WA Dem Socialist Runs in Mold of Ocasio-Cortez, Insists Medicare for All Can Be Paid For

You've got to factor in current total federal healthcare spending and healthcare related tax expenditures and both are roughly a third of their respective federal spending units and once you do you're in the ballpark. The additional tax revenue required should come from the conversion of benefits to salary or taxable income.

In the Koch funded analysis someone posted on this board (which is a cost outlier) the author noted that salaries would "likely" rise. B.S. The conversion of benefits to salary MUST be mandated or employees will get screwed big time (reduced compensation and increase in taxation). Corporations will not do it if its not mandated. Period. The last time I checked benefits represented 32.3% of total compensation and the healthcare portion (most of that percentage) must be converted to salary or taxable income. That is precisely how the additional tax revenue needed should be raised: a tax increase shouldn't be necessary. If, for example, the healthcare portion of your benefit package represents 25% of compensation then your salary MUST be increased 25% to maintain your total compensation and obviously taxable income would increase quite dramatically. The compensation value has been established and employees should not lose it. The savings for corporations should only be the elimination of administrative costs.

The way in which they insure employees maintain their total compensation is the only part of a universal healthcare plan that scares me because the labor voice is not strong in our system and I can envision everyone getting bent over and...

 

Since most advanced nations have amply demonstrated that they can cover everybody at around half the cost of the US that fails to cover millions whose often bloated (ERs) medical expenses are routinely dumped on the taxpayer's tab, it is obviously a pragmatic reality with successful paradigms aplenty.

It may also be an ideological taboo that does not comport with the dogma of some. They, along with the profiteers who benefit from the current fiscal inefficiency. will undoubtedly impede progress for quite some time yet.

 

So you think that you can effectively have companies give everyone a 50% pay increase. lol.

The study you reference notes several important considerations:

1. Doubling personal and corporate tax rates still wouldn't cover the cost
2. Healthcare providers would have to accept 40% less than they're paid now (medicare rates), which would effectively gut much of the healthcare providers in the US

 

The obesity rate in the US is over 38% versus 26% in the UK. Personally, I would rather have my medical bills than pay for people who abuse their bodies. There is no good argument for encouraging unhealthy lifestyles by making healthcare free. Which begs the question, if healthcare is 'free', who's paying for it?

The place for the federal government is to fund research find cures for some of the very expensive diseases --- auto-immune diseases. Treatments for diseases like Crohns can be $15,000 per infusion given every 8 weeks.

Once the US government funds the research and clinical trials, we can't allow the pharma companies to charge us more than other countries that beat them up for cheap access to the drugs. I don't believe the government should set the price, just the rules. If the pharmas want to give Canadians bargain basement prices, for instance, they can't charge US citizens one dime more.

I don't know what you call success. Ocasio-Cortez won her primary by capturing 57% of a tiny turnout. Our school system puts tax levies on May and August ballots because only voters with a vested interest show up for those ballots. In the case of primaries, those who are intolerant of viewpoints they don't share, aka progressive radicals, show up and almost no one else.

This Democrat move to block Republicans by holding a single primary is going to work out well for the GOP. While the Democrats will be spending in blue districts and states on both sides of the ballot for a single seat, the GOP will be free to spend 100% of their money on their side of the ballots they have a chance to win.

Socialism and the intolerance of progressives who adhere to it ,,, haven't worked anywhere, ever. We are about to witness a Red Wave the likes of which hasn't been seen in a midterm with a Republican President ,,, and it will have nothing to do with the quality of GOP candidates. Socialists are simply making it too easy.

 

....and yet here we are in the the UK with free (at the point of access - obviously it's paid for through general taxation) healthcare and a lower incidence of that particular lifestyle condition so maybe it doesn't encourage unhealthy lifestyles. Whilst the US model may be working well for you as an individual, as a society it appears not to be working given that the US spends more public money on healthcare than the UK.

The free (at the point of access - obviously it's paid for through general taxation) healthcare provides a mechanism for early intervention. It's better to try to address weight issues when they first present instead of at the first amputation.

That said, the UK model is not well suited to the US psyche IMO, but there are plenty of other successful models out there.

Why are you so keen on the federal government interfering in the market in this way ?

I'm not sure how you'd police that. I expect you'd end up with an extension of the current situation where you have one set of Pharmaceutical companies offering expensive drugs to the US and another set offering generic alternatives to the rest of the world