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.
Clearly the whole amount is not "additional" if the expense is moved from States to Federal.
Yes, indeed it is, and the explanation is clearly given:
Quote:
"The increase in federal spending is so large because the federal government would absorb a substantial amount of current spending by state and local governments, employers, and households."
State and local governments DO NOT get federal funding to pay for their employees'/retirees' health insurance. Neither do employers or small business owners, self-employed, etc., who purchase their own health insurance.
How would you propose keeping all the other fly maggots away from that honeypot of cash? I can hear the buzz now as they chase after each maggot's special interest program to be funded from the extra cash that magically appears?
What "extra cash?" The revenue generated from a 25% VAT tax on all consumer goods/services is the amount that's needed to fund a Bernie Sanders-style Medicare for All system, which is what Kamala Harris is endorsing. Restrict that revenue to fund only Medicare for All, and if costs of such decline, lower the VAT tax rate.
Yes, indeed it is, and the explanation is clearly given:
State and local governments DO NOT get federal funding to pay for their employees' health insurance. Neither do employers or small business owners, self-employed, etc., who purchase their own health insurance.
Obviously it is not additional. I already explained why, so I won't bother again.
Obviously it is not additional. I already explained why, so I won't bother again.
Yes, it is. And both the (left-wing think tank) Urban Institute and I explained why that is. Piling costs onto the federal government results in additional federal spending.
What "extra cash?" The revenue generated from a 25% VAT tax on all consumer goods/services is the amount that's needed to fund a Bernie Sanders-style Medicare for All system, which is what Kamala Harris is endorsing. Restrict that revenue to fund only Medicare for All, and if costs of such decline, lower the VAT tax rate.
You obviously have not given any thought to the inevitable expansion of Federal powers and taxation. Instituting VAT in the USA for healthcare would lead to funding other programs with "just a little boost to the VAT for (your favorite boondoggle here)"
By "maggots" I meant "Congress critters", in case you misunderstood.
Yes, it is. And both the (left-wing think tank) Urban Institute and I explained why that is. Piling costs onto the federal government results in additional federal spending.
I explained why you are wrong, and either you didn't read it, or didn't get it. Can't blame me for not trying.
I don't care if I pay $100 to the State, or to the Fed, because the amount it the same, not additional. You can talk about that being "additional federal cost", and someone can claim it as a "reduction in state spending", and both are equally dishonest not telling the whole picture.
You obviously have not given any thought to the inevitable expansion of Federal powers and taxation.
I have. That's why I'm saying Americans would have to be on board with paying a 25% VAT tax like many European/Scandinavian countries have, to adequately fund Sanders'/Harris' Medicare for All proposal.
Quote:
Instituting VAT in the USA for healthcare would lead to funding other programs with "just a little boost to the VAT for (your favorite boondoggle here)"
I explained why you are wrong, and either you didn't read it, or didn't get it. Can blame me for not trying.
I am not wrong. Neither is the Urban Institute. You just don't like the truth staring you in the face.
State and local governments DO NOT get federal funding to pay for their employees' health insurance. Neither do employers or small business owners, self-employed, etc., who purchase their own health insurance.
Medicare for All would increase federal spending on health care by $3.2 trillion/year. It would take a 25% VAT tax on all consumer spending on goods/services to fund it. If Americans are OK with paying that, we can have Medicare for All. /shrug
You know with her on it it's bound to be a disaster.
Indeed, just when everything is going so well.
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.
