Warrencare

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by LafayetteBis, Nov 16, 2019.

  1. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    From the Economist (9 Nov..) - Warrencare

    Excerpt:
    If you're a Yank, the predictable age at which you will die is 79. For me here in Europe under a National Health Care plan, my predictable lifespan is 83.

    In fact, "natural-lifespan" predictions in this matter are kinda-sorta "hairy". But, whatever the predicative mechanism employed, I am going to live a longer-life - if I remain in Europe along with the other 650,000 of us Yanks who live here under a National Healthcare Service - we are going to live longer lives than you in the US!

    MY POINT?

    Any measure that costs more to Jeff Bezos and his ilk is better taxation than exists today. The average American is getting screwed - your taxes support the largest-part of the national Discretionary Budget that goes to the DoD - around 57%!. (See that sad fact demonstrated here.)

    The "DoD Industries" are benefiting most by foreign-wars whilst you-plural are contributing your sons/daughters to die over in the SandPit!
    Now that's a bad deal if I've ever seen one!

    (PS: And a Merry Christmas to you too ... ! ;^)
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2019
  2. Observing

    Observing Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Messages:
    3,321
    Likes Received:
    910
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem for the left is that they don't know how to frame an argument. Instead of saying that Employers are going to removed of the cost of health care to better compete worldwide and employees will no longer have to pay premiums and deductibles. They need to frame it as it make no sense to spend 20 cents of every health care dollar on corporate overhead and profit = this inefficient mess we have now.

    The healthcare industry fought tooth and nail against a public option, once that option becomes law, it will cover 80%
    of the people now covered by private healthcare within 5 years as it will cost less. The government will price it 10% cheaper, Employers will flock to it.
     
  3. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If she burdens employers with this plan, we will regret it.

    If we want something, we need to man up and pay for it ourselves and quit looking for the magical "someone else" to pay for it.
     
  4. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I must agree. The Left (as it exists in the US) must get its act-together. The reasons are patently obvious. Private Healthcare is inadequate and must be replaced by a National Healthcare public-version.

    The problem, I think, is one of the psychological need of "male domination" (a psychological "proof of manhood"). Which means the democratic-vote becomes one that is highly-competitive. Competition is not bad in sports. It can be awful in politics however. (Note that we are presently preparing to impeach a PotUS!)

    It would be good to have a female president. First to show women that they can indeed be "presidential-quality candidates". And then to elect-one to show how others that it is not life-threatening. (But let's double the guard on her when that happens!)

    There is a lot to be redrawn as regards the American democracy, which itself has been amply manipulated vote-wise by just-one-party in the recent past.

    And it still is ...
     
  5. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How so? Is paying more taxes so more people live-longer with a National Healthcare System a "burden"? It seem more like common-sense to me.

    At present your lifespan in the US is around 79. Mine in Europe is 83 - that is, four more years. Why does that difference occur? Mine here in Europe is a National Healthcare System with reasonable costs covered by national taxation. In the US it is privatized - and thus the lack of sufficient competition makes it far more expensive than national-systems.

    What exactly do you find right about that last fact? Its origins are the that Healthcare Services in the US are the most expensive in the world. And if you do not care to see that substantiated by professional research, then you will NOT want to click here to see the international comparative-costs: Health System Tracker ...
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2019
  6. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,700
    Likes Received:
    21,100
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't care what other people do for healthcare as long as I can choose to not participate.

    If you have to force me to 'help' you not pay the corporate overhead, you're doing it wrong (and I will oppose it).
     
  7. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    LIVING LONGER AND BETTER

    Under my National Healthcare Scheme (here in Europe) you are not forced to participate. However, your taxes pay for the service which is why it is free, gratis and (nearly) for nothing. (Dentistry not included.)

    Moreover, because it is nearly-for-nothing (about $20 per visit of which 50% is reimbursed directly) more people visit annually. Which means what?

    That there is no such thing as an "ER" in Europe because (1) in case of an emergency (reported by a national phone-number) an ambulance (with a doctor inside) will come to you wherever you are physically. And (2), you will be taken to the nearest hospital immediately if necessary - again at no direct cost directly to the patient.

    Of course, if these "advantages" in case of illness (for whatever the reason) do not appeal to you in the US, then you must use a private-doctor. At the present exorbitant cost. There is good reason for that high cost because a GP in the US earns $200K a year - given that they must repay their schooling-loans. (See here: Comparative international costs of health-care systems.)

    In Europe, and given that medical-education cost about ($1K) a year (at any nationally subsidized university) there is no personal debt. The costs of training/employing doctors is far less under a National Healthcare System (NHS). And their pay-scales are accordingly lower than in the US - see here: International (Medical) Compensation Report.

    The benefits of a NHS that are much lower cost than in privatized-medicine (as in the US) are patently obvious as is its key result. It saves peoples lives and allows them to live longer&better ...
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2019
  8. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have several competing suggestions for health care. One of them eliminates private insurance; one of them keeps and expands private insurance, and one of them is a gradual transition.

    1) If we eliminate private insurance, then Universal Health Care (UHC) should be paid for out of our pockets through progressive taxation, through a combination of payroll and income taxes. It should be progressive so that low income people are not bankrupted. But in this case, we are all paying for it through a dedicated tax. There would be no magical, mystical "someone else" paying for it. It would be us paying for it. A couple of side benefits of this idea is that people tend to value that which they pay for. And the other one is that an apathetic, uninformed public will stand up and take notice if they have to pay for it. Another one is that it would not negatively impact our employers.

    2) A competing suggestion is to keep our present system, but to require that all employers offer health insurance to their employees and dependents. The criticism of this idea is that smaller businesses can't afford that. But in the U.S., the largest source of medical insurance for people is through their employer, so this is not some radical untested idea. There would be a period of adjustment, and I would suggest that it be phased in, rather than trying to institute it overnight.

    3) Expanding Medicare through gradual transition and funding. Our present Medicare system uses private insurance (Medicare Advantage plans). We would have to decide if we wanted to keep it that way or if we wanted to fully cover people without the Advantage plans. If we wanted to fully cover people without using private insurance, then the gradual transition would first have the goal of increasing payroll and income taxes enough to provide fully paid full coverage for the 65+ population only. Then, allow time for the economy to adjust. Then, let the people decide if they want to raise their taxes by "X" percent and bring in the 60-64 age group. If so, the next step after that would be the 55-59 age group, and so on, raising taxes as we go to pay for the added group. This would be a slow process, but that is not necessarily a bad thing because it would allow the economy to adjust to the new paradigm gradually.

    As for Warren's plan, I don't like it. I don't think it's politically possible. I don't like how complicated it is. I don't care for counting on "x" amount of savings that we don't really know there will be. And I don't like her pandering for votes with the unrealistic idea that the magical, mystical "someone else" will pay for it. All of these funding sources from the wealthy "someone elses" are going to turn right around and pass those costs onto the consuming public anyway, so she should just be honest. We DO have to pay for it, so why not just pay for it directly rather than using all of these smoke and mirrors to make it look like we aren't paying for it. I am wise to this charade, and I don't like it.

    The reason Americans have a lower life expectancy is that we're fat. Americans are fat, and that lowers our life expectancy. It's not our health care system; it's our obesity.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2019
  9. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Lest we forget:
    *Any plan incorporating recovery of Healthcare private-insurance costs whilst working means that healthcare insurance-costs are being recuperated from an entire nation of consumers who, themselves, do not all have Healthcare insurance.
    *Consumers are thus paying therefore for the healthcare of those with private HC-insurance - for which the consumers do not benefit in the least.
    *Do you think that is fair and impartial? (I don't.)
    *What is fair and impartial of any government cost should be a benefit to all a nation's people for a service of such key-importance as Healthcare*...

    *And, frankly, I extend that same reasoning for total government subsidizing of postsecondary education. Which will put those obtaining the degrees in a higher income-bracket and therefor paying more taxes - that will help offset the costs of a National Healthcare Plan!
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2019
  10. Robert E Allen

    Robert E Allen Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    5,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    We are trillions of dollars on debt. We already have deficit spending. The American people oppose new taxes..
    Thr concept that we can have ANY new government programs is wrong minded..

    We need to cut government spending and taxes it's just the right thing to do.

    When you're broke. You spend less and take a low wage job.. that's what America needs to do..
     
  11. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well then an alternative is to leave the system as it is but expand it. So the individual pays for a Medicare Advantage Plan if they want it, not the taxpayer.

    In any case, if we want everyone to have health care, here is what I'm looking for ...

    - Stable, predictable, dedicated taxation that pays for this in full. It is, after all, our health care, so we should pay for it, not the mythical "someone else", and not our employers.
    - No deficit spending to accomplish this.
    - Incremental implementation, allowing the economy to adjust to the new paradigm gradually.
    - No loss of access or quality of care.

    If a proposal cannot meet this criteria, I will not support it. Presently, only about 8-9% of our population is not covered by some sort of health insurance. I realize that that is not good for that 8%, but it is not a crisis for the entire nation. And so I am not anxious to just throw out the the baby with the bath water, so to speak, especially if the funding for it is using a lot of smoke and mirrors and guess work. That is too much of a risk.

    I have been covered by employer-provided health insurance all my life, and I raised a family using it. It has worked just fine for us. I wish everybody had it, frankly. At least, using that method, we know who's paying for it, how it's funded, and what it costs. Clearly, Warren's plan does not meet that standard, and I won't support it.
     
  12. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The crisis is the cost of our system, and the results of that system compared to every other first world nation. Single payer systems are empirically superior to ours. Single payer systems provide better fare than we do, and do it at a fraction of the cost we do.
     
  13. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    19,292
    Likes Received:
    7,606
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    Try more tobacco and deep fried foods!
    Less snails. ;)
    Less wine, more moonshine.

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Robert E Allen

    Robert E Allen Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    5,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    How were those statistics determined?
     
  15. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, as I said, employer paid insurance worked well for me and my family. But let’s not debate which system is better. Good medical care is good medical care, and when you need it, that’s what matters.

    If you prefer single payer, fine. The issue is how we pay for it. If that’s the way we go, we must have reliable, sustainable, dedicated funding for it that covers the cost in full, without relying on deficit spending.

    So my question to you is, how do we do that? The more specifics, the better.
     
  16. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Now that is a very sensible and excellent analysis of this situation.

    I have a different story. I NEVER was covered by any employer other than myself. I paid insurance premiums and frankly for the fees paid, the need never matched the fees. I then decided to save funds for this. I used those funds to pay the doctor. For those on the Employer paid dole, (no disrespect to them) they got used to it and probably made no inquiry of a lower cost plan.

    I found that per year, my savings in not buying insurance covered a lot more than just the doctors fees. As one ages, nature changes it a lot. I have to say that on Medicare, I go to doctors perhaps 2 times a year. When I lived in CA until this past June, I would go to the doctor per his schedule. But here in Idaho the doctors are more prone to a visit per year.
     
    Seth Bullock likes this.
  17. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Democrats prefer the Feds pay the bills to doctors since in their way of seeing it, they escape any of the cost. Only if they are above the no income tax paid to the Feds level do they suddenly care. In short how many Democrats actually plan to pay the fees for any form of insurance?
     
  18. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How we do it is raise taxes. I know that is a poisonous word for people on the right. Nobody wants their taxes to go up. But what you have to realize is single payer eliminates private insurance so you aren’t paying premiums. The tax increase is less than the premiums you currently pay.
     
  19. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It should be poison to any American.
     
  20. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "The tax increase is less than the premiums you currently pay", you said.

    Do you think those taxes should be progressive, where they are levied according to your income level? Or do you think the taxes ought to be a certain flat percentage of income that is the same for everyone?

    In either case, there would be an income level threshold where the tax actually exceeds the amount some people pay in premiums. Let's look at an example ...

    Presently, good, high quality medical insurance for a family of four may cost between $15,000 and $20,000 per year. Now let's say it's decided that everyone is going to pay 10% of income for single payer. For a family bringing in $60,000 a year, that's a good deal because the tax costs you only $6000, and you get free medical care. But somewhere in the upper middle class, it goes the other way. Let's say your household income is $250,000 per year. You've been paying between $15-20,000 a year for private insurance. But now, you're paying 10% of $250,000 which is $25,000. That's going to be between 5 and $10,000 more. As the income levels rise, the difference gets more dramatic. For example, a $500,000 household now pays $50,000. A $1 million household now pays $100,000. (And this would be in addition to all the taxes they already pay.)

    If instead of a flat percentage of income, we used a progressive percentage where lower income people paid a smaller percentage of income and higher income people paid an increasingly higher percentage of income, the same thing will happen at some point. Those higher income people are going to pay more - and in some cases a lot more - than they do now.

    This situation is going to cause resistance, including from well-to-do liberals. Congress will have a very, very hard time doing this to its more well-to-do constituents (and donors), and I'm not talking about just Republicans. I'm talking about Democrats too. Even if Democrats had a super majority in the House, Senate, and had the Presidency too, they would have a very, very difficult time passing this.

    If it's one thing I've learned about politicians it's that they love to promise things when they know they don't have the power to deliver them, because then it's not their fault, and they can get away with that charade. Two examples: Before the Republicans controlled the House and Senate, they took votes to abolish Obamacare, knowing they couldn't pass the measures and they could just blame the Democrats. But, when they did control the House and Senate and had a Republican President, they couldn't muster the votes to abolish Obamacare. When the Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency in the first two years of Obama's presidency, you didn't hear a peep out of them about raising taxes on wealthy individuals or on corporations. But as soon as the Republicans gained control, all those voices calling for higher taxes on the rich magically rose up from the Democrats. Please excuse my cynicism, but I can read these guys, and I understand their games.

    And so I think this is why Warren presents this rather complicated funding plan, basically going through unrealistic contortions to avoid telling people the truth. She doesn't propose a straight forward dedicated tax plan, and instead says she'll tax this and tax that - wealth taxes, bank transaction taxes, everything and everybody except the middle and lower classes. This will not work, Congress will not do it, but she is dishing out the bs that uninformed, naive people want to hear: "You don't have to pay for it." I disrespect her for this, and I won't vote for her. She wants to be elected, and she'll say anything to get votes.

    So there's my cynical response, and I welcome your feedback.

    Seth
     
  21. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why? It’s how governments and society function.
     
  22. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Every other first world nation is able to do this. There is absolutely no reason we can’t.
     
  23. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And all of those other first world nations have much higher taxes than we do. And in those countries, the people pay those taxes, not "someone else". A few examples ...

    United Kingdom: Income tax high rate is 47%. National sales tax: 20%
    Canada: Income tax high rate is 54%. National sales tax is 5%, but there are Provincial taxes as well that raise that as high as 15%.
    Australia: Income tax high rate is 47%. National sales tax is 10%.
    France: Income tax high rate is 45%. National sales tax is 20%.
    Germany: Income tax high rate is 47%. National sales tax is 19%, 7% on food.

    So at least they pay for it, and it is ordinary people who pay for their health care. It isn't "someone else". It's them.

    Now, if we can convince the American people of higher income taxes and a national sales tax of up to 20%, maybe we can fund this.

    I said it before, and I'll say it again ... We can have things we want ... if we're willing to pay for them. You, me, all of us, paying for it out of our pockets. If we want it badly enough, we can pay for it and have it.

    "Someone else" paying for it is pie-in-the-sky bs, and it will not happen.
     
    Robert likes this.
  24. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Government reminds me of Jesse James or other robbers. Bonnie and Clyde also were robbers.

    “If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized.”
    ― Lysander Spooner
     
  25. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How long does a healthy 70 year old live in Europe v the US?
    That is the real question.
     

Share This Page