Read Elizabeth Warren’s lips: No middle class tax hike to fund $20T Medicare for All

Democrats are Democrats if you have a job they want all your money..

I do not consent to them governing me!

 

I can do this all day. My post is just as not imaginary as your proof. It is, after all, the very next post right after it.

 

You know that you didn’t, and so does everyone else.

 

Your argument is that I didn't post next to your imaginary proof?

 

I know you say its false.

Imperical data must be analyzed.
Please present your analysis that establishes a causal relationship between a single payer system and your "imperical" data

 

His unanalyzed "imperical" data

 

You've never argued with rahl before, have you...? It is absolutely FUTILE. In over ten years of sparring with this poster, I have always found that he is absolutely impervious to any point of view but his own, and that he will not countenance the introduction of any facts or evidence but those HE subscribes to. Simply put, it's his way, or, NO way.... Believe it or not, there's a lot of power in that approach....

But, go ahead and beat your head against a wall if you want to. Through all these years, I've lost some, and I've won some -- but never, even once, has rahl ever conceded defeat on ANY point. And when it is obvious that he has, indeed, lost an argument (only on those occasions when he really has been outdone), he simply disappears! He evaporates, abandoning the debate, never returning to it in the same thread.

Rahl's greatest strengths? His absolute refusal to compromise or acknowledge any legitimacy in the opinion or argument of an opponent. And, those ubiquitous opaque one-liners of his, which frequently answer NOTHING, go into no depth, and seek only to support a stubborn, one-dimensional ideological position.... Have fun!

 

Look at that, Rhal people are demanding you refute that proof you keep saying I didn't post.

 

Then you should be against legalizing drugs.

 

If everybody in the Middle Class could take advantage of page after page of write-off's, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, loopholes, and tax shelters as the wealthy in this country do, the percentage of their incomes taken away in taxation would be similar to the rich -- MUCH, MUCH LESS.

Ostensibly, according to one's "bracket", the taxes are structured this way (for 2019) --



But how many actually pay that tax amount? In my experience, very, very few (if any). They hire tax attorneys and tax accountants to sift through the many write-off's and other 'escape mechanisms' they can get legally -- and all are found right in the U. S. Tax Code.

I say again in response to your question of "What is a fair share?" A FAIR SHARE can only be determined once all the shelters, loopholes, exemptions, deductions, exclusions, etc., etc., etc., are taken OUT of the U. S. Tax Code. Then, at that point, finally, the tax "bracket" a person is in will mean something, and not be a joke that the rich of both political parties sneer at....

 

The problem is, when arguing "fair share" they apply your argument to totally screw those who make more, but not enough to take advantage of the deductions the rich have access to.

Example, comparing the tax rate between those making $50k and those making $150k.
The $150k guy gets clobbered and has little ability to take advantage of significant deductions.

$150k is chump change compared to the wealthy, yet that guy gets ****ed six ways from sunday, and they are fine with it.

 

That's OK.
Other people read the exchanges.

 

one of the biggest causes of the high health care costs we see today is the Standard American Diet... also known as the S.A.D. diet

 

republicans are the ones taking your money and wanting to give back less to society

we spent over 7 Trillion on two middle eastern wars.... The Bush tax cuts for the rich added trillion to the debt as will Trump tax cuts for the mega corps

just look when the debt started rising a trillion a year... .hint, it started under Republicans

Republican charged up the credit card and now want the middle class to pay it off

 

1. At least the money spent on those two wars went into the economy.

2. Tax cuts don't cause deficits. Spending more than you bring in does.

 

It doesn't provide better care. It provides more accessible care. Americans who have good health insurance get the best medical care in the world. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's the tradeoff.

 

What an excellent question in your first sentence!

THIN LIZZIE’S WEDGE

Elizabeth Warren is yet another Karl Rove/Steve Bannon dirty trick—a plant inside the Democrat Party with the perfect appeal to make the party sign up for the biggest political suicide note since the Labour Party decided to run on unilateral disarmament against Margaret Thatcher in 1983. (Labour lost in a historic landslide.)

Warren’s Medicare-for-All depends on a 6 percent wealth tax on the super-rich, up from a previously proposed 3 percent. (Funny how the tax rate is rising already.) Here’s a riddle. Let’s just take Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates, each worth something like $100 billion in round numbers. I am continually surprised by the number of people who think that Bezos, Gates, Buffett, etc., all have $100 billion in cash in a bank savings account or something—or even stacks of $100 bills in a vault somewhere. These wealth figures are the capitalized market value of the immense asset base (tangible and intangible) on paper is lost on these folks.

So let’s just take an annual 3% wealth tax. Gates, Bezos, Buffett, et al. will have to sell $3 billion worth of their stock holdings—each year—to send their wealth tax check to the IRS.

Question: Just who is going to buy that much stock every year?

And what would the effect of the many forced liquidations have on stock values?
Or credit markets if Bezos decided to borrow the money every year?

What about fortunes that are privately owned, rather than expressed in the market value of a publicly-traded company, such as people in real estate, or in any kind of business with a lot of fixed assets not easily liquidated. How would these assets be valued and taxed? The socialist economist advising Warren on her scheme, Gabriel Zucman, offers this suggestion:



Great. Just sign your assets over to the IRS!

 

It doesn't provide that either.

Single payer systems have no mechanism to efficiently react to changes in the opportunity cost of resources. Without such a mechanism it has no way to determine a resource's most efficient use.

The fallacy inherent to the argument of all these single payer fanatics is that the price of care is primarily influenced by something they define as greed. They falsely believe that the elimination of this thing they call greed will produce savings.

I submit that the only thing their plan can produce is waste, because key to their plan is the elimination of the mechanism that allocates resources to their most efficient use. Greedy producers in competition don't waste resources because the supply of resources is finite. They maximize the use of resources. Conversely, greedy consumers retain their mechanism to determine opportunity cost. They continue to consume as long as the marginal benefit of consumption exceeds the marginal cost. This produces scarcity...

It happens Every... Single.... Time....

(That "that's not real socialism" is tried)

 

You know what's interesting? Bill Gates has devoted a massive amount of his wealth to solving humanitarian crises around the world. How ironic is it that she [Warren] wants to steal the money Gates is using to provide Africa with polio vaccines, and sanitary sewer systems so that she can give relatively wealthy Americans health care promises?

 

What does this even mean? Give an example rather than libertarian cliche.

A single payer system just determines how health care is used in a different manner. In the US, it's ability to pay. In Canada, it's based on medical necessity.

Actually, the primary argument of single payer proponents is that cutting out the third party, aka insurance companies, and their included profit motive is where the savings will come from. The math doesn't back that up, as American consumption of health care may or may not decrease under a single payer system. If it does not, then what we spend will not decrease either.

 

Her views and policies are deeply infected with “punitive liberalism.” And she's not the only one:





So Billionaire Oprah monopolized herself and should have been broken up?



These folks are punitive totalitarians and they think they have the right to take by force what they desire, as Warren already has proved when she stole minority set asides intended for women of color.

 

Cliche, basic economic principle, tomato, tohmahto.

Oh, it just does something so incredibly complex that it's more efficient for a few people to make choices based on political motives than it is for hundreds of millions of people to make based on economic motives. Easy as that, right?

What makes you think that the value of the resources used to administer health care privately is zero? Does that make sense to you, that private companies would waste all that value? Or is it just possible that the utility of the service that it provides is actually equal to the cost? Don't you think that insurance companies are spending all that money on administration for a reason?

 

This is an excellent point. There is a huge difference between those who have suffered from a health issue that is no fault of their own, while there are others who have simply chosen self destructive behavior.

No telling how much of my auto insurance premium goes to pay for those who have chosen to drive drunk, drive while using drugs, or decide to text in heavy traffic.

 

Wardens Medicare for all is reported to cost 45-52 trillion. Sanders Medicare for all reported to cost 30+ Trillion.

More than Bush, Obama or Trump has spent. There is no way their plan can be paid for. Lowering reimbursements to Hospitals, Clinics , Providers; is not a possibility as the reimbursements are already too low.

Doctors who take Medicare are not allowed by law to wave their patients deductible or copayment. So if a patient is at risk of losing their life or limbs and can't afford to pay their deductible and copay: the Government doesn't care. This is one of the dumb regulations under Medicare. There are so many more and one reason sort Doctors and Surgeons no longer sign up for Medicare.