Reply With Quote
That's an article regurgitating a conservative think tank's bull . I bet you cannot find a single democrat that supports such a thing.
That's an article regurgitating a conservative think tank's bull . I bet you cannot find a single democrat that supports such a thing.
Totally credible
They would never support a sales tax because it's regressive.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 10-29-2019 at 09:03 AM.
Calls the thread "Democratic plan" then posts the conservative plan
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.
Yahoo headline not mine
Yahoo liberal
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.
Sales taxes are regressive taxes
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 bull supplyside nonsense we've been fed for the last 40 years.
The article isn't about replacing current taxation. It's just how to pay for medicare for all.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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" proposalsMedicare-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.
https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18103087/medicare-for-all-explained-single-payer-health-care-sanders-jayapal
"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 s to pass a true single-payer/Medicare-for-all.
eg, Liebermann alone, a to CT insurance companies, blocked the single-payer that Obama campaigned on.
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.
Ben Nelson ed Obama over on the public option too. Piece of 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.
PO never got to Ben "Horse's Ass" Nelson's level.
Why the Dems hired BigInsurance- Nelson, who hired BigInsurance Exec to write ACA, is a mystery.
Just another way Dems it up when they are in power.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-29-2019 at 03:44 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
