• 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!

The right is telling you that your taxes will be doubled to pay for Medicare for all.

jonny5 said:
What she said is shell get it in payroll tax from the employer. Instead of my employer buying me health insurance, the govt will take that money and give me Medicare. And since half of the country doesnt work, she'll double the employer payroll tax to pay for them (which of course they pass down to me and consumers).

Of course, the cost will be much higher than expected. It always is. So I get less wages/higher prices and lose my much better HMO.
Click to expand...
The make believe world of the biggest hate group this country has ever seen, it's called the hate party by most after electing their hate candidate. You opinion is nonsense ,You won't let facts get in the way of your opinion. That would make everything you believe in exactly what it is, Bull****.
 
Felis Leo said:
Alright, jbander. How much will our taxes have to be raised, not merely to cover the current deficit spending caused by current mandatory entitlement programs and tax cuts, but in order to fully pay for Medicare for All? I would ask that you please cite your sources.
Click to expand...

Good question. Currently, with my insurance provider, with help from my employers, I am paying around 10k a year for insurance and I come close to an additional 2-3k out of pocket expenses for myself and my family.

If I could cut 10k of medical expenses, by having my taxes increase less than that amount, I would come out ahead. If I had to pay more taxes than that, I would not.

I believe M4A would be nice to have and fall back on for some but I don't think I want Washington to decide for me should I want to keep the insurance I have now. I think it's arrogant for some politician to tell me I'm too stupid to think for myself and they know whats better for me. That, and Warren is a quacktard IMO. We already have one quacktard in the oval office. I see no point in replacing him with another.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah. I defy you to find anything that indicates.. I am anything "like a one string puppets".

The only person who appears to be a string puppet here is you Jbander. You have no clue how other countries arrive at their lower costs.. and seem to thing that there is some magical free lunch here... where there are no potential negative issues with going to doing what other countries do.

Canada single payer doesn't pay for outpatient therapy and medicines.... is that the type of single payer you envision here?

Frances single payer will pay for abdominal surgery.. but not for the anesthetic it requires... is that what you envision here?

The UK has virtually no private hospitals or providers.. almost every provider is pretty much a government employee..is that what you envision here?

You have no clue what you are talking about.. just regurgitating the fantasy your masters describe to you.. kind of like a utopian fantasy.. where things like wages, etc.. don;t matter..

Who has a canned answer "coming from God"...that's describing the heaven like fantasy?

It ain;t me .
Click to expand...
God you are boring , why would I care what you think of me , you are this countries biggest enemy, the logic of me caring what the enemy of my country thinks is amazing and stupid. What your arguing with is just your opinion. I've brought up the numbers , which of course is the only thing that counts multiple times and you come back and say no you are wrong , because I say so. Try looking at the numbers for once , I don;t give a **** about your opinion, why would I , I mean I don't look at you as being very bright, so why would i except your opinion.
 
jonny5 said:
What she said is shell get it in payroll tax from the employer. Instead of my employer buying me health insurance, the govt will take that money and give me Medicare. And since half of the country doesnt work, she'll double the employer payroll tax to pay for them (which of course they pass down to me and consumers).

Of course, the cost will be much higher than expected. It always is. So I get less wages/higher prices and lose my much better HMO.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is not what Warren says - she limits her added (super?) federal taxation of labor (gross pay?) to "large corporations", but I have yet to see her explain how that would be possible. She, of course, never defines exactly what makes a corporation "large" - is it based on the number of employees (50 or more as PPACA used?), the net profit amount or some other factor(s)?

As you noted, any increase in direct labor costs is simply going to be recovered by these employers raising the prices of their goods/services. Those higher consumer prices in turn will become a regressive burden raising the cost of living beyond the means ever more lower wage workers and retirees - the very same group that was supposed to benefit most from M4A.
 
Captain America said:
Good question. Currently, with my insurance provider, with help from my employers, I am paying around 10k a year for insurance and I come close to an additional 2-3k out of pocket expenses for myself and my family.

If I could cut 10k of medical expenses, by having my taxes increase less than that amount, I would come out ahead. If I had to pay more taxes than that, I would not.

I believe M4A would be nice to have and fall back on for some but I don't think I want Washington to decide for me should I want to keep the insurance I have now. I think it's arrogant for some politician to tell me I'm too stupid to think for myself and they know whats better for me. That, and Warren is a quacktard IMO. We already have one quacktard in the oval office. I see no point in replacing him with another.
Click to expand...
So your insulted by the reality of social security which is doing exactly as you are saying about Medicare for all.
 
jbander said:
So your insulted by the reality of social security which is doing exactly as you are saying about Medicare for all.
Click to expand...

Insulted! Insulted I say. LOL!

The problem with that is, yes, I would have preferred to have invested my own money, my own way, rather than have the gubbermint decide for me that I have to invest in SS instead. I have done reasonably well with my own investment decisions. But everyone ain't like me. They have to be mandated the common sense to invest in their retirement via SS as they do not have the foresight to take this action upon themselves. And, when that happens, you and I get stuck with supporting their old ass because we are not a nation that will just sit back and watch stupid people starve to death.

I believe an option to do either/or would have been a better idea but I understand the reasoning behind it. And, for those who choose to not do either, well, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over them sleeping on a cardboard box or eating dog food out of a can. But that's just me.

Ideally, SS would have been a better in it's original form. But once the politicians were allowed to dip in to our investments, coupled with the pay-in/take-out population ratio, this "best laid plan" encountered some bumps in the road that have negatively affected it almost to the point of no return, IMO.

Have a great day and thank you for talking to me.
 
Last edited:
jbander said:
Disregarding your gibberish, We pay more for healthcare in this country then any other industrial nation and the quality of care is no where near the top in the industrial nation. For Gods sake the Cubans live longer then we do.---------"(Reuters Health) - The U.S. spends about twice what other high-income nations do on health care but has the lowest life expectancy and the highest infant mortality rates, a new study suggests.

"
Click to expand...

Oh please.. obviously you have issues with debating someone who actually understands the economics of healthcare.

Let me simplify some things for you.

We currently have an increase in demand.. a tremendous increase in demand for healthcare services because of the aging of our population and the babyboomers.

YOU and Bernie.. are suggesting that the way to make care BETTER.. is to decrease what is spent on healthcare by 1/2.

NOW.. in any logical sense.. how can you believe that there will NOT be negative consequences to reducing healthcare spending by 1/2 in the face of increasing demand.?


IF Bernie Sanders was talking about education..and he said.. look.. schools are having more and more students everyday.... we have more demand for education every day... and so I propose that we reduce spending on education by 1/2 of what we are currently spending... and thus we will have better education...

Would you believe him?

How about you just stick to that simple question? Please answer that... would you believe Bernie could reduce education spending by 1/2 and there would be no negative consequences?

Do you think teachers would just suddenly teach better.. when their salaries are cut.?

Do you think nurses, therapists, doctors, respiratory techs,,, are going to do their jobs better with their salaries cut?
 
jbander said:
Read the comment this isn't rocket science . If you can't see your questioned answered in the comment , then why in the hell would I waste my time with a question that has been answered maybe a 1/2 dozen times already,
Click to expand...

Yeah..but your question isn't answered..

and that's because you actually nor Bernie.. don't know what you are talking about.

Greenbeard has pointed out some things that you have pointedly ignored.. which is that one of the big reasons we pay more in this country for healthcare is that we pay our people better. Our wages are higher.

that's not opinion.. that's fact. You brought up cuba… google if you can what the average salary is in cuba

Right now..the healthcare industry is the major supplier of jobs in the US.. it has surpassed retail and manufacturing. That's a fact...

And you are talking about reducing its spending by 1/3 or more. Yet you don't seem to think there is going to be any negative consequences to that.

You ignore the facts that I have presented to you.. that yes..other countries spend less...but part of the reason is that they cover less.. than many of our insurances do.. or offer less access.. etc.
 
jbander said:
God you are boring , why would I care what you think of me , you are this countries biggest enemy, the logic of me caring what the enemy of my country thinks is amazing and stupid. What your arguing with is just your opinion. I've brought up the numbers , which of course is the only thing that counts multiple times and you come back and say no you are wrong , because I say so. Try looking at the numbers for once , I don;t give a **** about your opinion, why would I , I mean I don't look at you as being very bright, so why would i except your opinion.
Click to expand...

Actually every think I pointed out was facts. I suggest you go verify them..

Canada government single payer does not pay for outpatient pharmaceuticals, nor outpatient therapies.

French government single payer will pay for abdominal surgery but not the anesthetic … People have to get "mutelles".. to pay for what the government doesn't pay.

Face it man.. you don't want to listen to facts and logic.

And its NOT by the way a republican or democrat thing... Joe Biden and Obama.. realized that Medicare for all.. has serious problems.
 
Captain America said:
Insulted! Insulted I say. LOL!

The problem with that is, yes, I would have preferred to have invested my own money, my own way, rather than have the gubbermint decide for me that I have to invest in SS instead. I have done reasonably well with my own investment decisions. But everyone ain't like me. They have to be mandated the common sense to invest in their retirement via SS as they do not have the foresight to take this action upon themselves. And, when that happens, you and I get stuck with supporting their old ass because we are not a nation that will just sit back and watch stupid people starve to death.

I believe an option to do either/or would have been a better idea but I understand the reasoning behind it. And, for those who choose to not do either, well, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over them sleeping on a cardboard box or eating dog food out of a can. But that's just me.

Ideally, SS would have been a better in it's original form. But once the politicians were allowed to dip in to our investments, coupled with the pay-in/take-out population ratio, this "best laid plan" encountered some bumps in the road that have negatively affected it almost to the point of no return, IMO.

Have a great day and thank you for talking to me.
Click to expand...
I'll make this real simple because anymore then that will create a dilemma in that little hateful mind of yours. I work for two organizations that help and house family's that live on the streets and I know for a fact that you puffed up hero's can be one of them overnight and you will be complaining how little the government does to bail your sorry ass out. You people are pitiful and pampas. And when the world is talking about you for having financial problems with your hate and disregard your showing here I wish I would be around to laugh my ass off. Your not a winner your just lucky like all you golden hypocrites. Your a fricken joke hot shot.
 
jbander said:
I'll make this real simple because anymore then that will create a dilemma in that little hateful mind of yours. I work for two organizations that help and house family's that live on the streets and I know for a fact that you puffed up hero's can be one of them overnight and you will be complaining how little the government does to bail your sorry ass out. You people are pitiful and pampas. And when the world is talking about you for having financial problems with your hate and disregard your showing here I wish I would be around to laugh my ass off. Your not a winner your just lucky like all you golden hypocrites. Your a fricken joke hot shot.
Click to expand...

You know.. you are a lot like Trump. You really don't have any facts.. and when presented with facts or any differing logic or opinion that confuses you.. your only response is to be insulting.
 
jbander said:
Either you contribute or your gone, do you think that I would care what the enemy of my country thinks of me. You are wasting bandwidth if you continue you are gone. Say go ahead.
Click to expand...

Contribute to what, your constant crying and spewing of bile about a duly elected official?

Because at this point it's just sad, and as stopped being funny for a long time now. Hell, you've been reduced to the same desperation of calling me an enemy of the country, like most of the others. Yet you'd be stumped to actually produce such evidence in the first place.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) is not what Warren says - she limits her added (super?) federal taxation of labor (gross pay?) to "large corporations", but I have yet to see her explain how that would be possible. She, of course, never defines exactly what makes a corporation "large" - is it based on the number of employees (50 or more as PPACA used?), the net profit amount or some other factor(s)?

As you noted, any increase in direct labor costs is simply going to be recovered by these employers raising the prices of their goods/services. Those higher consumer prices in turn will become a regressive burden raising the cost of living beyond the means ever more lower wage workers and retirees - the very same group that was supposed to benefit most from M4A.
Click to expand...

That is literally what she said.

Understanding Warren’s Medicare For All Employer Tax
 
It must be more cost effective to solve for a simple poverty of capital under our form of Capitalism simply Because it will increase market participation and have a positive multiplier effect upon our economy.
 
If the left had any guts, they would admit that MFA will raise taxes on the middle class, BUT also make the argument that your out-of-pocket healthcare spending will go down.

But they are afraid, rightly so, that people won't stick around for the 2nd part of that sentence. The instant they hear "raise [my] taxes", they will oppose it. No matter what.

People are dumb. Or maybe they aren't. Polls show most people are happy with their current insurance. They want to keep their doctor and their health plan and they don't trust anyone who holds out promises of free rainbows and unicorns.
 
eman623 said:
If the left had any guts, they would admit that MFA will raise taxes on the middle class, BUT also make the argument that your out-of-pocket healthcare spending will go down.

But they are afraid, rightly so, that people won't stick around for the 2nd part of that sentence. The instant they hear "raise [my] taxes", they will oppose it. No matter what.

People are dumb. Or maybe they aren't. Polls show most people are happy with their current insurance. They want to keep their doctor and their health plan and they don't trust anyone who holds out promises of free rainbows and unicorns.
Click to expand...

What I dont get is you have enough takers in some states to just implement it state wide? Why havent they done so? Why do they have to force it at the national level?
 
jonny5 said:
What I dont get is you have enough takers in some states to just implement it state wide? Why havent they done so? Why do they have to force it at the national level?
Click to expand...

Why doesn't the right wing come up with better capital solutions at lower capital cost, instead of nothing but social Repeal?


We have a Constitution and our federal doctrine to work with.
 
jonny5 said:
What I dont get is you have enough takers in some states to just implement it state wide? Why havent they done so? Why do they have to force it at the national level?
Click to expand...

In part those states are worried that it might cause the poorest and sickest people to immigrate and drive up medical costs. California had a universal healthcare prop on the ballot a few years back which failed and that was one of the arguments against it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
She, like many politicians, says different (conflicting?) things on different dates and to different audiences.

Ending the Stranglehold of Health Care Costs on American Families | Elizabeth Warren
Click to expand...

Ironic that she says on that page, "Serious candidates for president should speak plainly about these issues," given how exceedingly misleading a lot of her arguments on that very page are.

She frames things from the perspective of a middle class family of four, which makes it easy for me to talk about in the first person because I have a family of four and am middle class. Warren explicitly states my family's spending on premiums and out-of-pocket medical will drop to zero. She says that money will "go back into my pocket." Sure sounds wonderful to me. Then she promises she will not raise my taxes a penny. That also sounds wonderful.

But to anyone who is willing to think just a little bit critically, this means that hundreds of billions of dollars that the middle class pays which end up paying for the nation's health care will no longer be doing so. So where is the money to continue paying for the nation's health care going to come from?

"we make up the difference with targeted spending cuts, new taxes on giant corporations and the richest 1% of Americans, and by cracking down on tax evasion and fraud."

GMAFB.

She also wants to give special tax breaks to companies who unionize.

"Employers can reduce their Employer Medicare Contribution by supporting unionization efforts and negotiating with workers to provide better wages and benefits – reducing costs and promoting collective bargaining at the same time."

That is blindingly corrupt. Imagine a Republican promising to tax people differently based on whether they join the NRA or not.
 
eman623 said:
In part those states are worried that it might cause the poorest and sickest people to immigrate and drive up medical costs. California had a universal healthcare prop on the ballot a few years back which failed and that was one of the arguments against it.
Click to expand...

But they said this would keep people from being poor. They should want everyone to move to their state, where universal healthcare would create social equality.
 
jonny5 said:
But they said this would keep people from being poor. They should want everyone to move to their state, where universal healthcare would create social equality.
Click to expand...

Solving simple poverty is simpler and easier; it could be done on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States via unemployment compensation.
 
eman623 said:
If the left had any guts, they would admit that MFA will raise taxes on the middle class, BUT also make the argument that your out-of-pocket healthcare spending will go down.

But they are afraid, rightly so, that people won't stick around for the 2nd part of that sentence. The instant they hear "raise [my] taxes", they will oppose it. No matter what.

People are dumb. Or maybe they aren't. Polls show most people are happy with their current insurance. They want to keep their doctor and their health plan and they don't trust anyone who holds out promises of free rainbows and unicorns.
Click to expand...
Here's the deal ,at this point no one will have a increase in taxes if any of the plans I've seen so far are selected. If there is the need for more money , it will all come from the wealthy , not the middle class. and in fact even a small part of the ultra wealthy. Next down the line it will come from tax breaks that are made totally for the golden few at the top ,for instance, Cap gain deduction on investments. It's income and should be taxed as income. The tax cuts that allow corporation and people like scum bag not paying taxes will be next to dump. Well you get the drift , Medicare for all already has 3.65 trillion in the bank now with that amount being spent already and accounted for already for healthcare in the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom