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.
If it was so impossible, how does every decent country in the world do it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
All in all, Sanders wants to raise taxes by a bit more than a trillion dollars per year — which may not sound like much to those who remember the Obamacare debate, but remember that the numbers that got thrown around for Obamacare were 10-year estimates. Adding inflation, Sanders will be raising taxes by close to $15 trillion when the Congressional Budget Office applies its normal scoring window.
The answer to the question of how much single payer would cost the federal government is simple: $4.1 trillion a year, or $1.4 trillion more than the federal government now spends on programs that the Sanders plan would replace. The money would come from new taxes. Half the added revenue would come from doubling the payroll tax that employers now pay for Social Security. This tax approximates what employers now collectively spend on health insurance for their employees...if they provide health insurance. But many don’t. Some employers would face large tax increases. Others would reap windfall gains.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) released the outline of a plan to move to a single-payer health care system in the U.S. along with proposed tax increases intended to pay for the overhaul. According to the Sanders campaign, the plan would cost roughly an additional $1.4 trillion per year, or $14 trillion over ten years, and it would be financed through a combination of taxes on workers, employers, investors, estates, and high earners.
That Sen. Sanders has shown a commitment to paying for his new initiatives and has proposed specific concrete changes to do so is quite encouraging. However, by our rough estimates, his proposed offsets would cover only three-quarters of his claimed cost, leaving a $3 trillion shortfall over ten years. Even that discrepancy, though, assumes that the campaign’s estimate of the cost of their single-payer plan is correct. An alternate analysis by respected health economist Kenneth Thorpe of Emory University finds a substantially higher cost, which would leave Sanders’s plan $14 trillion short. The plan would also increase the top tax rate beyond the point where most economists believe it could continue generating more revenue and thus could result in even larger deficits as a result of slowed economic growth.
What the top is doing to the bottom. Look at the outliers. The middle of the curve may well be healthy, but what the outliers are doing is the story. Also a small number of CEOs manage a large chunk of the workers. Those are the ones he is looking at.
Nope, someone creating a thread about CEO salaries that are statistical outliers would not start out with this:
Quote:
In the 1960's the average CEO salary was about 20x the average employees salary.
Today, the average CEO salary is about 300x the average employees salary.
The terminology used "average CEO salary" is clearly meant to (mis)represent all CEOs.
If it was so impossible, how does every decent country in the world do it?
Incrementally over decades usually and even that doesn't mean they solved all their problems. They still have the same problem all national or single payer type systems have. Where to cut cost, how much care to delay/deny and how little to reimburse for services/drugs/medical devices.
Ezra Klein (both in favor of high taxes and a UHC or single payer system):
Sanders goes on to say that his plan means "no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges."
To be generous, it's possible that Sanders is just being cynical in his wording, and what he means is that under his plan, individuals have to fight with the government rather than private insurers when their claims are denied.
But the implication to most people, I think, is that claim denials will be a thing of the past — a statement that belies the fights patients have every day with public insurers like Medicare and Medicaid, to say nothing of the fights that go on in the Canadian, German, or British health care systems.
What makes that so irresponsible is that it stands in flagrant contradiction to the way single-payer plans actually work — and the way Sanders's plan will have to work if its numbers are going to add up.
Behind Sanders's calculations, for both how much his plan will cost and how much Americans will benefit, lurk extremely optimistic promises about how much money single-payer will save. And those promises can only come true if the government starts saying no quite a lot — in ways that will make people very, very angry.
Just remember when you have no other choices the government "is there to help" you make the only decision it will allow you and you can absolutely bet if you like your plan/doctors now you'll hate it when you're stuck with it and there's nowhere else to go to.
The biggest thing is it shows I'm not willing to do what's best. Say I'm a CEO and my company has to cut 2000 jobs, close 200 locations yet I make $10 million. Let's say the locations are a net loss of $10 million each year, including wages. Now do I really need the $10 million, no. Maybe I could offset by $5 million and cut only half the locations and jobs. These numbers should sound familiar, these are the Walmart numbers. Walmart's CEO got paid $10 mil last year and they planned to close 200+ stores with 2000 jobs as well. If a CEO can't start with themselves, maybe they aren't cut out for the job.
Symbolic gestures are not a serious answer. Walmart has 1.4 million employees. So if the president of Walmart gave up his paycheck and passed along the savings to employees, that's $7 per employee. Walmart also has 5000 stores. So that's $2,000 a store. Enough to keep the doors open for an additional hour. Yeah. That's a solution.
Meanwhile, that same CEO has to walk into a shareholders meeting and report that corporate profits are plunging, chiefly due to underperforming stores for which he sacrificed his paycheck to keep open. Suddenly that $0 on his W2 isn't quite so impressive. After the shareholders' revolt, they'll put someone in the C Suite and pay him $11 million, a guy who will close stores without compunction in order to increase share value.
The biggest thing is it shows I'm not willing to do what's best. Say I'm a CEO and my company has to cut 2000 jobs, close 200 locations yet I make $10 million. Let's say the locations are a net loss of $10 million each year, including wages. Now do I really need the $10 million, no. Maybe I could offset by $5 million and cut only half the locations and jobs. These numbers should sound familiar, these are the Walmart numbers. Walmart's CEO got paid $10 mil last year and they planned to close 200+ stores with 2000 jobs as well. If a CEO can't start with themselves, maybe they aren't cut out for the job.
So now the goal of businesses is to hold up failing business strategies because people have jobs there.
Nope, someone creating a thread about CEO salaries that are statistical outliers would not start out with this:
The terminology used "average CEO salary" is clearly meant to (mis)represent all CEOs.
Depends on the average. Mean, Median and Mode are all forms of averages. The most commonly used and interchangeable is mean but any of those three can be an average.
They didn't just close 200+ high performing stores, they closed about 40 low performing stores and closed a failed business strategy.
Maybe they could have closed the bad business strategy stores and wait and see what happened otherwise. Just because 40 stores are low performing don't mean to choose them. Sometimes you got to try finding out the why. The problem is the CEO is getting paid to fire people.
Maybe they could have closed the bad business strategy stores and wait and see what happened otherwise. Just because 40 stores are low performing don't mean to choose them. Sometimes you got to try finding out the why. The problem is the CEO is getting paid to fire people.
So now you think the CEO of an international business that has CEOs in many different segments, including Walmart US is the one that makes the decisions on closing specific stores? If that's the case enterprise CEOS do even more than I thought they did. So not only does he have to run an entire international enterprise, but he also has to make individual decisions for the executives within those businesses....when does he sleep? Not to mention every single person was given 120 days of pay after the store closed and offered a job at a neighboring store...and the Express Formats were like Dollar General stores so they were probably employing 35-40 people each tops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Depends on the average. Mean, Median and Mode are all forms of averages. The most commonly used and interchangeable is mean but any of those three can be an average.
No they are not. They are all measures of central tendency. The only form of average is mean.
They're not paying enough. Period. The position millennials are in is largely due to the gluttony of the top. A "let them eat cake" attitude. I wonder how long the younger generation will take it.
This is 100% true and if anyone disputes it, I think they are really living under a rock. It is sickening how much the CEO's and their buddies are making. Heck, there isn't even anything left for the stockholders! It is all about the CEO's and their egos sucking every dime for themselves. Nothing anyone can do about it though, so go buy yourself a coke and some Cheetos so long as you can afford that still.
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.
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.
If a CEO can't start with themselves, maybe they aren't cut out for the job.
