American Cultural Revolution

[Deleted member 2897]

Also, this debate still centers around taxes and money. That's it. My taxes can go up a lot and I'll still come out ahead since I'll save on insurance and deductibles. What about that freedom for myself and my employer? That's a boon to small businesses everywhere who don't have to be saddled with providing healthcare. I'm tired of the right pretending to have a monopoly on "liberty and freedom" when it's just corporate marketing for lower taxes.

There is a math problem here. If your company doesn’t have to pay for your health insurance anymore, you don’t think they’re going to give you a raise? They’re just going to keep your money for themselves? Then who pays for single payer? Most companies pay well over half the healthcare costs. Now you’re saddled with them and the tax increases too? Huh?

Furthermore, Medicare BY FAR is the worst run government program anywhere. BY FAR. It is single handedly the largest driver of our long term debt. And we’re going to double down on that? Um, no thank you.

 

[LibertyTurns]

It's interesting that you can't seem to honestly calculate the taxes a family of 4 would pay on $61k income. It'd be closer to 8% effective tax rate on income than 80%.

Who is bearing the burden of the tax? Someone has to be paying it. The revenue is not materializing out of thin air. Are you alledging the rich are actually paying a massive amount of tax already then because it’s not really the little guy that’s bearing the burden of a highly oppressive tax system?

 

[Lotta Booze]

There is a math problem here. If your company doesn’t have to pay for your health insurance anymore, you don’t think they’re going to give you a raise? They’re just going to keep your money for themselves? Then who pays for single payer? Most companies pay well over half the healthcare costs. Now you’re saddled with them and the tax increases too? Huh?

Furthermore, Medicare BY FAR is the worst run government program anywhere. BY FAR. It is single handedly the largest driver of our long term debt. And we’re going to double down on that? Um, no thank you.

Well I expect the raise I get every year, i don't see that changing.

It will depend on which plan gets instituted. Whether it's Bernie's Medicare for all, or having a public option, or whatever other plans are out there and their structure to pay for it. You've mentioned the 70% rate on the highest tax bracket, Warren proposes a wealth tax, with a buy in then those buying in would pay premiums. Rates could go up for individuals and corporations. Those details are dependent on elections and would need to get ironed out. My point is raising taxes on myself and my company would likely come out to be less than the premiums I currently pay. And currently I pay a good chunk of money to an insurance company every month all for them to not cover anything until I hit my deductible. The biggest benefit I get is hopefully it saves me from a life shattering amount of debt if I get into an accident or fall ill. Hopefully

The Mercatus Center, with a Koch on the board, produced a study about the Medicare for all plan and it is a lot of large numbers but it's 2 trillion dollars less over the next decade than what we are currently on track to spend. Savings are found in prescription drugs and administration costs.

 

[Lotta Booze]

Who is bearing the burden of the tax? Someone has to be paying it. The revenue is not materializing out of thin air. Are you alledging the rich are actually paying a massive amount of tax already then because it’s not really the little guy that’s bearing the burden of a highly oppressive tax system?

I am alleging that we have a progressive tax system and nobody is paying 80% taxes

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Well I expect the raise I get every year, i don't see that changing.

It will depend on which plan gets instituted. Whether it's Bernie's Medicare for all, or having a public option, or whatever other plans are out there and their structure to pay for it. You've mentioned the 70% rate on the highest tax bracket, Warren proposes a wealth tax, with a buy in then those buying in would pay premiums. Rates could go up for individuals and corporations. Those details are dependent on elections and would need to get ironed out. My point is raising taxes on myself and my company would likely come out to be less than the premiums I currently pay. And currently I pay a good chunk of money to an insurance company every month all for them to not cover anything until I hit my deductible. The biggest benefit I get is hopefully it saves me from a life shattering amount of debt if I get into an accident or fall ill. Hopefully

The Mercatus Center, with a Koch on the board, produced a study about the Medicare for all plan and it is a lot of large numbers but it's 2 trillion dollars less over the next decade than what we are currently on track to spend. Savings are found in prescription drugs and administration costs.

I mean, I appreciate that you want everyone to have health insurance and in a way that will be as efficient as possible. But any study that says Medicare for all will be even reasonably cost efficient is hocus pocus. Just look at the current system - its an absolute disaster. Taking a system thats an absolute disaster, and then extrapolating through some sort of model that it will somehow then be the model for the world is unserious. And of course we haven't even gotten to the point about who is setting the healthcare rules - its the government and not the individual. And of course of course we haven't even gotten to the point that its unconstitutional. - the government in our country has no charter to run our healthcare or anything else. The people who want to live in a socialist country should just go move to a socialist country. But they don't and won't. There are reasons why net migration per capita is higher to the United States from those socialist democracies than the other way around.

Also, wealth taxes are evil. You pay taxes when you earn the income. Then you pay taxes when your savings grow. And you pay taxes on the property you buy. Then you have to also pay taxes just on the principle savings balance? Think about that for a minute, whether its a 2% tax or a 1% tax or whatever. Do the math on what happens to your savings over a period of 20 years. Evil.

 

[Lotta Booze]

I mean, I appreciate that you want everyone to have health insurance and in a way that will be as efficient as possible. But any study that says Medicare for all will be even reasonably cost efficient is hocus pocus. Just look at the current system - its an absolute disaster. Taking a system thats an absolute disaster, and then extrapolating through some sort of model that it will somehow then be the model for the world is unserious. And of course we haven't even gotten to the point about who is setting the healthcare rules - its the government and not the individual. And of course of course we haven't even gotten to the point that its unconstitutional. - the government in our country has no charter to run our healthcare or anything else. The people who want to live in a socialist country should just go move to a socialist country. But they don't and won't. There are reasons why net migration per capita is higher to the United States from those socialist democracies than the other way around.

Also, wealth taxes are evil. You pay taxes when you earn the income. Then you pay taxes when your savings grow. And you pay taxes on the property you buy. Then you have to also pay taxes just on the principle savings balance? Think about that for a minute, whether its a 2% tax or a 1% tax or whatever. Do the math on what happens to your savings over a period of 20 years. Evil.

Yes the current system is such a mess that Medicare for all could likely cover more people and still be more cost efficient.

Do you really think the individual is setting the healthcare rules now? Not giant insurance corporations who have a profit incentive and duty to their share holders to deny coverage at any chance they get?

And how is it unconstitutional? I've asked for how is it "oppressive to liberty" and all I've gotten back is... taxes. Are our public schools throughout the country unconstitutional? The constitution doesn't grant the government the charter to build highways throughout the country or go to the moon. Are those unconstitutional as well? I'd hate to tell Buzz Aldrin that.

And back to the discourse heart of this thread, if you don't think it's cost effective and think there are better solutions out there that's fine. But I don't find chalking it all up to oppressive socialism and anti- freedom to be furthering the discussion or trying to solve the problem. Which as you described is a disaster currently

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Yes the current system is such a mess that Medicare for all could likely cover more people and still be more cost efficient.

Do you really think the individual is setting the healthcare rules now? Not giant insurance corporations who have a profit incentive and duty to their share holders to deny coverage at any chance they get?

And how is it unconstitutional? I've asked for how is it "oppressive to liberty" and all I've gotten back is... taxes. Are our public schools throughout the country unconstitutional? The constitution doesn't grant the government the charter to build highways throughout the country or go to the moon. Are those unconstitutional as well? I'd hate to tell Buzz Aldrin that.

And back to the discourse heart of this thread, if you don't think it's cost effective and think there are better solutions out there that's fine. But I don't find chalking it all up to oppressive socialism and anti- freedom to be furthering the discussion or trying to solve the problem. Which as you described is a disaster currently

Simply put, yes a lot of what the government does is unconstitutional. A lot of people have an assumption that if the government didn’t do it, that it wouldn’t exist or wouldn’t get done another way. That is a false assumption.

How was it unconstitutional – it’s not in the constitution. How are these things oppressive to liberty? By confiscating large percentages of your personal property and limiting the choices you are able to make.

I just also don’t understand why people think that Medicare for all would be more cost efficient. It is the single worst run government program by a country mile. It is awful from a financial perspective.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Yes the current system is such a mess that Medicare for all could likely cover more people and still be more cost efficient

Read this statement you just made...then reread it again. If you still believe it after doing so please explain how it likely could without first fixing the system that is such a mess.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Simply put, yes a lot of what the government does is unconstitutional. A lot of people have an assumption that if the government didn’t do it, that it wouldn’t exist or wouldn’t get done another way. That is a false assumption.

How was it unconstitutional – it’s not in the constitution. How are these things oppressive to liberty? By confiscating large percentages of your personal property and limiting the choices you are able to make.

I just also don’t understand why people think that Medicare for all would be more cost efficient. It is the single worst run government program by a country mile. It is awful from a financial perspective.

Have to disagree a bit with your constitutional philosophy here. The Constitution gives us the blueprint for our government and restricts the government expressly. Where there is no expressed restraint on the government the government is free to frame laws as our lawmakers see fit.

Now if you want to get into how SCOTUS has raped states rights through their ruling on the interstate commerce clause....that is imo the single largest constitutional violation involving our government and has been for a very long time. And yes...unless and until SCOTUS reverses itself...it’s technically constitutional.

End of sidetrack bloviating.

 

[grandpa jacket]

Yes the current system is such a mess that Medicare for all could likely cover more people and still be more cost efficient.

Do you really think the individual is setting the healthcare rules now? Not giant insurance corporations who have a profit incentive and duty to their share holders to deny coverage at any chance they get?

And how is it unconstitutional? I've asked for how is it "oppressive to liberty" and all I've gotten back is... taxes. Are our public schools throughout the country unconstitutional? The constitution doesn't grant the government the charter to build highways throughout the country or go to the moon. Are those unconstitutional as well? I'd hate to tell Buzz Aldrin that.

And back to the discourse heart of this thread, if you don't think it's cost effective and think there are better solutions out there that's fine. But I don't find chalking it all up to oppressive socialism and anti- freedom to be furthering the discussion or trying to solve the problem. Which as you described is a disaster currently

Medicare for all is the best solution to our health crisis, as far as it being such a bad program see what happens if you try to take it away. An uprising

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Medicare for all is the best solution to our health crisis, as far as it being such a bad program see what happens if you try to take it away. An uprising

I guess that is what the 2nd amendment is for gramps.

Would you care to examine the primary cons of the Medicare for all plan and explain how those problems will be overcome or resolved to make the plan viable?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Medicare for all is the best solution to our health crisis, as far as it being such a bad program see what happens if you try to take it away. An uprising

I think you may have missed the point. Nobody was arguing about the level of satisfaction that customers have with Medicare. We are discussing the financial insolvency of that program. From a financial perspective, it is the single worst run program in the entire federal government, and it’s not even close. Even far left political economist like Paul Krugman will tell you that. If for every one dollar I put into a program I would get four dollars back out, I would most likely like that program as well from a personal greed standpoint. But that is a Ponzi scheme and unsustainable

 

[MWBATL]

Since we are in a thread championing discourse, question: Is this referencing single payer healthcare? That seems to be the common thread between candidates you're alluding to that would be deemed socialist by some. If so, how is that limiting freedom and the antithesis off the principles of the country?

I don't know about others, but for me, too many progressive politicians seem to be outright racists. Going along with this are things like the elimination of religious freedom and religious tolerance towards Christians. Many aspects such as racial quotas and reparations for slavery strike me as terrible invasions of personal freedoms and violations of our Constitutionally protected guarantees against persecution. The very idea of "protected classes" of people within our society is anathema to a color-blind society. Our society has a poor track record ion that area....but it is what we should all aspire too, and much of the progressive movement seems intent on righting discrimination with more discrimination, this time against the "oppressive white male patriarchy" (which I believe is BS).

The single payer thing is a bogey man that is used to scare us conservatives. At its extreme it takes away all our individual choices. ObamaCare caused me to lose my plan, and some of my doctors. It cost me a ton of money, as my wife was suddenly covered for pregnancy even at her advanced age.

You said something earlier that I completely agree with. In my life, I don't know anyone who is as extreme as the politicians are. Yet, if these politicians get elected, they will go ahead and do some of this stupid stuff.

 

[MWBATL]

Anyone who uses MediCare as a positive example of single payer needs to explain why the VA isn't a better example of the reality of single payer.

 

[Lotta Booze]

Simply put, yes a lot of what the government does is unconstitutional. A lot of people have an assumption that if the government didn’t do it, that it wouldn’t exist or wouldn’t get done another way. That is a false assumption.

How was it unconstitutional – it’s not in the constitution. How are these things oppressive to liberty? By confiscating large percentages of your personal property and limiting the choices you are able to make.

I just also don’t understand why people think that Medicare for all would be more cost efficient. It is the single worst run government program by a country mile. It is awful from a financial perspective.

Right in the beginning of the constitution it states the role of this more perfect union is to promote general welfare. Seems like it is in the constitution.

 

[MWBATL]

Right in the beginning of the constitution it states the role of this more perfect union is to promote general welfare. Seems like it is in the constitution.

It also states that anything not specifically granted to the Federal government is reserved to the states.

This is conveniently ignored.

 

[Lotta Booze]

I think you may have missed the point. Nobody was arguing about the level of satisfaction that customers have with Medicare. We are discussing the financial insolvency of that program. From a financial perspective, it is the single worst run program in the entire federal government, and it’s not even close. Even far left political economist like Paul Krugman will tell you that. If for every one dollar I put into a program I would get four dollars back out, I would most likely like that program as well from a personal greed standpoint. But that is a Ponzi scheme and unsustainable

Are you talking about this Paul Krugman?

"Single payer has always been economically feasible!" he wrote. "Lots of countries do it; we do it for everyone 65 and older. It’s really quite weird that we talk as if single-payer would be a huge, radical departure from American practice when so many people are on Medicare and Medicaid."

He continued: "In fact, the government pays a significantly higher share of health bills than private insurers do, even in America. If we went to government provision of all insurance, we’d pay more in taxes but less in premiums, and the overall burden of health spending would probably fall, because single-payer systems tend to be cheaper than market-based."

Doesn't seem to be making the argument you are.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw2tnqTuMbxliDfwRceujo_b&ust=1554906257712712

 

[LibertyTurns]

It also states that anything not specifically granted to the Federal government is reserved to the states.

This is conveniently ignored.

@Lotta Juice just cited the key phrase that allows those advocating a Liberal interpretation of the Constitution to spend with reckless abandon.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I am alleging that we have a progressive tax system and nobody is paying 80% taxes

We have a progressive tax system only if you consider Federal and State income taxes. If you look at taxation in its totality, we have an extraordinarily regressive tax system.

Who do you think bears the burden of the vast majority of taxes? It appears you think the poor have it pretty good so is it the middle class that’s getting hammered or are we really milking the rich ?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Are you talking about this Paul Krugman?

"Single payer has always been economically feasible!" he wrote. "Lots of countries do it; we do it for everyone 65 and older. It’s really quite weird that we talk as if single-payer would be a huge, radical departure from American practice when so many people are on Medicare and Medicaid."

He continued: "In fact, the government pays a significantly higher share of health bills than private insurers do, even in America. If we went to government provision of all insurance, we’d pay more in taxes but less in premiums, and the overall burden of health spending would probably fall, because single-payer systems tend to be cheaper than market-based."

Doesn't seem to be making the argument you are.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwit2q6qm8PhAhUKUa0KHankDV8QzPwBCAM&url=https://www.alternet.org/2018/11/paul-krugman-explains-why-single-payer-health-care-entirely-achievable-us-and-how/&psig=AOvVaw2tnqTuMbxliDfwRceujo_b&ust=1554906257712712

I told you he was a progressive economist. Yes that’s him. I never said he was against it or didn’t like single payer - he loves it. I was referring to the fact that financially you’re going to have to get to where even the middle class pays 60%+ tax rates like they do in Scandinavia. He will tell you Medicare is by far the largest long term contributor to our out of control debt. It is an absolute financial disaster.