• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Explaining Why Federal Deficits Are Needed[W:5330]

Right.. and you don't seem to realize that he is making multiple assumptions in coming up with that cost. We don't currently have single payer.. so he has no idea what its REALLY going to cost. He just has assumptions

We do have a form a single payer with Medicare. We know how much revenue Medicare takes in, and we know how much it spends. We also know that Medicare treats primarily older and sicker people, but still manages to provide the best customer satisfaction of any "insurance" plan. So we know the tax rate for Medicare. We know how much it costs to cover the old people. So we can definitely know what the cost would be to extend Medicare to all and abolish private health insurance. That is how Sanders got to the 6.2% tax...one that not a single Conservative has been able to dispute other than doing what you do; pretending you know things when you don't, then offer nothing to support it. Right now, we lose about 17 cents of every dollar we spend in premiums to insurance companies. The average worker pays $4,500 toward their insurance a year, and the average employer pays about $13,500. In both cases, a 6.2% tax would be less than what they otherwise would pay for insurance.


Too funny. Sorry man but you are wrong. Actually countries like Korea.. have a LONGER lifespan.. and older people.. and yet have lower costs than Great Britain..

I was talking specifically about European countries. That's what my post said. You shifted the parameters again in order for you to remain in this debate.


so the same system... older people.. greater life expectancy.. and less costs than Great Britain....

But still, Great Britain spends how much as a % of GDP on health care vs. us?
 
Yes, they would to fund their requirements but never had to do that. What really galls me is the ignorance of yes, people like you who ignore the true purpose of the stimulus which sold on creating shovel ready jobs which it didn't do. Tell me exactly how much of the stimulus went to the teachers, what states, and what the money was actually used for?

The ARRA was sold on the five points i have already outlined. Why don't you do your own research as i am not here to clerk for you? Take this as a gift for your lack of researching skills.

What a bunch of BS to prop up a failed Presidency based upon the results generated

You've already been corrected for repeating lies.
 
And small businesses are the ones least likely to move their operations overseas, so now we've come full circle.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

Yes, they are and they are the ones most hurt by a rise in the MW. So tell me do you want large businesses to take over the entire market place or do you get great joy in running small businesses out of business
 
No it would not! Lowering corporate taxes increase profit margins... it wouldn't necessarily prevent companies from still seeking more profit by moving operations to capitalize on lower cost of labor. Why would a firm forego profit maximizing strategies because they owe less in taxes?

That is your opinion, yes it does increase profit margins but also encourages companies to keep their operation here and not move overseas. You seem to have a problem like most liberals with profit. It isn't a four letter word and profit is what keeps people employed
 
The ARRA was sold on the five points i have already outlined. Why don't you do your own research as i am not here to clerk for you? Take this as a gift for your lack of researching skills.



You've already been corrected for repeating lies.

With the major one being shovel ready jobs and that is how it was sold. Christina Rhomer sold the deal on keeping unemployment below 8% and creating shovel ready jobs. That didn't happen.

The results show failure except for people like you with low expectations and the ability to pick and choose any moment in time that you want to use that will show success. Here is reality, 142 million working Americans in January 2009 and 139 million working Americans in January 2011. Guess those shovels must have gone via pony express
 
Right... so if they have the same system.. and they very widely in costs.. it means that the issue is not the system.. but other factors..

But they're not wildly different among the single payer nations. We're not talking a huge variance between the costs among single payer nations. In all cases, those single payer nations spend less than we do and get better outcomes. That's because their health care systems aren't profit-driven. They're outcomes-driven. Which is a smarter way to go about health care.

by the way though.. they don't "beat us in everything. In fact.. America scores higher on most things especially quality of care measures.

Quality of care is wholly subjective and cannot be measured. So it's basically a bullsh*t stat. Again, fitting the mold of what Conservatives tend to do, it's entirely an emotional and subjective argument. Not one grounded in facts or metrics. Among all the metrics that actually can be measured and counted, we do not do well.


Effective care? 3 in the world
Patient centered care 4 in the world
Timeliness of care 5 in the world.

All subjective measurements. We want to look at *outcomes*, because those are quantifiable metrics. When it comes to outcomes, we definitely do not rank as one of the best.


HARDLY being beaten by everyone. In fact.. we score 11 overall

Out of 11 nations evaluated. That's what your link says, anyway. Did you know that? We don't rank 11th in the world. We rank 11th out of 11 countries. LOL!
 
But they're not wildly different among the single payer nations. We're not talking a huge variance between the costs among single payer nations. In all cases, those single payer nations spend less than we do and get better outcomes. That's because their health care systems aren't profit-driven. They're outcomes-driven. Which is a smarter way to go about health care.



Quality of care is wholly subjective and cannot be measured. So it's basically a bullsh*t stat. Again, fitting the mold of what Conservatives tend to do, it's entirely an emotional and subjective argument. Not one grounded in facts or metrics. Among all the metrics that actually can be measured and counted, we do not do well.




All subjective measurements. We want to look at *outcomes*, because those are quantifiable metrics. When it comes to outcomes, we definitely do not rank as one of the best.




Out of 11 nations evaluated. That's what your link says, anyway. Did you know that? We don't rank 11th in the world. We rank 11th out of 11 countries. LOL!

here we are 20 trillion in debt, Obamacare failing all over the country, over 100 million dependent on the Federal Taxpayer for some form of assistance and none of that is enough for you? You think a single payer system will do better? By what standards? Again a big govt. liberal who ignores results and would give more power to the bureaucrats that created the problem

Do you realize that the world uses different standards than the US in calculating numbers thus making comparisons impossible. Why do you have such passion for liberalism and big govt?
 
We do have a form a single payer with Medicare. We know how much revenue Medicare takes in, and we know how much it spends. We also know that Medicare treats primarily older and sicker people, but still manages to provide the best customer satisfaction of any "insurance" plan. So we know the tax rate for Medicare. We know how much it costs to cover the old people. So we can definitely know what the cost would be to extend Medicare to all and abolish private health insurance. That is how Sanders got to the 6.2% tax...one that not a single Conservative has been able to dispute other than doing what you do; pretending you know things when you don't, then offer nothing to support it. Right now, we lose about 17 cents of every dollar we spend in premiums to insurance companies. The average worker pays $4,500 toward their insurance a year, and the average employer pays about $13,500. In both cases, a 6.2% tax would be less than what they otherwise would pay for insurance.
I was talking specifically about European countries. That's what my post said. You shifted the parameters again in order for you to remain in this debate.
But still, Great Britain spends how much as a % of GDP on health care vs. us?

too funny. Okay.. first Medicare works tremendously different than any other single payer or heath insurance. With medicare.. you pay in your whole working life without using the insurance.. then.. at basically the end of your life.. if you live long enough you get to use the insurance for roughly a couple of decades or less.

that's not anything like having people start using their insurance.. before they have even hardly put one dang dime into the insurance plan. So using the medicare tax rate.. where you may pay that tax for almost 5 decades.. before being eligible to even use the insurance... is not relevant.

Secondly.. You also don't realize that medicare is partially subsidized by two things.. the numbers of people using the service (providers can make it on volume) and because private insurances generally reimburse significantly MORE than medicare.. and this subsidizes the price tag on medicare..

By the way.. as private reimbursement has decreased as well as public reimbursement.. its one of the reasons that physicians are opting out of public plans like Medicaid and Medicare. Because the payer mix with medicare and Medicaid is too low to be profitable.. or even break even some times.

I was talking specifically about European countries. That's what my post said. You shifted the parameters again in order for you to remain in this debate.

Right.. so you have no answer for the point that single payer countries differ widely in costs and you have no clue why. so NOW its "only European countries".

Okay.. explain why Great Britain that has a single payer.. and Italy has a single payer.. why Great Britain spends more.. and has a lower life expectancy than Italy... if the difference is single payer systems?

But still, Great Britain spends how much as a % of GDP on health care vs. us?

a lot less... but again.. Italy and Korea spend a lot less than great Britain.. with the same basic system,. so its not the system that makes the difference.. but other factors... such as obesity, length of time to retirement etc.
 
Actually you are on an ideological rant that has nothing to do with my position. First.. I am a true conservative. I want people to be able to get the best care. NOT have the same crappy care.. It makes more sense to me.. to raise the few in this country.. (roughly 10%) that don't have insurance.. up to the level of having good insurance.. rather than lower everyone (well except the rich that can afford to go to other countries or pay privately) to a lower level of healthcare.

Insurance has no bearing on the quality of care you receive. You are purposefully trying to conflate access with quality when that is disingenuous. Some insurance may provide more access than others, but your physician doesn't "treat" you better or worse based on your insurance. Your doctor doesn't say "I'll half-ass this appendectomy because this guy has Humana and I hate Humana". Whether you accept it or not, that is the argument you are making. It proves that you really don't understand the function of health insurance and what little it has to do with the actual care you receive.


ts really not worth debating you.. because you don't know what you are talking about. Go do some research on other countries single payer and what they really cover. then you will discover.. gee.. in Canada and Australia.. they don't cover physical therapy.... but I bet your current insurance does....

And the common refrain from Conservatives comes in...no, I am not going to do your research for you. Thing is, when I do...it ends up making you looks like a goofball. Like that link you posted from the Commonwealth Fund, where you claimed it showed we were 11th in the world...neglecting to mention in your post that it was a study of 11 countries. So we were 11th out of 11. The WHO evaluates all health care systems, not just 11, and in those rankings, we are 32nd.


Oh and you might find out that there is tons of other things that are routinely covered here but aren't.

LOL! I like how in the thing you copied and pasted that the whole analysis comes with the caveat that 1 in 8 women in the US get this disease, while 1 in 9 do in the UK. That's pretty significant and kind of throws the rest of what you're saying into doubt. Because you're not doing a weighted average. But whatever, I don't expect Conservatives to be honest in these matters anyway.


then you might go and do a little research on cancer and death rates in Great Britain.. compared to the US....

So right away, the cancer rate in UK is lower than in the US. So before you even get started, you've already undermined your point. Secondly, if you're going to compare the two as you're doing, it would probably suit you to do a weighted average comparison since the cancer rates are different between the US and UK. That way, you get an apples-to-apples comparison instead of what you're trying to do here. Just FYI.
 
Before unpacking the rest of that post, can you explain why $20T debt has your panties in such a wad?

Because it exceeds our yearly GDP and because 250 billion dollars a year goes to others in terms of debt service that could be used for other services. Why doesn't debt service bother you?
 
too funny. Okay.. first Medicare works tremendously different than any other single payer or heath insurance. With medicare.. you pay in your whole working life without using the insurance.. then.. at basically the end of your life.. if you live long enough you get to use the insurance for roughly a couple of decades or less.

Right, but you're also paying your entire working life for private insurance, which takes a 20% administrative fee on your premiums for itself. So you're paying for two insurances, but only using one at a time. So what sense does that make? None.


that's not anything like having people start using their insurance.. before they have even hardly put one dang dime into the insurance plan. So using the medicare tax rate.. where you may pay that tax for almost 5 decades.. before being eligible to even use the insurance... is not relevant.

Medicare is pay-go. Sheesh.


Secondly.. You also don't realize that medicare is partially subsidized by two things.. the numbers of people using the service (providers can make it on volume) and because private insurances generally reimburse significantly MORE than medicare.. and this subsidizes the price tag on medicare..

Maybe they reimburse more than Medicare (I'm gonna need a source from you on this) in some cases, but in others they do not. Plus, insurance companies inflate the cost of your premiums by as much as 20% that they take for administration. So while they may reimburse more in some cases than Medicare, the patient is paying more overall for administration.


By the way.. as private reimbursement has decreased as well as public reimbursement.. its one of the reasons that physicians are opting out of public plans like Medicaid and Medicare. Because the payer mix with medicare and Medicaid is too low to be profitable.. or even break even some times.

Yeah, apart from a couple stories here and there, there largely has not been a slew of physicians opting out of public plans. In fact, there's no way to even prove that is happening at all.


so you have no answer for the point that single payer countries differ widely in costs and you have no clue why. so NOW its "only European countries".

Again, what is the variance between single payer nations, European and otherwise, and the variance between them and our system? That's the point being made here. Even the single payer systems that are most costly are still less costly than ours.


explain why Great Britain that has a single payer.. and Italy has a single payer.. why Great Britain spends more.. and has a lower life expectancy than Italy... if the difference is single payer systems?

I don't know. But the difference in what Britain spends for single payer vs. Italy is way less than the difference between both of them vs. us. That's the point.
 
What obstructionism? Did the stimulus bill pass? how many Republicans voted for it? I do get tired of people like you lying.

Are you seriously unaware that there were other things he didn't get through ?
 
Because it exceeds our yearly GDP and because 250 billion dollars a year goes to others in terms of debt service that could be used for other services. Why doesn't debt service bother you?

So your problem is that we are paying to service the debt. It's not about how it affects our economy, borrowing rates, consumption. Just an arbitrary thing that has no meaningful bearing on anything than...pride? I don't know.
 
As usual, you miss the forest for the trees. It seems your ignorance knows no bounds. Business expenses are known as the cost of generating revenue. Revenue cannot be taxed like individual income because economic gain from business is recorded as profit. Some firms employ a market share growth strategy that realizes little, or no profit in their early years, and as a result will have minimal tax liabilities (such as property, sales, etc....). Not once in your entire post did you mention profit.

That's because you don't want businesses, especially John and Jane Smiths, to have any profit. Every business is the mortal enemy.
 
Tax cuts put more money into the pockets of the people

Maybe...but the resulting drop in revenues means people pay more out of pocket for services. Like for health care and education. Student Loan debt is now more than mortgage debt was at the height of the Bush Mortgage Bubble. Household debt skyrocketed during Reagan and Bush. So the theory that "putting more money into the pockets of people" by way of a tax cut is disproved in the household debt numbers from the tax cuts.


Still waiting for how Personal income tax revenue grew over 60% from 1980 to 1989 with three years of tax cuts??

Lower interest rates and increased government spending.
 
I'm not suggesting taxing business on revenue, I'm suggesting it would make more sense (and line up the two taxing models) to tax individuals only on their profit. But since then ONLY those with more income than expenses would owe tax, it's not a viable solution. This is me just doing a thought experiment, not attempting to tax business on their revenue.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

OK. Thanks for clarifying. I wish more on the left would think things through first before doing something which they later find does not work or makes things worse and then denying it and wanting to double down on their mistakes.
 
Reagan had a worse recession than Obama

No he did not. Furthermore, you're making excuses for the fact that revenues grew at a lower rate during Reagan after his tax cuts than they did after Clinton and Obama raised taxes.
 
Are you seriously unaware that there were other things he didn't get through ?

Why didn't he get them through? His stimulus passed, his ACA passed and both have failed yet you still prop up this liberal. Why such low standards? He didn't get a Republican vote on the Stimulus and it passed, 840 billion dollars!! Where did those shovel ready jobs go?
 
So your problem is that we are paying to service the debt. It's not about how it affects our economy, borrowing rates, consumption. Just an arbitrary thing that has no meaningful bearing on anything than...pride? I don't know.

It certainly does affect the value of our dollars as borrowing, printing all affect the value of the dollar. Are you really this naïve?
 
Maybe...but the resulting drop in revenues means people pay more out of pocket for services. Like for health care and education. Student Loan debt is now more than mortgage debt was at the height of the Bush Mortgage Bubble. Household debt skyrocketed during Reagan and Bush. So the theory that "putting more money into the pockets of people" by way of a tax cut is disproved in the household debt numbers from the tax cuts.




Lower interest rates and increased government spending.

There was no drop in revenue and you fail to explain how cutting FIT three years in a row grew FIT revenue over 60%. Lower interest rates affect and unemployed person how?
 
No he did not. Furthermore, you're making excuses for the fact that revenues grew at a lower rate during Reagan after his tax cuts than they did after Clinton and Obama raised taxes.

How old were you during the Recession in 81-82? How do you know? That recession affected EVERY American. how did this one affect you?
 
It certainly does affect the value of our dollars as borrowing, printing all affect the value of the dollar. Are you really this naïve?

Are you really this clueless? Borrowing rates are at an all-time low for the government. So no, it does not affect the value of our dollar.
 
There was no drop in revenue

There was a drop in revenue. 1982-3. There was also a drop in revenue from 2001-4. It's all there in the link I gave you.


Lower interest rates affect and unemployed person how?

Lower interest rates result in more borrowing, which results in more spending, which results in more demand, which results in more labor, which results in fewer people unemployed.
 
How old were you during the Recession in 81-82? How do you know? That recession affected EVERY American. how did this one affect you?

Sigh...to deny that the Great Bush Recession didn't affect every American is just wholly ignorant.
 
Back
Top Bottom