Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Oh look, Pad has been up all night engaging in a dishonest argument.
"if you disagree with me, then you are a Republican"
How surprising.
"if you disagree with me, then you are a Republican"
How surprising.
253 Economists in Support of S. 1129 a Medicare for All Health Care System
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
BurtMaklin
Well-Known Member
@abandonconflict
Just a couple questions:
Are you not a vet?
Do you not already get healthcare from the VA? If your answer is yes, you're being disingenuous in your argument because tax payers are already subsidizing your healthcare.
Is the healthcare you receive from your employer now only for when you are not in America, almost like out of country travel insurance? (100/month seems really cheap for full healthcare, dental, drugs, etc... I pay more per month just for dental, LTD and drugs from Blue Cross to whom my employer also pays an equal amount.)
What is the TOTAL cost of healthcare today with the VA, Obamacare (or whatever its called now), private insurance (including subsidies by employer), Medicaid, etc...? If you add all that up and subtract it from the projected cost of M4A (32.6T), would the number be negative? That number is estimated at 35T, so yes, it is cheaper for America, maybe not for you, but for America as a whole, it is.
M4A would negate the need for all of the above, streamlining costs and getting rid of acres of bureaucracy, ultimately making it cheaper for "America" as a whole. My personal belief is that you have been duped by propaganda from private insurers that are going to lose big if you enact M4A.
Just a couple questions:
Are you not a vet?
Do you not already get healthcare from the VA? If your answer is yes, you're being disingenuous in your argument because tax payers are already subsidizing your healthcare.
Is the healthcare you receive from your employer now only for when you are not in America, almost like out of country travel insurance? (100/month seems really cheap for full healthcare, dental, drugs, etc... I pay more per month just for dental, LTD and drugs from Blue Cross to whom my employer also pays an equal amount.)
What is the TOTAL cost of healthcare today with the VA, Obamacare (or whatever its called now), private insurance (including subsidies by employer), Medicaid, etc...? If you add all that up and subtract it from the projected cost of M4A (32.6T), would the number be negative? That number is estimated at 35T, so yes, it is cheaper for America, maybe not for you, but for America as a whole, it is.
M4A would negate the need for all of the above, streamlining costs and getting rid of acres of bureaucracy, ultimately making it cheaper for "America" as a whole. My personal belief is that you have been duped by propaganda from private insurers that are going to lose big if you enact M4A.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I’d have to pay $5,150 a year more
how about you, rank and file employee making $25k or so?
change your company's structure- you're paying too much, Bucky.
blu3bird
Well-Known Member
I'm really not trying to ba a dickhead, @schuylaar....but c'mon -
financial advice from someone that took a loan for school and didn't pay it back
LOL
According to Bernie, he's probably not paying enough. UncleBuck should have his bank account confiscated he has a job, therefore he can afford it, that's the idea of progressive taxation!
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Not all veterans receive service connected benefits. Earlier on, someone accused me of ad hominem because they could not address the arguments. He could not refute the conclusion that the bill he supports would lead to massive tax hikes for the middle class. He made distortions of my arguments and ignored large parts of them. I carefully deconstructed his every premise. I responded to every part of each of his arguments. I also insulted him, because I enjoy doing that when someone is a dumb ass, but it is not ad hominem.
What you just did, that was ad hominem. You just completely ignored the content of the arguments to ascribe hypocrisy to me, as if it would be pertinent even if I were on the dole, and as if the arguments have any less merit for the logic they convey whether they applied to me or just everyone paying taxes. Yes, I'm a veteran. Yes, I still pay for my own insurance, aside from what is provided by PADI for myself and my diving clients.
Did you have some idea as to how to come up with the trillion and a half dollars Bernie needs in order to take my private insurance away?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Who is being duped? His bill includes funding for half of the lower end estimate of the cost of his plan. it would add to the deficit between 1.4 trillion and 1.7 trillion dollars while removing up to a million jobs, handing doctors a pay cut and taking away choice, while he goes around swearing that it's not going to lead to massive middle class tax hikes.
That is peak dupery. That is golden propaganda. You're being duped.
Instead of being so dishonest, if his idea is so great, he should just say that there will be very significant tax hikes and let people decide. Do you think he'd still be a front runner in this primary if he did that?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No, we're talking about ALL. If you have now decided that you prefer medicare for all who want it, then we're in agreement.
But you are..whenever you have to start a comment with disclaimer its projection.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Medicare as it is today pays the going market rate, in some cases a little less which is why many doctors opt out and won't take Medicare patients. If we use other countries as an example of how to control costs, single payer systems give negotiating leverage to the government instead of what we now have, which gives negotiating leverage to pharma, health care providers and the so-called insurance companies that administer plans. The cost per person is higher in this country, with worse outcomes, than in those single payer systems.
Regarding the benchmark cost of 32 trillion over ten years that you cite (re: Mercatus study), they clearly state it is a working paper and so it is not a firm estimate. In a report released in May of last year, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) skirted the issue by not arriving at an estimate for any one plan because as the plan shows, "it depends". Also, nobody has said who will pay for it although the payment policies both Warren and Bernie are running on is a progressive payment system rather than the regressive one we now have.
So, where does this doubling of the cost you complain about come from? How firm is that number? From what I can tell, it is not firm at all. Where does your complaint of higher taxes come from? From what I can tell, it is not substantiated anywhere and sounds more like FUD.
I'm not picking a fight with you, I'm challenging your assumptions. The choice to be made in the Democratic primary is, who do you believe is likely to be the best leader, not which plan and how much it will cost. There are philosophical differences as well. Some people believe that private systems are the most efficient while government is just a bloated monster. Looking at the status of today's US healthcare system and comparing results in other countries, the evidence says the opposite.
Pad, the more you post the more ignorant and stupid you show yourself to be.
Last edited:
BurtMaklin
Well-Known Member
No, I didn't ignore the content of your posts, I questioned it, and asking questions to try to understand why you're so angry is not "ad hominem". I understand what you're saying, the context, the math you are putting forward... all of it. I, and 253 economists, think you're wrong, and just because you say something more than once doesn't make it true, so Trumpspin someone else.
There are lots ways to pay for it, and taxing the already overburdened, middle class is not an answer I would accept. I think it far more prudent to tack on a fee for every stock traded/bought/sold, a luxury item consumption tax, and a corporate tax set to the same percentage they subsidize private healthcare now and make it subject to inflation. You're already, as a country, paying more for what you have now, I'm not sure what your argument is.
Today's youth has much more cost prohibitive barriers to education and healthcare than any other generation, and on top of that they have to pay for the boomers and their wasteful spending, environmental terrorism and the unprecedented corruption that is their legacy. Maybe they see the world differently than our old asses. It always makes me laugh when people yammer on about people getting "free shit", because, as a society, the previous generations that controlled the government haven't paid for a fucking thing and are handing their children a huge financial stone around their necks.
I pay more than 40% of my salary to fund my government and it's social programs, and I'm fine with that. That doesn't even include my municipal taxes or my dental or drug coverage, so another $3500/year on top of consumption, federal and provincial taxes, and I'd gladly pay more for something useful to the majority of Canadians. I'll pay whatever the cost to ensure my daughter has a future, and smile all the way to my grave.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Explain how to get out of paying fica taxes when self employed, orw
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I have maintained from the start that costs would come down. My problem is with taxes. If you have some info on other cost estimates, I would like to know about them. As it is with the private market, I can find low cost coverage that is sufficient for me. I never said anything about a doubling of cost. I have rejected the Mercatus study and tentatively accepted the lowest estimates of 32.6 trillion as the cost of Bernie's plan, which is full comprehensive coverage for everyone, with all the boxes ticked and all options in.
If you don't see where the taxes are coming from, you're honestly not paying attention. Taxing the rich completely to hell only covers half of the cost. 32.6 trillion dollars is a truly staggering number. You can average it to 3.26 per year but it actually starts higher and goes lower as costs come down, that's why it's a ten year cost. That's why it would add 1.4-1.7 trillion dollars to the deficit.
The federal budget would either have to stay in a nearly 3 trillion dollar deficit or increase revenue, but the rich are already taxed so hard.
Look at the fiscal 2019 numbers again:
Expenditures = 4.4 trillion
Revenue = 3.4 trillion
Deficit almost a trillion.
Now, the deficit is even higher, those are numbers for fiscal 2019, not exactly current. If the bill were passed as is, it would add 1.4 - 1.7 trillion dollars to the deficit. Take your pick, deficit or taxes.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Those are great ideas. They are in bernie's bill. They cover about half of the cost.
I'll go over this again because you're obviously very slow and thick headed. And fucking dumb.
the federal budget for fiscal 2019 as an example:
Expenditures = 4.4 trillion
Revenue = 3.4 trillion
Deficit almost a trillion.
The deficit is higher now, it's about a trillion and a half thanks to Trump's tax cuts and lower estimated revenue.
The cost of Bernie's plan, if we accept the lowest estimates is 32.6 trillion for the first ten years.
He includes funding for about half of it by taxing the fuck out of the rich. If you can squeeze more out of them, do it.
Extrapolate 1.4 - 1.7 trillion added to the deficit if the bill passes as is, at this time.
The rich already being taxed to fuck, we either have to maintain a huge deficit or raise revenue otherwise.
Raising revenue otherwise = massive middle class tax hikes.
Let me know if I have to simplify this futher for you, kiddo.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I should have said your tax bill. So, I'll re-state:
So, where does this doubling of your taxes you complain about come from? How firm is that number? From what is available on M4A proposals, neither overall costs or costs to you are firmly estimated. Where does your complaint of higher personal taxes come from? From what I can tell, it is not substantiated anywhere and sounds more like FUD.
You are healthy, have a good lifestyle. Your health care costs aren't much and you are convinced you'll never need more. So, you can get by on a low-cost healthcare plan because you don't need much if any health care provided to you. So, you don't want much in the way of health care coverage. Did I get that right?
You can't assume your costs will remain low. Assuming you aren't planning to off yourself, the costs of your healthcare will go up as you age:
as of 2000:
The distribution of health care costs is strongly age dependent, a phenomenon that takes on increasing relevance as the baby boom generation ages. After the first year of life, health care costs are lowest for children, rise slowly throughout adult life, and increase exponentially after age 50 (Meerding et al. 1998). Bradford and Max (1996) determined that annual costs for the elderly are approximately four to five times those of people in their early teens. Personal health expenditure also rises sharply with age within the Medicare population. The oldest group (85+) consumes three times as much health care per person as those 65–74, and twice as much as those 75–84 (Fuchs 1998). Nursing home and short-stay hospital use also increases with age, especially for older adults (Liang et al. 1996).
Ironically, being in good health doesn't reduce overall health care costs, it just delays the time when you spend or cost the most. Does your insurance cover the kind of costs associated with elderly healthcare? Will you be able to pay the co-pays? What about long term care? Do you have long term care insurance? I don't know the details of YOUR plan but most so-called low cost plans are only that way because they have high deductibles and very low cap in the maximum they will pay or have very high co-pays. Many times, those plans crap out on people when they need them the most.
This society already pays for its healthcare one way or another. We are in fact paying a 40% premium because our system is inefficient and don't even cover everybody. The only debate that remains is how or if we should cover everybody and whether or not we should tolerate the inefficiencies of a privately administered health care system. As I've said to you before, sticking to the private system means sticking to higher costs overall. We have a burgeoning aging population, most of whom are going to be broke by the time they hit advanced age. Damn sure the insurance industry isn't going to pick up their tab. So, the bill is coming due and how will we manage to pay for it? I don't think your way is going to work for everybody. I don't even think it is going to work for you in the long run.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Bernie proposed to increase top statutory federal tax to 77%. Indeed, the rest is based on well informed estimates, from which I have chosen the lowest for argument.
Also, and I do realize this next bit is only loosely related because it has no chance in hell of ever happening in America, his entire economic agenda, including free tuition and his version of a GND has an estimated pricetag of a staggering 97 trillion dollars for first decade period.
Now you're speculating. I may want more coverage, but I would still prefer the choice. Or I may have a retirement visa elsewhere.
Nonetheless, I prefer to have more control over what healthcare I access and how I care for myself. You should vote according to what you want, as long as you're informed. Unfortunately, those pushing the M4A agenda do not want to answer how much they will tax. In fact they go out of their way to avoid answering it. See post #6 of this thread.
I do in fact wish to have a single-payer healthcare system, but only AFTER costs have been reduced and not before. Just like a household with low debt to income ratio doesn't go to a Mercedes dealership until dad gets a better job, we can't approve that kind of spending without the revenue. The moral arguments and the why do you care arguments aside. It's getting annoying hearing these personal arguments.
I care. I'm telling you I care. I don't want those huge tax hikes. If you want them, vote for them. That is your right. Please don't try to convince me to accept tax hikes for coverage that I do not want or need. If you have some info about how much the plan will increase the deficit (therefore requiring federal revenue) I'm very much ready for it.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Set up a S corporation for self. have your clients or customers now pay the corporation instead of you. begin withdrawing a salary ( earned income) from the corporation . not a full salary 50-60 percent then pay yourself the other 50-40 in dividends ( unearned income ). self-employment tax applies only to earned income.
you are then eligible to deduct half of your self-employment taxes from your federal taxable income. You can also deduct anything used to generate your income. No reason not to have a home office which means part of mortgage and utilities as write off. and now you can also pick up the 54 cents a mile driving to any location when you work. You welcome..
oh yeah Fuck Biden
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Sounds scummy and illegal
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
58 cents
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Somehow you became a Trumptard today, according to a few people here.