Bernie says he'll probably raise payroll, income taxes to pay for 'Medicare for All'

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, May 29, 2019.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/be...-j_cfDIW7NkpixNAT3AGqZokcy2PXB4RUG_Z8v2W7zP4o
    no thanks. God I hope Tulsi makes it.
     
  2. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #2
    You wouldn't rather pay a bit more via taxes (and not have to pay the insurance industry at all) for better care? You still save money at the end of the day so other than ideological nonsense, what exactly makes the idea a "no thanks" to you?

    Private insurance costs are basically a tax, one that grows every damn year with no additional benefit.
     
  3. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #3
    how much "money" did we save when the unaffordable care act passed and everyone was mandated to buy insurance?
     
  4. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #4
    a) How else did people think we were going to pay for this? And these are taxes that will effectively replace insurance premiums.

    b) I think you need to find a different candidate to support,. Gabbard is at or below 1% in virtually every poll. She has zero chance of being the nominee.
     
  5. flyinmac macrumors 68040

    flyinmac

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    United States
    #5
    Not a Bernie Sanders supporter by any measure. But... on this particular point, I expect this proposal would possibly save me money. I currently pay 25% of my monthly wages to cover my portion of employer provided health insurance premiums.

    Then I have a $5000 annual out of pocket that I must pay before my medical bills are 100% covered.

    For prescriptions, I have a $100 copay.

    And for in-network Doctor visits, a minimum of $50 per visit.

    For hospitals or surgeries or anything big, I have to pay 40% of the bill.

    So I could easily speculate that the plan quoted in the OP, would likely save me a lot of money.

    So if this was the only point of debate, he’d have my vote. But, I wasn’t inclined to vote for him last time. And doubt I would this time. But it’s not because of this proposal. This proposal would have my support. His plan would have to cost me more than $1500 a month for it to become unattractive compared to employer supplied insurance.
     
  6. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    he needs to put in actual numbers BEFORE you start thinking it will "save you money"......
    A, so buy to private HC ? no thanks.
    B, it's Tulsi or Trump, that simple.
     
  7. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #7
    THAT is an entirely different system, a Heritage foundation one, that forced more people into the PRIVATE for-profit insurance industry. This is an alternative to the profit model of healthcare, you know this.
     
  8. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    I don't trust medicare for all, he needs to include numbers not just spout out stupidity .
     
  9. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #9
    The whole thing is screaming into the wind until we actually see numbers. Both the cost to employers and individuals. I want to see what percent of Americans pay into the system, if it's anywhere close to the number that pay income tax then it's a no go for me.
     
  10. vertical smile macrumors 68040

    vertical smile

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2014
    #10
    Yup, if there was real numbers that could be trusted, and it would lead to better, more affordable HC, I would be all for this.... but, this is never the case.

    The ACA had numbers and claimed of better care and lower premiums, and I don’t think this has happened to anyone.

    My premiums are tripled, and my Co-pays are more than tripled.

    Maybe Medicare For All will be different, but I am skeptical.
     
  11. Apple OC macrumors 68040

    Apple OC

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Location:
    Hogtown
    #11
    no matter how much you increase taxes to try and cover universal health care... waiting times will skyrocket and patient shuffling will become overwhelming to manage.

    the government is basically efficient at doing nothing... universal healthcare is not where they will suddenly start doing things right.

    Here in Canada, they shuffled and delayed my Grandma's hip surgery for 4 years and then said she was too old for the surgery. They went ahead anyway and botched the surgery... put her in a wheelchair for the rest of her life.

    They scheduled and shuffled the operation 5 times over 4 years... but yeah, she was covered.
     
  12. AsherN macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Location:
    Canada
    #12
    If you want to go anecdotal, I've had a hip replacement. So did 5 of my friends. All within 6 months. One of them did not go as planned. 3 months later she had the corrective surgery. All covered. And we all had our choice of doctor.
     
  13. jagolden macrumors 6502a

    jagolden

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    #13
    ?! Sounds like a lousy plan your employer offers. Could it be better to find your own coverage?
    The problem I have with Sanders and his ilk is that it won’t be a little bit more of tax, it will be significant.
    If you look at all these foreign countries that crow about how how great and "free" their healthcare and education systems are, you’ll notice their taxes are well above the 50% range. Not willing to pay that.
    Whenever I hear Sanders speak, all I can think is that, honestly, I believe he is beginning to have cognitive issues.
     
  14. macsmurf macrumors 65816

    macsmurf

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    #14
    On the other hand, maybe you'll gain a national health care system where people won't have to beg online for insulin shots.
     
  15. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #15
    so...we're all going to argue ideological points until we die. Great.
     
  16. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #16
    How about we only raise taxes on those who support this stupid scheme?
     
  17. AsherN macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Location:
    Canada
    #17
    And you would not. Last year, our combined income was around $100K. Our effective tax rate was about 19%.
     
  18. pshufd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #18
    Massachusetts has a healthcare plan that works. They had one that worked before the Affordable Care Act. They don't have Medicare for All. Maybe we should just ask Senator Romney to be the Secretary of Healthcare. It may very well be that this is better done at the State Level. It was a very rocky road trying to do it at the Federal level.

    Medicare For All, in the way that Sanders proposes, won't work. Healthcare providers lose money on Medicare services provided and it requires huge Federal subsidies. Medicare is 14% of the Federal budget or $568 billion. Medicaid spending in 2018 was $629 billion. So say 30% of the Federal budget for Medicaid and Medicare and that doesn't even cover everyone on Private Insurance or the Public Exchanges. Financially, we would have to increase payments compared to Medicare and Medicaid so that hospitals wouldn't go bankrupt. You've noticed that nobody touts Medicaid for all. There's a very good reason for that. Yet that was the solution in the Affordable Care Act.

    Taxes would have to be raised considerably. You are providing far more in benefits and pricing it well below cost. Someone would have to pay for this. You are also expanding spending for services without expanding the services available. So it would put large constraints on those with new insurance for some time until supplies catch up with demand. In the meantime, people would have to wait a long time for services.

    As an aside, I tried to schedule a procedure at one of the best hospitals in Boston. They were scheduling out about two months. I then used a referral from my existing doctor there and I got scheduled out one month. There are some services that they are scheduling out six months. Too much demand and not enough supply.

    I could get this same procedure in a few days at my local hospital.
     
  19. macsmurf macrumors 65816

    macsmurf

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    #19
    Every western country have a healthcare plan that works. At about half the price of what you spend in the US but on the other hand these plans cover everyone.

    In western democracies outside of the US bankruptcies due to medical bills are virtually unknown. People dying because they had to ration their medicine or because they did not get funded by charity is virtually unknown as well. In the US this happens all the time.

    It frankly amazes me that Americans just accept that health care is not a right and that is impossible to fix the system even though every other western country (and quite a few others) have working inexpensive systems.
     
  20. pshufd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #20
    Most people on Corporate Plans in the US are perfectly happy with their healthcare. The quality of healthcare is quite good here. How do I know that? We have a ton of medical tourism from countries with nationalized healthcare systems.
     
  21. JagdTiger macrumors 6502

    JagdTiger

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2017
    #21
    Perhaps he needs another cabin in Vermont.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 1, 2019 ---
    If he taxes the rich and wealthy (Hollywood and the music industry and corporations etc) for it than fine, if not the middle class and poor cannot afford it.
     
  22. pshufd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #22
    You can't tax the wealthy enough to pay for it.

    Did you just see what IL did?
     
  23. macsmurf macrumors 65816

    macsmurf

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    #23
    Sure for the people who can pay it's a great system and I'm sure the corporations love the fact that it keeps employees in line.

    And if you ignore the people who die because they can't afford medicine or go bankrupt and the fact that you have the most expensive healthcare system in the world by far what's not to like?
     
  24. Solver macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
  25. stylinexpat macrumors 65816

    stylinexpat

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #25
    Cost of living and taxes are bad as is. We don’t need any more. They should worry more about how to make the quality of American lives better and not more about how to milk them dry or keep them on the edge living from paycheck to paycheck.
     

Share This Page

143 May 29, 2019