Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

The Democrat's roster for a Trump - beater in 2020


swordfish

Recommended Posts

Bernie Sanders Thinks Medicare for All Could Cost $40 Trillionhttps://reason.com/2019/07/17/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-cost-40-trillion-obamacare-single-payer/

Quote

When thinking about the cost of health care legislation, it's helpful to put the numbers in context: The final cost estimates for Obamacare, which passed in 2010, came in around $940 billion over a decade, and the legislation was structured in a way designed to move some spending outside the 10-year budget window in order to keep the cost under $1 trillion, which was generally considered the threshold of political acceptability. Even amongst Democrats, a trillion-dollar health care plan was just too expensive. Former Vice President Joe Biden's recently announced plan to expand Obamacare comes in around $750 billion over a decade—which, at more than three-quarters the cost of the initial legislation, makes for a relatively pricey fix. 

In contrast, estimates from organizations across the ideological spectrum have pegged Bernie Sanders' single-payer health care plan, Medicare for All, at around $32 trillionover 10 years. The vast gap between the cost estimates reveals the dramatic difference in scale between the Obama/Biden health care plans and Sanders-style single-payer, and suggests how radical and expansive Democratic health care policy has become over the last decade.

And Sanders appears to think the cost could be even higher than those estimates. At a Washington Post forum, he said that he expects his plan would cost somewhere between $30 and $40 trillion. And then he defended the price tag on the grounds that it would actually be cheaper than the alternative of letting today's system, or something roughly like it, continue. 

"Somewhere between $30 and $40 trillion over a 10 year period," Sanders told the Post's Robert Costa. "What the most serious economists tell us, that if we do nothing to fundamentally change the healthcare system, which is what Joe [Biden] was talking about, keeping it as it is, we'll be spending something like $50 trillion over a 10 year period."

Single-payer supporters often make the argument that their plan, which would eliminate virtually all private insurance and rely on the government to finance the vast majority of health care services in the country, would cost less than maintaining the current mixed public-private system. 

There are several things worth keeping in mind about that claim. The first is that what they mean when they say single-payer would cost less is that total health care spending would be less overall; the cost to the government would be far, far higher than it is today, as all of the spending that now flows through private payers would move onto the government's books. 

And it's not at all clear that single-payer would actually result in reduced overall spending. The studies that have attempted to estimate the cost of Sanders' plan have typically accepted at face value the assumption, built into his proposal, that the new system would maintain today's Medicare rates for health care services. Those rates are, in many cases, substantially less than what private insurance pays. One estimate concluded that providers would face cuts up to 40 percent. Paying those rates everywhere would almost certainly cause substantial disruption to the provision of health care, especially at first. Some hospitals, especially facilities that serve the rural poor, would almost certainly shut down or drastically reduce their services. 

Which is why it is plausible, perhaps even likely, that those rates would not be sustained over time. And if Medicare's pay rates were increased, that would eat into or eliminate the supposed savings. Indeed, in Maryland, the one state to pay equalized rates for all hospital services, Medicare pays far, far more than it typically does elsewhere

Sanders, meanwhile, has already demonstrated that he is willing to spend more to keep hospitals afloat. He has complained about potential hospital closures he fears would reduce access for the poor, and yesterday he proposed a $20 billion bailout fund for struggling hospitals, many of which have a patient population that is heavily reliant on government payers like Medicare and Medicaid. Sanders wants to use government money to bail out hospitals that are struggling because they rely too heavily on government money. 

Sanders can't have it both ways. He is either advocating for a plan that would result in a dramatic curtailment of health care services, especially for the rural poor, or for a system that costs far more than the sky-high price tag to which he has now admitted.

I have an in-law who recently fell, and although not life threatening, seriously injured his leg.  He was taken by ambulance to a local hospital around noon on a Friday,  was admitted,  then had surgery that same evening to repair the damage. He was released from the hospital the next day.   I'm sorry, I just don't see this timeliness and quality of care happening under a government health care system.   Under such a system he possibly would have had to wait to have surgery the following morning,  or because it was the weekend,  as long as Monday morning.

 

  • Disdain 1
  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2019 at 11:24 AM, Muda69 said:

Bernie Sanders Thinks Medicare for All Could Cost $40 Trillionhttps://reason.com/2019/07/17/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-cost-40-trillion-obamacare-single-payer/

I have an in-law who recently fell, and although not life threatening, seriously injured his leg.  He was taken by ambulance to a local hospital around noon on a Friday,  was admitted,  then had surgery that same evening to repair the damage. He was released from the hospital the next day.   I'm sorry, I just don't see this timeliness and quality of care happening under a government health care system.   Under such a system he possibly would have had to wait to have surgery the following morning,  or because it was the weekend,  as long as Monday morning.

 

Maybe you are just too blind by your own ideology to see things.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

Maybe you are just too blind by your own ideology to see things.

And exactly what ideology is that, Dante?  Is $40 trillion taxpayer dollars acceptable to you?  Are you willing to have your federal income taxes doubled, maybe tripled, to pay for it all?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sanders Campaign Workers Demand $15 Hourly Wage: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/sanders-campaign-workers-demand-15-hourly-wage/

Quote

Unionized campaign staffers working for Senator Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) are engaged in a dispute with management over the candidate’s alleged failure to live up to his socialist ideals.

The field organizers have for months demanded an annual salary equivalent to a $15 hourly wage but have been met with resistance from campaign manager Faiz Shakir, according to documents reviewed by the Washington Post.

The workers began demanding a raise in May, arguing that Sanders, who has made a $15 federal minimum wage a centerpiece of his campaign, should honor that commitment in compensating his own staff.

The Sanders campaign, which is one of just three Democratic presidential campaigns to unionize, released a statement last week celebrating the move.2

“We know our campaign offers wages and benefits competitive with other campaigns, as is shown by the latest fundraising reports,” Shakir said. “Every member of the campaign, from the candidate on down, joined this movement in order to defeat Donald Trump and transform America. Bernie Sanders is the most pro-worker and pro-labor candidate running for president. We have tremendous staff who are working hard. Bernie and I both strongly believe in the sanctity of the collective bargaining process and we will not deviate from our commitment to it.”

United Food & Commercial Workers Local 400, the union representing the campaign workers, would not comment on the specifics of their negotiations in a statement provided to the Post.

In a draft letter they plan to send to Shakir, the field staff argues that they “cannot be expected to build the largest grassroots organizing program in American history while making poverty wages. Given our campaign’s commitment to fighting for a living wage of at least $15.00 an hour, we believe it is only fair that the campaign would carry through this commitment to its own field team.”

The workers have also demanded that the campaign pay 100 percent f healthcare costs for workers making less than $60,000 annually have requested reimbursement for automobile transport at $0.58 per mile.

Will Mr. Sanders put his campaign money where his mouth is?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

Pre-existing conditions, age, obesity, etc...

So you believe individuals who are in poor health primarily due to their own bad decisions (overeating,  smoking, etc.) should able to get health insurance at the exact same rates as individuals who have been diligent in keeping themselves fit and healthy?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

Pre-existing conditions, age, obesity, etc...

I'm calling BS, I don't care if you took a weekend class on insurance at a Holiday Inn or not. We had employees in a heck of a lot worse shape than me that were able to get on our group plan prior to ACA. Cancer survivors, heart issues, overweight, etc. I just met with my financial guy last week, doing some end of working life stuff. I got some pretty attractive rates on life insurance packages. It's obviously not as bleak as you would have us believe. 

I may be fat, got some hardware in my body, and old. But I'm still good looking, have my hair, and chicks still dig me.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Well since myself and my employer(s) have been contributing since I was 14-15 years old....yea I’m fine with it.

You never contribute as much as you receive; particularly a bloated cripple like you. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

You never contribute as much as you receive; particularly a bloated cripple like you. 

But as a socialist you are ok with that, aren't you Dante?  After all the "rich" can pay for everybody's health care.

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why Elizabeth Warren's Wealth Tax Won't Work: https://reason.com/video/why-elizabeth-warrens-wealth-tax-wont-work/

Quote

Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren wants the federal government to provide free health care for every American, child care for every parent, college for every student who wants it, and housing for low-income families. And she wants to pay for it all with a new tax on the richest of the rich. She calls it the "ultra-millionaire tax."

Skimming a bit more off the top of the bank accounts of the ultra-wealthy might sound like a good deal for working- and middle-class Americans. But the reality is that wealth taxes have been tried before, and they haven't worked the way Warren promises. 

Warren wants to levy a 2 percent annual wealth tax on all households with a net worth of over $50 million and a 3 percent annual tax on those households with a net worth of more than $1 billion. Unlike an income tax or a sales tax, both of which tax money when it moves around, a wealth tax draws on the same pot of money every year, making the pile smaller and smaller over time. It's essentially a tax on large savings—the money that investors and entrepreneurs rely on to start new businesses. 

Unlike Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.), Warren has never said that the very existence of billionaires is immoral, but her plan to tax 2 to 3 percent of their wealth on an annual basis is clearly motivated, at least in part, by a desire to reduce their wealth and what she perceives as a power imbalance in our society. The economists who helped Warren design her plan have said that the idea is to make rich people less wealthy: "If very rich people have to pay a percentage of their wealth in taxes each year, it makes it harder for them to maintain their wealth." Analyzing her plan, they wrote that one of its "key motivations" is "to curb the growing concentration of wealth."

So this isn't really about raising tax revenue. It's about using government power to make sure rich people have lessStill, Warren often pitches her plan as a way to raise money to pay for more government entitlements. And on that count, it's likely to fall short. 

Warren says her tax plan will raise $2.75 trillion over a 10-year period. But other countries have tried wealth taxes and found that they raise far less money than expected.

In 1990, there were 12 OECD nations with wealth taxes similar to Warren's. Today, only four remainThough politicians like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) praise Denmark and Sweden as paragons of democratic socialism that the U.S. should emulate, both nixed their wealth taxes in the '90s because too many rich citizens were just pulling their money out of the country. This capital flight resulted in lower rates of entrepreneurship and relative economic stagnation. 

Not only did the wealth tax hurt the economy, but it didn't even raise the money it was supposed to. When Sweden eliminated its wealth tax, it had virtually no effect on government finances, according to the Financial Times.

France tried a wealth tax for more than a decade, starting in 2000. That helped push an estimated 42,000 millionaires out of the country. They didn't pay the tax—they just left.

Warren wants to get around the capital flight problem by taxing the money no matter where in the world it's located and imposing a 40 percent exit tax on anyone in this category who wants to renounce his or her citizenship.

This part of the plan relies on hiring more IRS agents, partly to deal with the complexity of evaluating total individual wealth. But throwing more tax collectors at the problem isn't going to change the fact that the wealthy are very good at protecting their money by offshoring it or putting into unique, hard-to-value assets like artwork. Austria is another country that used to have a wealth tax. One reason it dropped the tax was because the cost of enforcement was so high.

Given its failure in other countries, and her outlandish and vague proposals for addressing those failures, there is no compelling evidence that Warren's "ultra-millionaire tax" will raise the revenue she claims.

The wealth tax is best understood not as a targeted revenue raiser, but as a symbolic declaration of opposition to the existence of outsized wealth, regardless of how it was obtained. Warren has described her tax as a tool for addressing inequality, but it's really just a presidential candidate's way of saying, "I oppose the existence of very rich people." She could have just said it.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DanteEstonia said:

You never contribute as much as you receive; particularly a bloated cripple like you. 

Funny stuff DE. Do you think I’m in a wheel chair because of a hip replacement? Riding a scooter around WalMart sampling all the free food because of a back injury? I don’t think I’d have any problem keeping up with you. I can assure you one thing, I’ve contributed more than you ever will, and I’ll damn sure end up receiving less.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

 I can assure you one thing, I’ve contributed more than you ever will, and I’ll damn sure end up receiving less.

 

Which is exactly what a liberal socialist like Dante wants.  He needs to enjoy the fruits of your labor, not his.

 

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Which is exactly what a liberal socialist like Dante wants.  He needs to enjoy the fruits of your labor, not his.

 

 

As opposed to a libertarian, who enjoys the fruits of your labor, but complains about it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Funny stuff DE. Do you think I’m in a wheel chair because of a hip replacement? Riding a scooter around WalMart sampling all the free food because of a back injury? I don’t think I’d have any problem keeping up with you. I can assure you one thing, I’ve contributed more than you ever will, and I’ll damn sure end up receiving less.

 

You never addressed my point- you will be receiving way more from FICA than what you paid in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

You never addressed my point- you will be receiving way more from FICA than what you paid in.

Once again Nostradamus how do you know? If I were to believe any of the drivel you post I would expect to fall over dead any minute. How much have I paid into FICA? How much have my employers paid in on my behalf? 

To be honest, most of the crap you post doesn’t warrant addressing. I merely do it for entertainment value, mine as well as others. This might come as a surprise to you, but you would probably be shocked to know the amount of humorous text that are sent laughing at the crap you post. Keep em coming Scooter, some of this stuff is gold.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Once again Nostradamus how do you know? If I were to believe any of the drivel you post I would expect to fall over dead any minute. How much have I paid into FICA? How much have my employers paid in on my behalf? 

To be honest, most of the crap you post doesn’t warrant addressing. I merely do it for entertainment value, mine as well as others. This might come as a surprise to you, but you would probably be shocked to know the amount of humorous text that are sent laughing at the crap you post. Keep em coming Scooter, some of this stuff is gold.

Will do, invalid. 

You reap what you sow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gonzoron said:

As opposed to a libertarian, who enjoys the fruits of your labor, but complains about it anyway.

Yet more proof you don't really know what libertarianism is.  But continue with your ignorance my socialist friend,  it is quite humorous.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...