Yeah because Iraq worked out oh so well using that philosophy. Crazy that people might not want to try to replicate that model with 16% of the US economy. Even if Sanders did lay out how a single-payer transition would work in a technical sense, nuance trolls would find other nits to pick. Where would the money come from? How would you manage all the corporations disturbed? There’s always some essential detail that needs solving before Senate Democrats earn the right to support a bold policy. And if the demand for nuance seems reasonable enough, consider that pundits rarely require it when it comes to military interventions — Chait and others set this issue aside when it came to invading Iraq in 2003, for instance. The idea at the time was: This is an urgent threat, we will rush to solve it and sort out the details later. With an estimated45,000 people dying a year because of a lack of healthcare and almost half of the money raised on GoFundMe used to pay medical bills, we must ask: How is this crisis any less urgent?
LOL. Comparing universal healthcare to the Iraq War. You've officially jumped through the Clintoncrat wormhole.
Uhhh, it was your article that made the comparison to make the argument for Medicare-for-all without worrying about details. I assume that means you didn't actually read what you posted, or you disagree with yourself?
The article is comparing people's opinions/behavior on one issue vs the other only as it relates to some moral imperitive. Not comparing issue to issue, as if there is anything analogous between the two which should influence our decision making. Universal Healthcare vs hostile takeover of a sovereign country and nation building in a geopolitically unstable part of the world. Functionally speaking seems like comparing apples and atom bombs.
You should read it again. It's arguing pundit's thoughts on Iraq as an example of why it's we shouldn't need details when coming up with big policies. That's the example YOU provided. That policy was an absolute disaster, primarily *because* there were no policy details. It doesn't, in any way, support the argument that requiring details is a "concern troll". Not only does it not support the "concern troll" nonsense, it provides basically the strongest argument possible of the opposite. Whole bunches of people may still be alive today if the "concern trolls" were more vocal and effective back then - that's the more apt conclusion from that comparison. Details are important specifically so you don't go down rabbit holes that you have no idea where they lead, whether that be health care or invading other countries. If the comparison wasn't apt, it should not have been made.
Won't actually work that way. E,g premiums plus all the copays, etc. $1,000 per mo. (not for the childless young libertarian types) instead of $600/mo taxes. $600 /mo is less than $1,000. Magic? No. there is tremendous waste in overhead -- administration "profit" e.g. Aetna CEO made $41 million last year; advertising etc.
[ You are simply wrong on know attempt to propose a way to fund the cost to pay for it. https://www.sanders.senate.gov/down...4805-BFD2-82EA218861DA&download=1&inline=file For a more summary approach to the above: http://peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/09/14/the-contents-of-the-new-medicare-for-all-bill/ and other smaller programs. In addition to the bill, Sanders released a paper with tax proposals that are intended to provide the remainder of the funding. The proposals are: A 7.5 percent employer-side payroll tax. This tax is intended to impound the money employers currently pump into the healthcare sector through private insurance premiums. A 4 percent income tax surcharge. This tax is intended to impound the money individuals currently pump into the healthcare sector through private insurance premiums. Because the tax is being collected through the federal income tax code, the standard deduction can be applied towards it, meaning that families making less than $29,000 would pay nothing, and families making $50,000 would pay just $844 per year, far less than they currently pay in private insurance premiums. Higher income taxes on the very rich. The plan calls for creating more tax brackets for higher earners with marginal tax rates spanning from 40 percent for income made between $250,000 and $500,000 to 52 percent for income made over $10 million. Elimination of capital gains preference. Currently capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. This reform would tax capital gains as ordinary income. Capping deductions for the very rich. For households with incomes over $250,000, the value of particular itemized deductions would be capped at 28 percent. Currently the value of an itemized deduction is based on your highest marginal tax rate. So, someone whose highest marginal tax rate is 39.6 percent would receive 39.6 cents of value for every 1 dollar of tax deduction they claim. Under this reform, high-income families would only be able to receive at most 28 cents of value for every 1 dollar of tax deduction. Increase the estate tax. Under this proposal, the current 40 percent estate tax would be replaced with a progressive estate tax with rates ranging from 45 to 65 percent. There would be a 0 percent rate for the first $3.5 million (single person) or $7 million (married couple) of an estate. A 1 percent wealth tax for wealth over $21 million. This would mean wealthy individuals would have to annually add up their net worth and pay 1 percent of any net worth exceeding $21 million to the government. Close S-Corp dividend loophole. There is not much detail as to how, but the proposal is to make it harder for business owners to abuse S-corp status to report what is really ordinary labor income as dividends. Tax offshore profits. This would apply the corporate tax to money corporations are currently holding “offshore” to avoid paying tax on it. This would be a one time thing. A 0.07 percent tax on big financial institutions. Particularly, the proposal calls for a 0.07 percent tax on the covered liabilities of financial institutions with $50 billion or more of total assets. Change treatment of corporate inventories. This would forbid the last-in, first-out accounting method that allows corporations to overstate the cost of their inventories in order to claim a lower profit and pay less tax. welfare
I will give Sanders credit for putting together a package of new tax increases to pay for his Medicare for all program but as I said during the election that the proposals to pay for his programs are likely to be even more controversial than the programs themselves. I don't see much chance of most of those passing. Like what the GOP did for 8 years I see this bill as more of a political stunt to define political stances while knowing it won't actully become law.
Democrats have a really dumb habit of negotiating against themselves. "X is pretty popular and clearly the ideal solution but will never get enough votes, so lets shift our entire platform according to whatever we think will be more feasible in Congress". So stupid.
Do you think there is any chance Sander's bill and any of his proposals to pay for it will pass? Do you think there is a possibility of defeating the latest Republican proposal to defeat the ACA and improving the ACA?
Expect Buttigie. Kamala, or whomever the corporate Dems coalesce around to support a proposal like CAP (the Dems Heritage ) released entitled "Medicare for America" or whatever plan that will try to stop coverage for all Americans. It employs the fallback tactic of proposing to keep the disastrously expensive private system that works reasonably well for less than half of Americans ( yet still costs roughly twice as much as other advanced countries with Single Payer) and then propose to add Medicare for the other half and then claim that we cannot afford what it costs to do so. They are right and that is why they propose such a plan as a Trojan Horse to protect healthcare for profit which lobby the politicians and can finance near limitless disinformation ads. Less than half you say? Anticipating the frequently spread talking point, roughly 330 million Americans 180 million get coverage through their employers, which some polling shows they are grateful for and relatively happy with. Of course at the whim of the employer the carrier and networks and the doctors and even the drugs permitted keeps changing. Quite a few of the happy campers find that when they have serious health problems the copays and other expenses make it so they cannot afford much of the healthcare the insurance could potentially cover. Within 2 years of a diagnosis of cancer one half of Americans are bankrupt.
Good news for the majority of Americans who have no insurance or really cannot afford to use their existing insurance if they actually have major healthcare problems. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/medicare-would-universal-insurance/2019/07/10/c0a9f7ba-a296-11e9-a767-d7ab84aef3e9_page.html?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_source=reddit.com ASK IF UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE) Would you support or oppose Medicare for all if it meant there was no private insurance option available? Published: July 10 Show results by: Results by Registered voters support 83% Registered voters support 81%
Sure let's do away with BC/BS and also raise taxes to do so........ let's also have free college...... and raise taxes to do that...... we should probably expand SNAP and welfare benefits as well too......... and raise taxes for that too. So lets meet in the middle ........ those that make more than $65,000 will see their taxes greatly increase...... and at the end of the day there will be very little differentiating those that go to are middle class and the lower class...... in that scenario, at what point does it not become worth going to college and grad school, and working longer hours if you end up with pretty damn close to the same thing that the guy that works at the car wash makes.......... why not just not give a **** and work at the car wash too......... your insurance is the same, college for your kids is the same, taxes are lower and there isn't really much difference.
Some folks seem mainly concerned with feeling superior and better off than the lower class. A sort of version of " a person who cannot enjoy a good meal unless they know others are hungry". Sort of sad, that some educated professionals working in their current professions would seem to prefer to have never gone to college and work at a car wash, I guess part time or maybe not at all. if people working at a car wash for example could also have healthcare or free college. Of course one could wonder how other advanced countries can have healthcare for all and free college and extended vacations for the carwash workers while the educated class keep working without so much fear and resentment.
Not to say the American system has no flaws, but as a Native Canadian that's spent alot of time dealing with our healthcare system, and over a decade in Texas, I can say confidently both have detrimental flaws. Wait times & prescription costs being by far the biggest detriment to the Canadian system.
