Seems like he's spending a lot of time doing that.
lol bumping an 11 year old thread
Seems like he's spending a lot of time doing that.
I am flat out saying that you don't give a about deficits at all and should just shut the up about them. I'm also saying you're an insecure hypocrite.
LOL I got Chumpy all riled up. I pay over $100K in federal taxes every year so I'm doing more than my 'fair share".
LOL I got CC all riled up proving he doesn't give a about deficits. All he can talk about now is muh money.
Dug deep around page 600.
It was a fascinating dive into what was going on when Obama first got elected.
Found a ton of ironic posts from conservatives who had a lot of cogent criticisms of Obama, but who STFU when Trump goes 100 times further.
You're welcome.
No way man. Raise taxes to pay for it all. No deficits required.
Roll back the tax cuts, and roll up a modest increase on top of that.
It isn't difficult.
(shrugs) (farts)
Btw...I think you mean "hypocritical", not "ironic". But the hypocrisy runs deep on both sides.
(belches)
modest?
Some estimates I have seen would call for doubling the tax rate top to bottom.
Meh. "some estimates".
Even if we don't do any of these things, we will still have to raise taxes to pay for the 3-4 trillion dollars more in debt that Crooked Donny Bonespurs is piling up.
National health insurance would cost less than our current system, so we would end up collectively better off.
95% marginal tax on all personal income over $1 Million?
How about corporate net income... 90% tax on all corporate net income over $10 Million?
a July 2018 report by Charles Blahous, senior research strategist at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Blahous served as a public trustee for Social Security and Medicare from 2010-'15.
The center is described as a non-profit free-market-oriented research, education, and outreach think tank. Blahous’ expertise includes domestic economic policy, federal fiscal policy and health care programs.
According to Blahous’ report, Sanders’ "Medicare for all" bill "would under conservative estimates increase federal budget commitments by approximately $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation (2022–2031), assuming enactment in 2018."
In the report, Blahous wrote that "doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan. In a Wall Street Journal commentary, Blahous wrote.
"My projection generously assumes the plan would succeed in lowering prescription-drug costs and that administrative costs would somehow be less than half what they are among private insurers. Most important, it assumes Medicare for All would successfully cut all health-care provider payments down to Medicare’s reimbursement rates, which are more than 40% lower than private insurance rates — and even below providers’ costs of delivering services."
So how much would be saved on health insurance premiums? Does your "some estimate" provide that?
If not, then why do you think they omitted that data?
Conservatives, in general, cannot rationally or honestly discuss this topic, so I don't expect you to answer either question. My guess is that you will simply shift to another talking point.
Don't need taxes that high. That seems vastly too extreme, and counterproductive.
Sorry, just read the summary, not the full report. I read the current average of health care costs per person is around $10,500. Obviously if your taxes go up less than that your are a winner, if they go up more than that you are a loser. You clearly are in the camp of "soak the rich" and I can understand that since you personally expect to receive more benefits than you will have to pay for in taxes. It's understandable human nature.
So, you answered neither question, and shifted to another talking point not only irrelevant to the merits of the policy, but actively committing a logical fallacy in the process.So how much would be saved on health insurance premiums? Does your "some estimate" provide that?
If not, then why do you think they omitted that data?
Conservatives in general, cannot rationally, or honestly discuss this topic, so I don't expect you to answer either question. My guess is that you will simply shift to another talking point.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-02-2019 at 04:55 PM. Reason: civility.
Classic CosmicCowpie subject change
like I said, I didn't read the full report, just the summary. I don't know if they did or did not omit that data, but I addressed your point and answered your question.
Assuming universal health care is paid for by tax increases some will benefit financially from universal health care because they receive more benefits than they pay in taxes. Some won't because they pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. It's really pretty obvious.
Um, doesn't every beneficiary of health insurance benefit from health insurance?
I get that you and chumpster are in the "soak the rich" category because you anticipate you will benefit, since it's "them" and not "you". It's only human nature.
Not necessarily. A healthy person that pays for insurance (or whose taxes go up to pay for it) and doesn't use it (because they are healthy) doesn't benefit from insurance.
Which is why I used the word beneficiaries and put it in italics.
Doesn't every beneficiary of health insurance benefit from health insurance?
It's almost as if those beneficiaries benefit from the premiums pooled from them and other premium payers.
Wow!
What the are you trying to say? Please rephrase your question. I gave you a perfect example of someone who is not a beneficiary of insurance.
Oh...back to your asinine circular argument of pooled risk. All pooled insurance risks/premiums have winners and losers. Not to mention the house rake off the top.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)