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.
As if local/state governments and employers wouldn't find some way to make up for that? Spend on and/or deduct for something else, for example? Many local and state governments are already in financial trouble. They're not going to give money to the Fed Gov for health care just because you want them to. Were you born yesterday?
OK so now we get to the heart of your "analysis". Your numbers work if you simply fabricate in $2.5 trillion of additional State, local and employer spending and then claim that no savings are realized on the State/employer/individual side. Kind of like arguing that a pizza costs $1,000 if you add $980 of phantom surcharges on top, no?
Of course, that premise is not only intellectually dishonest, it is undercut by the very article you cite, which states as follows:
Quote:
Private health care spending by households and employers would drop as the federal government would absorb their spending under current law. Private sector expenditures for these groups would decrease by $1.7 trillion in 2017 and by $21.9 trillion between 2017 and 2026.
Quote:
We estimate that current state and local spending will be $319.8 billion in 2017 and $4.1 trillion between 2017 and 2026 . . .this would be absorbed by the federal government
Quote:
If existing costs were federalized, spending by state and local governments would be eliminated (a decrease in spending of $188.5 billion), as would spending by employers ($749.8 billion), households ($490.3 billion), and providers ($17.6 billion in in-kind contributions; table 3). Thus, although federal spending on nonelderly acute care would increase by $1.9 trillion in 2017 under the Sanders plan, the savings for other payers would be considerable and would partially offset the financial burden of new taxes required to pay for the reform.
So what you are peddling here is not only a blatant economic lie, it is refuted by the very article on which you rely. Get out of here with your nonsense.
Poor Pretty Kitty. Insurance companies are allowed now to compete in open markets. Why don't they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould
Rates were increasing every year before ACA. Individuals and small businesses were priced out of the market. Bankruptcies due to medical bills were on the rise.
Rate increases slowed down during ACA and then picked up recently as insurance companies factored in the likelihood of the subsidies disappearing.
Seems we're back where we started.
Rs own it now. So what's the plan?
They don't have one! We watched that just play out umpteen times even though they control both houses of government!
They can't do one damn thing except harm those that need healthcare - I hope Trump voters reap what they sow. It certainly harm people in WV - many of whom have insurance (Obamacare) for the first time in their lives.
I'm conflicted on this one. I do think something needs to be done to fix/improve/repeal/whatever-you-want-to-call-it ACA and congress was not trying hard enough to come up with a good framework. Now they have the pressure they need to HOPEFULLY get it done. OTOH, this is going to hurt real people until that happens... I hope some can weather what will be much higher rates or less options in the market until that happens.
OTOH, this is going to hurt real people until that happens... I hope some can weather what will be much higher rates or less options in the market until that happens.
Real people who have to pay for their Insurance have been hurt for the last 4 years.
There are so many bad things about this bad tax law to keep it around. It is collapsing on it's own and Dems are doing nothing.
Real people who have to pay for their Insurance have been hurt for the last 4 years.
There are so many bad things about this bad tax law to keep it around. It is collapsing on it's own and Dems are doing nothing.
The thing is though... it's going to hurt a lot more than ACA, with this new action, until congress can fix it. So I'm just saying I hope people can weather that.
I'm conflicted on this one. I do think something needs to be done to fix/improve/repeal/whatever-you-want-to-call-it ACA and congress was not trying hard enough to come up with a good framework. Now they have the pressure they need to HOPEFULLY get it done. OTOH, this is going to hurt real people until that happens... I hope some can weather what will be much higher rates or less options in the market until that happens.
So far all the solutions, including the President's, result in harm to real people. What solutions are they even entertaining that will help?
Real people who have to pay for their Insurance have been hurt for the last 4 years.
There are so many bad things about this bad tax law to keep it around. It is collapsing on it's own and Dems are doing nothing.
It's not like Republicans are doing anything. And they've had plenty of time to come up with plans. ALL the plans hurt the people who are already hurting. Older people and people with pre-existing conditions. Why is it so hard for our President and for Congress to think about the people they are hurting?
Informed, you have yet to show PROOF of your 25% VAT requirement.
I did. The cost. I even showed the math, or is calculating percentages too hard for you?
Quote:
a 25% sales tax in the usa would generate at least 9 Trillion a year even if we use your numbers.
OK. We get it. Calculating percentages is way too hard for you.
Do you honestly believe US consumers spend at least $36 trillion/year? That's approximately $111,500 in annual consumer spending for each man, woman, and child in the US. Do you think that's realistic? US GDP is only about $18.5 trillion/year.
Annualized Total US Consumer Spending as of July 2017: $11.853 trillion. Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Your task: Do the math. What's 25% of $11.853 trillion?
You might need to ask a 5th grader for help.
Quote:
YOU ARE BUSTED Informed.
your numbers are fake and at no point have you provided any source for them other than yourself.
I've posted the sources for the numbers. From there, it's elementary school math to compute 25% of Total Annualized Consumer Spending.
All you've shown is that you don't know how to look up economic data, and you're really bad at math.
OK so now we get to the heart of your "analysis". Your numbers work if you simply fabricate in $2.5 trillion of additional State, local and employer spending and then claim that no savings are realized on the State/employer/individual side.
Exactly. There's no reason whatsoever to assume that there would be a zero sum spending shift for health insurance/care. Employers will spend that money on something else and still take a deduction, and local and state governments will use that money to prop up their severely underfunded public employee pension plans, pay off municipal bonds, and other things.
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.
