Riggo-toni Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 Anyone who thinks we can have moderately competent government run healthcare without massive tax increases is living in denial. It won't be income taxes so much as consumption taxes. Every country with socialized medicine has sales taxes in the teens or higher, as well as high taxes on gas. Canada, at 13% sales tax and around $2/gallon on gas is at the low end. Countries in Europe that have the level of safety net that Bernie espouses are well above that. The terribly unhealthy American lifestyle of sloth and fast food means our healthcare costs per capita will always be higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 The question then becomes: is it worth it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 36 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said: Anyone who thinks we can have moderately competent government run healthcare without massive tax increases is living in denial. It won't be income taxes so much as consumption taxes. Every country with socialized medicine has sales taxes in the teens or higher, as well as high taxes on gas. Canada, at 13% sales tax and around $2/gallon on gas is at the low end. Countries in Europe that have the level of safety net that Bernie espouses are well above that. The terribly unhealthy American lifestyle of sloth and fast food means our healthcare costs per capita will always be higher. Warren's plan does introduce new taxes but the healthcare expenditure estimates do seem to be on the low end. Looks like the fuzzy math that Republicans promise with each of their tax cuts and how they will pay for them. Unfortunately there is no acceptable public policy solution to making the solid, earthly people of this country exercise more and eat less red meat. The healthcare debate has to be entirely about sickness care rather than preventative measures that could save us billions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 42 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said: Anyone who thinks we can have moderately competent government run healthcare without massive tax increases is living in denial. It won't be income taxes so much as consumption taxes. Every country with socialized medicine has sales taxes in the teens or higher, as well as high taxes on gas. Canada, at 13% sales tax and around $2/gallon on gas is at the low end. Countries in Europe that have the level of safety net that Bernie espouses are well above that. The terribly unhealthy American lifestyle of sloth and fast food means our healthcare costs per capita will always be higher. Obviously, government health care is going to have a cost. Just as a ballpark estimate, I assume that providing the same level of coverage that people have now, will cost . . . what they're paying now. Obviously, that's talking averages. Individuals will pay more or less, and will get more or less. And yeah, the government will take the profit of one part of the health care ecosystem out of the picture. But the government isn't exactly legendary for it's efficiency, either. And I'm pretty sure that profit/overhead is a small part of the money, anyway. I have no doubt that the folks who oppose the idea will attempt to very loudly complain about the fact that the average person will experience a staggering tax increase of $X/year, while intentionally not mentioning that $X/year is the exact amount that the average person was paying already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Riggo-toni said: Anyone who thinks we can have moderately competent government run healthcare without massive tax increases is living in denial. Why does it have to be sales tax when companies like Amazon and GE pay zero income tax? This is what people like Bernie and Warren are talking about, this is a false choice, asking me to pay more to make this work when they pay nothing at all? https://publicintegrity.org/business/taxes/trumps-tax-cuts/you-paid-taxes-these-corporations-didnt/ The following is a list of the country’s largest publicly-held profitable corporations that paid no federal income taxes in 2018 on billions in U.S. income, according to ITEP analysis of 560 companies. ITEP reports U.S. income before federal taxes, and takes into consideration paid state and local taxes, which could reduce or increase U.S. income. The report does not look at total tax provision, a number that could include foreign taxes and deferred taxes. All figures, except for tax rate, are in millions. Company U.S. Income Federal Tax Effective Tax Rate Amazon.com $10,835 –129 –1% Delta Air Lines $5,073 –187 –4% Chevron $4,547 –181 –4% General Motors $4,320 –104 –2% EOG Resources $4,067 –304 –7% Occidental Petroleum $3,379 –23 –1% Honeywell International $2,830 –21 –1% Deere $2,152 –268 –12% American Electric Power $1,943 –32 –2% Principal Financial $1,641 –49 –3% FirstEnergy $1,495 –16 –1% Prudential Financial $1,440 –346 –24% Xcel Energy $1,434 –34 –2% Devon Energy $1,297 –14 –1% DTE Energy $1,215 –17 –1% Halliburton $1,082 –19 –2% Netflix $856 –22 –3% Whirlpool $717 –70 –10% Eli Lilly $598 –54 –9% IBM $500 –342 –68% Goodyear Tire & Rubber $440 –15 –3% Penske Automotive Group $393 –16 –4% Aramark $315 –48 –15% AECOM Technology $238 –122 –51% Tech Data $203 –10 –5% Performance Food Group $192 –9 –4% Arrow Electronics $167 –12 –7% Source: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 32 minutes ago, No Excuses said: Unfortunately there is no acceptable public policy solution to making the solid, earthly people of this country exercise more and eat less red meat. The healthcare debate has to be entirely about sickness care rather than preventative measures that could save us billions. Now, there's things that can be done that might result in SOME savings for the country. I think Obamacare at least tried to make some steps in that direction. For example, mandating that pre-screening tests be "no cost, no deductible". Encourage people (in the right profile) to get things like colonoscopy, to save the costs of huge cancer treatments later. Encourage vaccinations. As a "health care worker in the field", I can tell you that things like Medicare taking steps to mandate some quality of care has made a VAST difference in how much attention health care providers pay to things like bed sores, hospital acquired infections, and patient education before discharge. You're right, the government is not going to make me quit eating at McDonald's every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 Other than Donald Dumbass, most people realize healthcare is complicated. Relying strictly on market forces is pathological ideology - demand is inelastic for life-saving services, it is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect consumers to be fully informed as if choosing a medication or procedure in an emergency is as simple as shopping for a new car. On the other hand, some market forces do spur on innovations in things like new drug development, bring down costs in some areas, and push for timely responses to medical conditions. The best solutions are ones that are unacceptable to both parties - ones that produce a regulated semi-free market. For example, regulating drug prices for meds that are past their patent dates, things like epi-pens, insulin, and the drug Shkreli jacked up make sense. Putting tough limits on new drug prices will stifle innovation. Take the current cure for Hep-C. It costs nearly $100k for the 3 month treatment to wipe out the disease, and is frequently cited as an example of exorbitant drug prices, but its success will eventually lead to its own obselesence. Without an expectation to recoup research costs, pharmaceutical companies would never have invested in its development. A ridiculous amount of US healthcare costs are squandered on paperwork, thanks in part to the fact that every state adds its own regulations on top of federal rules, and every insurance company uses different forms. Doctors nowadays have to hire people just to sort out the paperwork. Federal regulations for universal forms that must be used by every insurer in every state could make a nice dent in costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted November 1, 2019 Author Share Posted November 1, 2019 2 hours ago, Cooked Crack said: Bull. Once it's up and running, they will find the need to raises taxes for everyone. Whether that's thru income or consumption taxes, will see if she wins and gets it passed. ALSO, private insurance employs a lot people. In some places, private insurance is the biggest employer. I really haven't heard how she will address that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Rdskns2000 said: ALSO, private insurance employs a lot people. In some places, private insurance is the biggest employer. I really haven't heard how she will address that. Its in the house bill and goes further then Sanders original senate bill. I keep saying these Bill's are being negotiated and they arent being given enough time to address every question in a single setting outside of sitting down and reading them, that doesnt mean they arent being addressed. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190302.150578/full/ Quote Recognizing that M4A would be disruptive to the health insurance workforce, the bill allows up to one percent of the national health budget to be allocated to programs that assist health insurance-related workers who may experience displacement. This budget allowance is authorized for the first five years that M4A is in place. In differences with the Sanders bill, this assistance would also be available to those who perform related functions within health care institutions or organizations, and the assistance would have to include wage replacement, retirement benefits, job training, and education benefits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Rdskns2000 said: ALSO, private insurance employs a lot people. In some places, private insurance is the biggest employer. I really haven't heard how she will address that. Admiring the volume of people who will loudly insist that: 1) It won't save any money. 2) It will lay off millions of people who's jobs won't exist any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 6 hours ago, Riggo-toni said: For example, regulating drug prices for meds that are past their patent dates, things like epi-pens, insulin, and the drug Shkreli jacked up make sense. Putting tough limits on new drug prices will stifle innovation. Take the current cure for Hep-C. It costs nearly $100k for the 3 month treatment to wipe out the disease, and is frequently cited as an example of exorbitant drug prices, but its success will eventually lead to its own obselesence. Without an expectation to recoup research costs, pharmaceutical companies would never have invested in its development. The Hep-C drug (sofosbuvir) wasn't that novel (hence the lawsuit over the patent; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gilead-sciences-lawsuit/gilead-wins-reversal-of-2-54-billion-hepatitis-c-drug-patent-verdict-idUSKCN1G10MH), didn't really costs that much to develop (the work was mostly conducted by a smaller pharma company), and costs a bunch because Gilead paid a bunch to acquire the company that did develop it and owned the patent because they knew if they did, they could charge a bunch for it and make a bunch of money. Pharmasset, the company that developed it, actually thought a reasonable price would be $36K before being bought by Gislead. Simply,sofosbuvir costs a lot because a big company realized that if they owned the patent, they could make a lot of money so the paid a bunch of money to acquire the patent (by buying the company that owned it), and then charged a bunch to offset the costs associated with their purchase and make a bunch of money. People use sofobuvir as an example of what is wrong with drug prices for a reason. Because it is. (The people making epipens actually claim the same thing. They point at the costs of epi-pens going up because of improvements to the epipen design. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/mylan-says-it-upgraded-epipen-2009-so-experts-looked-inside-n652651 ) (In general, it isn't at all clear the high costs of drugs are driving innovation vs. CEO salaries and stock values.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 Other candidates need to follow Beto's lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 Wow, didn't see that coming so soon. I thought he'd be one of the last to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 This is kind of what I've been getting at for a while- it's actually the more serious candidates who seem more likely to drop out than the fringe ones. Messam, Williamson, Sestak- they never had a chance, they were never going to be relevant candidates. So, what is different now from 2 months ago? 4 months ago? But Beto, Harris, Castro- they actually got into this race thinking they had a shot at it. As that shot fades to black, there is reason to drop out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted November 1, 2019 Author Share Posted November 1, 2019 Money. They aren't raising money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 6 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said: Bull. Once it's up and running, they will find the need to raises taxes for everyone. Whether that's thru income or consumption taxes, will see if she wins and gets it passed. it’s very possible, if not likely, that eventually taxes will need to increase to cover the cost of MFA. Fortunately, the current iteration of the plan (which frankly is idealistic at best) will save consumers $3T per year in insurance premiums, so there’s plenty of room to raise taxes and still be significantly less *cost* to the middle class and below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 56 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said: Money. They aren't raising money. Heres to hoping that kills Bidens campaign once he loses some early primaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoneMessedUp Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 I wonder when people will finally realize that Medicare for All is a pipe dream that doesn't have a chance in hell of ever passing the senate and get back to focusing on things like defeating Donald Trump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 1 hour ago, skinsmarydu said: Wow, didn't see that coming so soon. I thought he'd be one of the last to go. Or at least make it to Iowa, damn. Clear difference that looking better doesnt matter, raising money can knock you out. Now I have to ask, can he take that money and run for Senate? If he can, do it before Castro does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 America not quite ready for a skateboarding president. Neither am I, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 I think O'Rourke is tired out, he's been running for something for over three years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said: Now I have to ask, can he take that money and run for Senate? If he can, do it before Castro does. He blew any shot he had parroting the progressive lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 4 minutes ago, twa said: He blew any shot he had parroting the progressive lines. Possible. What about Castro? Is protecting transgender women right to abortions too far? Being sarcastic and serious same time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.