• 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!

Warren says she will soon release plan to fund 'Medicare for All'

GreatNews2night said:
Unless the Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory... again. Remember, he is the incumbent now. It's harder to defeat the incumbent. The economy is now perceived as good; that's always good for the incumbent. Of the 4.2 million voters who sat out, not all of them will come back. Some of the people who sat out were Bernie or Bust idiots, and since that loser Bernie is running again, who knows if they'll have the same attitude once Bernie crashes out? And do you think that Elizabeth Warren generates the same interest as Barack Obama? Especially among black people?

No, even though Trump's victory in 2016 was narrow, it doesn't mean that he isn't a formidable candidate for 2020. This attitude of "we have this in the bag already" is exactly what contributed to the Democratic Party's defeat in 2016. Let's not repeat the mistake.
Click to expand...

—-——-
Yup.

This election model says 2020 is 'Trump's to lose' - CNNPolitics
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK I'll meet you half way - you come up with $3T/year in new tax revenue and/or savings and I'm all in on UHC. ;)
Click to expand...

Well lets see. Americans spent 3.6 trillion dollars on health care in 2018. In 2017 it was about 3.3 trillion dollars and this year it will be a little more than 2018.

Medicare for All is expected to cost about 3 trillion a year. No different cost wise than we are paying now but a whole lot better system than we have now.

I really don't see why working class Americans are so against it. I guess that republican propaganda is very effective.
 
bongsaway said:
A one tenth of a cent tax on each and every share bought or sold on the stock markets should help pay.
Click to expand...

It would slow down HFT too, which is just ... skimming money out of society, really.
 
rickc said:
Well lets see. Americans spent 3.6 trillion dollars on health care in 2018. In 2017 it was about 3.3 trillion dollars and this year it will be a little more than 2018.

Medicare for All is expected to cost about 3 trillion a year. No different cost wise than we are paying now but a whole lot better system than we have now.

I really don't see why working class Americans are so against it. I guess that republican propaganda is very effective.
Click to expand...

The devil is always in the details - do you have $8K to $10K per person in your household to pay for M4A? If not then who, exactly, is going to to be forced to make up that difference?

Think about it, that $3.3T divided by 330M people is $10K per person.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The devil is always in the details - do you have $8K to $10K per person in your household to pay for M4A? If not then who, exactly, is going to to be forced to make up that difference?
Click to expand...

Same people who make up the difference for families that can't afford to pay their share of the roads. Same people who make up the difference for families that can't afford to pay their share of policing. Same people who make up the difference for families that can't afford to pay their share of the sewer system.

IMO healthcare is as important as any of those, and in a country as rich as the USA should be available to all citizens. There are many working poor, people who contribute to society, but whose children die because they can't afford proper medical care. That is wrong imo.
 
JustHanging said:
Same people who make up the difference for families that can't afford to pay their share of the roads. Same people who make up the difference for families that can't afford to pay their share of policing. Same people who make up the difference for families that can't afford to pay their share of the sewer system.

IMO healthcare is as important as any of those, and in a country as rich as the USA should be available to all citizens. There are many working poor, people who contribute to society, but whose children die because they can't afford proper medical care. That is wrong imo.
Click to expand...

Note that those roads, police and sewers are (largely) paid for at the state/local government level and healthcare should be as well.
 
American said:
This is where she finally tells the truth, that taxpayers will need to bend over and take it in the ass for the good of socialism.
Click to expand...

If her numbers turn out to be poor, your analysis will be completely correct.
 
I don't see why employer provided insurance should be such a sticking point.

I lived in the UK for ten years, and my employer provided a supplementary insurance plan that was on top of what I could get from the NHS. Such policies exist in most countries with universal health care, and they are very cheap compared to what you would pay in the US.

Employer provided health care isn't a gift, it's part of the total pay package. It ought to be a taxable benefit, and if a universal health care system exists there should be no tax break for employers to provide supplementary insurance.

I'm retired, and I find that Medicare plus a supplemental policy gives me everything I had in my former employer's gold-plated insurance, and costs me less every month (most employees have to pay a percentage of employer provided plans).
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The devil is always in the details - do you have $8K to $10K per person in your household to pay for M4A? If not then who, exactly, is going to to be forced to make up that difference?

Think about it, that $3.3T divided by 330M people is $10K per person.
Click to expand...

Well where is the money coming from now.

Most employers pay for their employees health insurance along with an employee contribution. That is a real cost. No reason employers shouldn't give employees a raise when they no longer have that cost.

We are already paying for healthcare for the poor through taxes for medicade, increased health insurance premiums, added cost at hospitals for indigent care and a myriad of other cost

Take it out of one pocket and.put it in another
 
tacomancer said:
Warren says she will soon release plan to fund '''Medicare for All'''



Good. She's incredibly intelligent and competent policy, especially in regards to economics and finance. I figured it was a matter of time.
Click to expand...

:lamo Only idiots would believe any of this. THis is what she is saying:

"In the US Senate I did nothing about this. Ever. But I'm a brainiac so in the next few weeks at the most I will figure how to make the Cuban model of healthcare work in the USA because I'm that smart - and you people are that stupid to believe me."
 
rickc said:
Well where is the money coming from now.

Most employers pay for their employees health insurance along with an employee contribution. That is a real cost. No reason employers shouldn't give employees a raise when they no longer have that cost.

We are already paying for healthcare for the poor through taxes for medicade, increased health insurance premiums, added cost at hospitals for indigent care and a myriad of other cost

Take it out of one pocket and.put it in another
Click to expand...

Precisely.

Everyone says "it would cost too much". But we're paying for it now, and we're paying more per capita for public health than almost any other country in the world, ON TOP of what's paid in the private sector. Any universal health care system will include cost controls; the average person will almost certainly pay significantly less.

Medical care in the US is not a true competitive free market, and the crazy costs are in large part a function of that. If it were a competitive free market, costs would be lower. Free markets are very good at efficiently allocating resources. However, the optimum outcome is an equilibrium that takes time and accepts local temporary imbalances. When those local temporary imbalances mean people are suffering and dying without care, society is justified to step in and create a system where everyone is covered.
 
rickc said:
Well where is the money coming from now.

Most employers pay for their employees health insurance along with an employee contribution. That is a real cost. 1) No reason employers shouldn't give employees a raise when they no longer have that cost.

2) We are already paying for healthcare for the poor through taxes for medicade, increased health insurance premiums, added cost at hospitals for indigent care and a myriad of other cost

3) Take it out of one pocket and.put it in another
Click to expand...

1) That assumes business income tax rates would not be increased to fund M4A. It also assumes that the business owner is not going to have to pay more personal income taxes to fund M4A, thus needing a raise simply to break even. While those with lower incomes are getting an advantage under M4A, those with higher incomes will be forced to pay far more for that "generosity" to happen.

2) OK, then what is the big need for M4A?

3) Why?
 
The Democrats are now fanatical about welfare for the richest corporations on earth, aren't they?

In Elizabeth Warren's opinion, Jeff Bezos with only $90,000,000,000.00 and the WalMart heirs with only $20,000,000,000.00 each can not possibly continue to pay any employees health insurance. Rather, money should be taken out of every employees checks because Bezos is far, far too poor to pay it.

It is stunning how STUPID, truly idiotic, most progressive Democrats are to not grasp all this "free stuff" being promised all equates to welfare for the richest people on earth at the expense of working people. Most progressive Democrats are lost in their joy of fantasizing of being goosestepping Brownshirt Nazis to actually think about anything.
 
vanceen said:
Precisely.

Everyone says "it would cost too much". But we're paying for it now, and we're paying more per capita for public health than almost any other country in the world, ON TOP of what's paid in the private sector. Any universal health care system will include cost controls; the average person will almost certainly pay significantly less.

Medical care in the US is not a true competitive free market, and the crazy costs are in large part a function of that. If it were a competitive free market, costs would be lower. Free markets are very good at efficiently allocating resources. However, the optimum outcome is an equilibrium that takes time and accepts local temporary imbalances. When those local temporary imbalances mean people are suffering and dying without care, society is justified to step in and create a system where everyone is covered.
Click to expand...

The socialist fantasy. Government not only is FREE to operate, but even less than free. The MORE government, the less government costs.

I suppose you could TRY to make a more absurd claim if you tried, but it wouldn't be easy.

Government isn't the solution. It is one of the huge problems. EVERY doctor knows the astronomical extra costs of the government, which is way nearly all charge a LOT less for cash patients than patients they have to collect from the government for.

The markup for government paid medical care is generally 25% to 50% higher. We pay (no insurance) so am very familiar with this in different cities and ranging from minor checkup or ailments to heart surgery. For the last heart procedure, the "government/insurance" costs would have been $32,000. For just paying it? $14,000. The cost the government/insurance bureaucracy costs would have been well over twice as much.

NOTHING the government does is cheaper and your assertion otherwise is absurd. In fact, the as the government more and more is involved, the costs continue to go up and up - not down like you claim.
 
Does her plan include torture chambers for medical personnel who refuse to work for the government?

NO DOCTOR here accepts ObamaCare - although there are hundreds of doctors, a hospital and numerous private clinics. FOr ObamaCare they have to drive over 1 hour - and as patients they have to do whatever they are told - threatened with being cancelled if not.

What those ObamaCare doctors do is tests. Lots and lots and lots of tests they bill the government for. Doesn't matter if the person is sick or wants them. They MUST drive 1.5 hours each way for any testing the ObamaCare doctors want to do or else. It is a massive rip off having almost nothing to do with healthcare whatsoever.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
1) That assumes business income tax rates would not be increased to fund M4A. It also assumes that the business owner is not going to have to pay more personal income taxes to fund M4A, thus needing a raise simply to break even. While those with lower incomes are getting an advantage under M4A, those with higher incomes will be forced to pay far more for that "generosity" to happen.

2) OK, then what is the big need for M4A?

3) Why?
Click to expand...

Her plan is to create a federal property tax - calling it a wealth tax - for which every year every American has to report the value of everything they own of any kind and pay new federal property taxes on it - the same as how federal income tax was started as a 1% tax against the income of only the ultra wealthy.

Essentially, the Warren plan is that quickly the government goes full socialist with the government owning everything - that you have to pay for yourself and then you pay an annual rent (property tax) on your own possessions - or the government takes your possessions.
 
joko104 said:
The socialist fantasy. Government not only is FREE to operate, but even less than free. The MORE government, the less government costs.

I suppose you could TRY to make a more absurd claim if you tried, but it wouldn't be easy.
Click to expand...

It would be more appropriate to address that remark to someone who has made the claim that anything is free. Maybe even to someone who believes it.

Government isn't the solution. It is one of the huge problems. EVERY doctor knows the astronomical extra costs of the government, which is way nearly all charge a LOT less for cash patients than patients they have to collect from the government for.

The markup for government paid medical care is generally 25% to 50% higher. We pay (no insurance) so am very familiar with this in different cities and ranging from minor checkup or ailments to heart surgery. For the last heart procedure, the "government/insurance" costs would have been $32,000. For just paying it? $14,000. The cost the government/insurance bureaucracy costs would have been well over twice as much.

NOTHING the government does is cheaper and your assertion otherwise is absurd. In fact, the as the government more and more is involved, the costs continue to go up and up - not down like you claim.
Click to expand...

Every single developed country in the world has found a way to provide health care that is available to everyone, all of them at costs lower than what we pay in the US, and most of them with much better results.

I don't think we're too dumb to do that in the US.

I'm a libertarian, as skeptical about government as anybody. But I also see that there are areas where common effort is needed because individual action isn't going to get it done. Police, military, infrastructure... Government involvement is justified in some areas because without it we become actually less free. Medical care is one of those areas, as a quick comparison of US costs and outcomes with costs and outcomes for other developed countries will show at a glance.
 
vanceen said:
Precisely.

Everyone says "it would cost too much". But we're paying for it now, and we're paying more per capita for public health than almost any other country in the world, ON TOP of what's paid in the private sector. Any universal health care system will include cost controls; the average person will almost certainly pay significantly less.

Medical care in the US is not a true competitive free market, and the crazy costs are in large part a function of that. If it were a competitive free market, costs would be lower. Free markets are very good at efficiently allocating resources. However, the optimum outcome is an equilibrium that takes time and accepts local temporary imbalances. When those local temporary imbalances mean people are suffering and dying without care, society is justified to step in and create a system where everyone is covered.
Click to expand...
That is what Obama said. It was a lie. The problem is you cannot provide healthcare for everyone without passing the cost of care for those that don't have it along to other people. Right now about 50% of Americans do not pay income tax. So the 50% that do pay income tax will be paying for health care the 50% that don't pay. In short if we give MFA then the average person who does pay tax will all most certainly pay more.

Also Medicare and medicaid pay hospitals less than what it cost to provide the care to the patient many times. Hospitals cost shift by charging high rates to commercial insurance patients. If there are no commercial insurance companies to make up the Medicare Medicaid losses then many hospitals will go out of business.

Also one of the reasons medical care is expensive in the US is medicine is getting more and more sophisticated on the thing it can offer to cure disease. These new treatments can be labor intensive an expensive to provide.
 
Last edited:
SLC said:
That is what Obama said. It was a lie. The problem is you cannot provide healthcare for everyone without passing the cost of care for those that don't have it along to other people. Right now about 50% of Americans do not pay income tax. So the 50% that do pay income tax will be paying for health care the 50% that don't pay. In short if we give MFA then the average person who does pay tax will all most certainly pay more.

Also Medicare and medicaid pay hospitals less than what it cost to provide the care to the patient many times. Hospitals cost shift by charging high rates to commercial insurance patients. If there are no commercial insurance companies to make up the Medicare Medicaid losses then many hospitals will go out of business.

Also one of the reasons medical care is expensive in the US is medicine is getting more and more sophisticated on the thing it can offer to cure disease. These new treatments can be labor intensive an expensive to provide.
Click to expand...

I'm also critical Obama and the ACA. Pass a law requiring insurance companies to cover a lot of new things, but don't include any control of what insurance companies charge. What do you think will happen?

Two points about the rest of your post.

One, you're assuming that costs will stay exactly as they are. But the fact is that every UHC plan in the world has cost controls built into it. Any UHC system without cost controls (like the ACA) is going to fail.

Second, I come back to the point that what we're talking about is not some crazy dream. Every developed country in the world has done it. Some of them are government-based true "single payer" systems, like the UK and Canada. Most of them (and the best in my experience) are based on either private insurance (with regulation) or one some kind of public insurance that is purchased by individuals. All these countries face the same challenges of increasingly expensive technology, but they manage to do it, with statistically better outcomes than the US. Why is it only impossible in America? I really don't think it is.
 
vanceen said:
I'm also critical Obama and the ACA. Pass a law requiring insurance companies to cover a lot of new things, but don't include any control of what insurance companies charge. What do you think will happen?
Click to expand...

What insurance companies charge in premiums is constrained by 1) rate review by regulators, 2) the ACA's medical loss ratio rules, and 3) the creation of the marketplaces.
 
Bullseye said:
How much has Warren promised to CREATE? 20-30 trillion and rising. :eek:
Click to expand...

You make stuff up about Warren and ignore the very real failures of Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom