaries/specialists/therapists running for the door (or not going into the field at all).

[CosmicCowboy]

Signs of declining health for American men abound in the National Center for Health Statistics latest annual report.

Life expectancy at birth for males declined to 76.1 years in 2017 from 76.5 in 2014, according to the data. At age 65, men are projected to live another 18.1 years compared with 20.6 years for women.

These and other takeaways from the annual report, which tracks the health of the U.S. population across different metrics, have implications for productivity, wages, and the broader economy.

Here are some other highlights from the report released on Oct. 30.

Life Expectancy

Life expectancy has been falling across demographics in America. The estimates for whites, blacks and Hispanics fell to 78.5, 74.9 and 81.8 respectively by 2017, after having peaked in 2012 or 2014 for those groups.

The decline in life expectancy is occurring in part due to deaths from despair. From 2007 to 2017, the mortality rate from drug overdoses increased 82%, to 21.7 deaths from 11.9 per 100,000. Over the same 10-year period, suicide rates increased 24%, to 14.0 deaths from 11.3 per 100,000 resident population.

Males had twice the female drug overdose death rate in 2017 and rates for men have virtually doubled since 2007. The recent increases were especially pronounced among men aged 25–34 and 35–44, the report shows.

While drug overdose rates per 100,000 are considerably lower for females, in recent years younger age groups have seen a marked increase. The drug overdose death rate increased around 17% per year among females aged 15–34 years.

Suicides among Americans have also increased sharply -- from 26,869 in 1980 to 47,173 in 2017. In 2017, it was the second leading cause of death, behind accidents, for young age groups -- 10–14, 15–19, and 20–24 -- and it reached a record high, with younger males in particular strongly impacted.

Poor Health

Many Americans are suffering from poor health. About one third of adults suffer from a condition that limits functionality, which is a concern as the population ages. The number of adults age 65 and over struggling with poor health, which impacts families and increases pressure on health services and social care, increased from 14.7 million in 2010 to 20.4 million in 2017.

The use of e-cigarettes among high school students, grades nine through 12, has soared this decade to 20.8% in 2018 from 1.5% in 2011. The rate has almost doubled in the last year alone from from 11.7% in 2017, the data show.

Obesity

From 1999–2000 to 2015–2016, the age-adjusted prevalence of obesity among men increased from 27.4% to 38.1%. For American woman, the situation is even worse -- the prevalence of obesity among them increased from 33.3% to 41.2%.

Adult obesity is correlated with higher death rates as it often is associated with increases in hypertension, high cholesterol levels, type 2 diabetes, and other health conditions which limit ones functionality such as asthma, sleep apnea, and joint problems.

Many problems associated with poor health stem from lower incomes.

Adults with low income were more likely to delay, or not receive, needed medical care due to cost. While 7.4% of Americans delayed or did not receive needed medical care due to the cost involved, that figure is down from 10.9% in 2010. On a per capita basis, Americans spent $10,739 on health expenditures in 2017.

There is some good news in the report too. Though heart disease remains the most common cause of death -- death rates from heart disease and cancer have dropped by about 15% between 2007 to 2017. Deaths from strokes for both men and women are down 13.6%, mainly due to better prevention, diagnosis and treatment, according to the report.

[monosylab1k]

Good, we need to rid this country of Boomers ASAP.

[CosmicCowboy]

Good, we need to rid this country of Boomers ASAP.

You don't read very well, do you? It was in there. It's the young killing themselves that are moving the averages down.

Once boomers reach 65 they are hanging around. Average for men is 83.1, 85.6 for women.

[monosylab1k]

You don't read very well, do you? It was in there. It's the young killing themselves that are moving the averages down.

Once boomers reach 65 they are hanging around. Average for men is 83.1, 85.6 for women.

It said “in part” due to suicides/overdoses. You don’t read very well, do you?


The number of adults age 65 and over struggling with poor health, which impacts families and increases pressure on health services and social care, increased from 14.7 million in 2010 to 20.4 million in 2017.

lol didn’t even read your own shit. Like I said, let em die.

[CosmicCowboy]

It said “in part” due to suicides/overdoses. You don’t read very well, do you?



lol didn’t even read your own shit. Like I said, let em die.

Here you go, dumbass. First paragraph.


At age 65, men are projected to live another 18.1 years compared with 20.6 years for women.

[Chucho]

Good, we need to rid this country of Boomers ASAP.

:lol you're gonna end up in a shithole retirement joint for that

[monosylab1k]

:lol you're gonna end up in a shithole retirement joint for that

:lol I can’t wait for Gen AA to start bitching about my generation right in front of my old ass. Hopefully I have dimentia and forgot how I invited karma to bite me in the ass.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Really who cares when we are not getting single payer in this country?

I don't claim to know what is or isn't going to happen. Certainty such as yours harkens to my sig.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Here you go, dumbass. First paragraph.

That doesn't mean that as a whole they are in good health. You need to learn what mutual exclusivity and the significance of it when you make counterexamples.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Signs of declining health for American men abound in the National Center for Health Statistics latest annual report.

Life expectancy at birth for males declined to 76.1 years in 2017 from 76.5 in 2014, according to the data. At age 65, men are projected to live another 18.1 years compared with 20.6 years for women.

These and other takeaways from the annual report, which tracks the health of the U.S. population across different metrics, have implications for productivity, wages, and the broader economy.

Here are some other highlights from the report released on Oct. 30.

Life Expectancy

Life expectancy has been falling across demographics in America. The estimates for whites, blacks and Hispanics fell to 78.5, 74.9 and 81.8 respectively by 2017, after having peaked in 2012 or 2014 for those groups.

The decline in life expectancy is occurring in part due to deaths from despair. From 2007 to 2017, the mortality rate from drug overdoses increased 82%, to 21.7 deaths from 11.9 per 100,000. Over the same 10-year period, suicide rates increased 24%, to 14.0 deaths from 11.3 per 100,000 resident population.

Males had twice the female drug overdose death rate in 2017 and rates for men have virtually doubled since 2007. The recent increases were especially pronounced among men aged 25–34 and 35–44, the report shows.

While drug overdose rates per 100,000 are considerably lower for females, in recent years younger age groups have seen a marked increase. The drug overdose death rate increased around 17% per year among females aged 15–34 years.

Suicides among Americans have also increased sharply -- from 26,869 in 1980 to 47,173 in 2017. In 2017, it was the second leading cause of death, behind accidents, for young age groups -- 10–14, 15–19, and 20–24 -- and it reached a record high, with younger males in particular strongly impacted.

Poor Health

Many Americans are suffering from poor health. About one third of adults suffer from a condition that limits functionality, which is a concern as the population ages. The number of adults age 65 and over struggling with poor health, which impacts families and increases pressure on health services and social care, increased from 14.7 million in 2010 to 20.4 million in 2017.

The use of e-cigarettes among high school students, grades nine through 12, has soared this decade to 20.8% in 2018 from 1.5% in 2011. The rate has almost doubled in the last year alone from from 11.7% in 2017, the data show.

Obesity

From 1999–2000 to 2015–2016, the age-adjusted prevalence of obesity among men increased from 27.4% to 38.1%. For American woman, the situation is even worse -- the prevalence of obesity among them increased from 33.3% to 41.2%.

Adult obesity is correlated with higher death rates as it often is associated with increases in hypertension, high cholesterol levels, type 2 diabetes, and other health conditions which limit ones functionality such as asthma, sleep apnea, and joint problems.

Many problems associated with poor health stem from lower incomes.

Adults with low income were more likely to delay, or not receive, needed medical care due to cost. While 7.4% of Americans delayed or did not receive needed medical care due to the cost involved, that figure is down from 10.9% in 2010. On a per capita basis, Americans spent $10,739 on health expenditures in 2017.

There is some good news in the report too. Though heart disease remains the most common cause of death -- death rates from heart disease and cancer have dropped by about 15% between 2007 to 2017. Deaths from strokes for both men and women are down 13.6%, mainly due to better prevention, diagnosis and treatment, according to the report.

All this tells me is that the current regime criminalizing drug use is a failure and that mental health treatment needs to be included in health plans. Well that and that young people are really displeased with the society Boomer's have produced since coming into the majority in 1983.

[boutons_deux]

Boomer's

aw, not THIS SHIT again

The oligarchy/VRWC shitshow got started in the early '70s when the oldest Boomers were under 30 years old.

10Ms of Boomers are living in or near poverty, if working, then paycheck to paycheck, BigFinance having stolen their homes in 06-09, bled them for decades with ripoff health costs, suppressed the wages by busting unions, etc, etc.

Boomers? G M A F B

It's eternally the wealthy vs the non-wealthy, not an age group vs other age groups.

goddamn, some people are fucking stupid

[spurraider21]

What's your definition of the "rich" that will pay for your insurance?
dodging the question. you said you were pretty sure that middle class taxes would go up more than they currently pay for health care.

how are you pretty sure?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

aw, not THIS SHIT again

The oligarchy/VRWC shitshow got started in the early '70s when the oldest Boomers were under 30 years old.

10Ms of Boomers are living in or near poverty, if working, then paycheck to paycheck, BigFinance having stolen their homes in 06-09, bled them for decades with ripoff health costs, suppressed the wages by busting unions, etc, etc.

Boomers? G M A F B

It's eternally the wealthy vs the non-wealthy, not an age group vs other age groups.

goddamn, some people are fucking stupid

Oh I'll give you the police state. I'm talking about the whole supply side and deregulation movement that started with Reagan. He was the Boomer's golden child. They just about deify him.

As for poverty, everyone is eating that turd but the elderly are being hit less hard than 18-64. The whole bailout was to save Boomer 401ks. I never said the generation was smart or wouldn't get burned by their asinine policies. At least now they'll be dead before the chickens come home to roost.

I get that you are a boomer and don't like being lumped in with the rest of your generation but as a group it is what it is.

[boutons_deux]

Oh I'll give you the police state. I'm talking about the whole supply side and deregulation movement that started with Reagan. He was the Boomer's golden child. They just about deify him.

I get that you are a boomer and don't like being lumped in with the rest of your generation but as a group it is what it is.

multi-millionaire mentally ill St Ronnie and his VRWC Repug posse were 100% pro-wealthy and anti-non-wealthy, got the shitball conceived in the 1970s rolling hard and fast. 1980 is when household income began flattening, exec salaries started to boom, inequality increased, and illegal stock buybacks were legalized.

Also the "corporate tax inversion" for evading taxes was passed in 1986.

Wealthy class versus/screwing/fleecing the non-wealthy class

[FuzzyLumpkins]

multi-millionaire mentally ill St Ronnie and his VRWC Repug posse were 100% pro-wealthy and anti-non-wealthy, got the shitball conceived in the 1970s rolling hard and fast. 1980 is when household income began flattening, exec salaries started to boom, inequality increased, and illegal stock buybacks were legalized.

Also the "corporate tax inversion" for evading taxes was passed in 1986.

Wealthy class versus/screwing/fleecing the non-wealthy class

You really need to learn mutual exclusivity. No shit it was oligarchs who came up with the policies and how the were packaged. It was the Boomers that started voting it in and have not stopped ever since; they bought the turd. This latest tax bill is another shining turd of high boomer turnout.

[ducks]

Warren agrees Medicare-for-All could result in two million jobs lost: 'This is part of the cost issue'

[ducks]

BEZOS MONEY FOR ALL
Jeff Bezos would pay nearly $7 billion to Elizabeth Warren's Medicare-for-all tax
11:26 a.m.
Jeff Bezos.
MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has a plan for taking Jeff Bezos' money.

The 2020 candidate unveiled her proposal Friday to pay for her estimated $34 trillion Medicare-for-all plan without upping taxes on the middle class. It relies on a big chunk of change from the country's biggest earners, and would end up costing the Amazon founder nearly $7 billion.

[Will Hunting]

BEZOS MONEY FOR ALL
Jeff Bezos would pay nearly $7 billion to Elizabeth Warren's Medicare-for-all tax
11:26 a.m.
Jeff Bezos.
MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has a plan for taking Jeff Bezos' money.

The 2020 candidate unveiled her proposal Friday to pay for her estimated $34 trillion Medicare-for-all plan without upping taxes on the middle class. It relies on a big chunk of change from the country's biggest earners, and would end up costing the Amazon founder nearly $7 billion.
Are you saying Jeff Bezos having to pay more taxes is a bad thing?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Warren agrees Medicare-for-All could result in two million jobs lost: 'This is part of the cost issue'

The health insurance industry would be gutted. OTOH, demand for doctors, nurses, and the like would go up. The administration of the expansion would lead to a large increase in jobs as well.

Of course the national review and wherever else you have doing your thinking for you do not address that.

[Will Hunting]

The health insurance industry would be gutted. OTOH, demand for doctors, nurses, and the like would go up. The administration of the expansion would lead to a large increase in jobs as well.

Of course the national review and wherever else you have doing your thinking for you do not address that.
But Jeff Bezos will have to pay :cry more taxes :cry

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But Jeff Bezos will have to pay :cry more taxes :cry

and "her estimated" $34T plan :lol

[spurraider21]

well there you have it, her plan doesnt call for middle class tax hikes at all (i dont think thats tenable, tbh... sanders' plan is more realistic)