U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Nebraska
3,279 posts, read 1,659,312 times
Reputation: 2924

Advertisements

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/downl...=1&inline=file

Sander's Medicare for All does nothing about the supply which means many of the nation's hospitals will be more like the DMV. Poor quality service, very low reimbursements, physicians and nurses leaving the occupation in droves from very low Medicare reimbursement rates and hospitals falling into disrepair because of the very low Medicare reimbursement rates.

Commercial health insurance provides a massive subsidy for Medicare and Medicaid which means that wages for health care workers will tank causing mass exodus, hospitals will fall into disrepair and there be massive amounts of rationing and very long waits because Medicare reimbursement rates are extremely low compared to commercial health insurance rates typically.

Wow, more huge tax increases planned. If Democrats are elected in 2020 if they implement any of this which I think is a bluff for votes, taxes will skyrocket and there is a risk of a big recession because of the lack of consumer spending because the government will be confiscating alot more.

The "Medicare for All" does nothing about the lack of supply either. They can propose what ever they want but if they don't have enough resources, the quality will tank.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 12:15 PM
Status: "but it depends on what the definition of "is" is." (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
3,654 posts, read 646,178 times
Reputation: 1147
From the link:

Quote:
Imposing a 7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers, exempting the first $2 million in payroll to protect small businesses;
The whole concept of the "employer's share" of a payroll tax is fraud. Economists have long agreed that any payroll tax comes out of the worker's pocket, not the employer's pocket. Even if the employer writes the check, it's a bookkeeping fiction. From the non-partisan CBO, chock full of PhD economists:
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...xRates2006.pdf

Quote:
Who Pays Taxes?

CBO assumes—as do most economists—that employers’ share of payroll
taxes is passed on to employees in the form of lower wages than would otherwise
be paid. Therefore, the amount of those taxes is included in employees’ income, and
the taxes are counted as part of employees’ tax burden.
Sen. Sanders, with all of his 6 figure staffers, must have at least one economist on board. He must know better, ergo he is lying here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:29 PM
 
37,682 posts, read 16,323,447 times
Reputation: 8555
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecrowds View Post
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/downl...=1&inline=file

Sander's Medicare for All does nothing about the supply which means many of the nation's hospitals will be more like the DMV. Poor quality service, very low reimbursements, physicians and nurses leaving the occupation in droves from very low Medicare reimbursement rates and hospitals falling into disrepair because of the very low Medicare reimbursement rates.

Commercial health insurance provides a massive subsidy for Medicare and Medicaid which means that wages for health care workers will tank causing mass exodus, hospitals will fall into disrepair and there be massive amounts of rationing and very long waits because Medicare reimbursement rates are extremely low compared to commercial health insurance rates typically.

Wow, more huge tax increases planned. If Democrats are elected in 2020 if they implement any of this which I think is a bluff for votes, taxes will skyrocket and there is a risk of a big recession because of the lack of consumer spending because the government will be confiscating alot more.

The "Medicare for All" does nothing about the lack of supply either. They can propose what ever they want but if they don't have enough resources, the quality will tank.
"reating 4% tax for individuals and Imposing 7.5% tax for employers."

Who was it who said, "Eventually you run out of OTHER peoples money.

Employers run on PROFIT. If you raise their taxes they will FIRE people to make up the difference.

I think we saw it in Wash. state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Ohio
20,144 posts, read 14,362,716 times
Reputation: 16333
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecrowds View Post
That's not going to be enough.

In 2018, you collected $718,352,276,376 in FICA payroll taxes.

That would be total taxable wages of $5,793,163,519,161 ($5.8 TRILLION).

4.0% = $231,726,540,766
7.5% = $434,487,263,937

Total = $666,213,804,703

That leaves you $2,633,786,195,297 short ($2.6 TRILLION).

In before some ignoramus who doesn't know what they're talking about screams, "Eliminate the cap!" taxing 100% of wages without a cap would only generate an extra $62.5 Billion annually.

So, that's not going to get it.

Granted, Medicare spending is $706 Billion and Medicaid spending is $582 Billion and together they account for $1.28 TRILLION, but Medicare-for-All is suppose to eliminate both programs.

Even if you continue to operate those programs, you're still $1.3 TRILLION short.

More to the point, the costs will actually be more than $4 TRILLION.

Why?

Two reasons, one Medicare-for-All covers a number of services that are not currently covered and which are not counted as healthcare expenditures, and two, Americans are nothing like Europeans and the only thing Americans know how to do is be abusive when it comes to "free."

So, that will balloon your costs a minimum of $500 Billion annually to as much as $2 TRILLION annually, so that you're spending $5 TRILLION on healthcare instead of $3.3 TRILLION.

We know that from history. When the government implemented a $10 co-pay for civilian dependents of military personnel, suddenly medical facilities were empty and soldiers could actually be treated and costs dropped like a rock.

If you have to pay $10, it's not "free" anymore and it's not worth it to go to the doctor.

Same thing with the VA's new urgent care program. You have people going to the emergency room for a cough or a sore throat, because, you know, it's "free" and you get "free stuff" like "free" cough medicine or "free" throat lozenges.


Note that the most recent incarnation of Medicare-for-All has eliminated all co-pays.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecrowds View Post
Sander's Medicare for All does nothing about the supply which means many of the nation's hospitals will be more like the DMV.
Why would it?

There's nothing that can be done.

Open a word-processing program and type the following 3rd Grade Concept over and over until you understand:

All surgeons are doctors, but not all doctors are surgeons.

When you understand that, do let us know, then we can move onto the next 3rd Grade Concept:

Not all doctors or surgeons are teachers.

When you understand that, let us know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:27 PM
 
1,345 posts, read 270,990 times
Reputation: 1694
I thought the rich were going to pay for it ?
Did Bernie change his mind ?

A mere 5 days ago:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/berni...184145968.html
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said the U.S. could afford universal healthcare, canceling student debt and making tuition free at public colleges— by slapping higher taxes on wealthy individuals and big companies in order to pay for it all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:56 PM
 
21,217 posts, read 14,042,469 times
Reputation: 14790
Has been said before, and am doing so again; only way any sort of universal healthcare scheme works is if various caps, restrictions and or whatever are put in place to regulate who gets what and when on public dime. Americans don't like being told "no", especially when it comes to consumption of goods or services, so that is that.

Obamacare/ACA ended up being what it was (universal healthcare light), because even the democrats couldn't create a healthcare system that behaves less like what America has now, and more like most European or other nations with universal healthcare.

In most other countries government either directly or indirectly negotiates/sets prices for most or all pharmaceuticals. Something Medicare is forbidden by law from doing in USA.

Americans on average fear death and don't want to know from dying. This country spends more on healthcare for those in their last years of life often with little or no different outcome than other countries. Instead of letting an 80 y/o person with end stage Alzheimer or some other terminal mortal illness die a natural death (made comfortable as possible of course), there is a need to do "something" both being pushed by the family and or doctors/hospital for various reasons.

The fee for service model that dominates US healthcare means doctors and hospitals make money by doing things to patients, regardless if necessary. In other countries a board, statues or whatever tell a doctor/hospital when enough is enough. If someone has their own money and wants to pursue other options, that is their own affair, but not on the national heath service dime.

Other countries thanks to their socialist history and or polices the state plays a large role in healthcare market. In France for instance doctors are government employees (for most part) who receive their education free of charge from the state. The state then turns around and controls (for most part) what rates doctors can charge, and or via fact they are employees of the state (so to speak) actually receiving pay from French government.

France like other countries builds, owns and runs much of hospitals. Thus unlike many parts of the USA you don't have several major teaching institutions battling it out for patients in a small area. Rather there might be just one large/major hospital for an area. If a person needs specialized care a local smaller hospital cannot provide, they are transported to the nearest major (at state's expense).

And so it goes..

None of this is news to anyone that has taken even a college level introduction to economics course. You cannot control prices by simply throwing money at things; some how or way a good/service must be regulated.

In the run up to Obamacare such things were named "death panels", which gives you an idea about the American mentality towards healthcare. Again long as people see healthcare as something they are entitled to consume freely and or without restrictions costs will nor can not be controlled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:22 PM
 
1,175 posts, read 220,952 times
Reputation: 794
And still 30+ other 1st world nations manages to do it.. in many instances for 90+ years.

Republicans: "Americans are to lazy and stupid to make it work.. Our country is not advanced enough to make anything work. Its IMPOSSIBLE... We will never be able to save $Trillions like those other countries do... because we can´t.."

What happened to US ingenuity and guts...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:12 PM
 
21,217 posts, read 14,042,469 times
Reputation: 14790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northman83 View Post
And still 30+ other 1st world nations manages to do it.. in many instances for 90+ years.

Republicans: "Americans are to lazy and stupid to make it work.. Our country is not advanced enough to make anything work. Its IMPOSSIBLE... We will never be able to save $Trillions like those other countries do... because we can´t.."

What happened to US ingenuity and guts...
And those same nations have had crushing tax rates and or run frequent budget deficits to pay for that social contract.

Joke in many Scandinavian countries is the government takes your entire paycheck in taxes
then gives it back in benefits.

As previously noted in this thread merely raising or implementing small tax on individuals and or businesses won't cut it. To fund anything remotely close to "Medicare for all" would require trillions in new taxes; something GOP won't ever go along with, nor many democrats.

Case in point Madame Pelosi (aka Madame Deficit) recently passed out of the House a bill killing Obamacare tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans, with huge democrat support. That small tax was meant to fund ACA, but no one liked it (especially GOP), so that was that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:14 PM
 
Location: Austin
12,369 posts, read 7,039,857 times
Reputation: 13689
Never trust a socialist with a summer home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:35 PM
 
24,598 posts, read 12,138,020 times
Reputation: 10484
Socialists just love other people’s money.

I wish these idiots realized nothing in life is free.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top