Bernie Sanders: We Will Raise Taxes On Anyone Making Over $29,000 To Fund Government Health Care

[Rigby5]

An entire thread of Leftards justifying raising taxes on people making $14/hr. Wowzers.

No, public health care would save everyone lots of money, and not cost anyone any more than they spend now.
The rest of the world is proof.

Rationing and long waiting lists are awesome!!!

There is no rationing or long waiting lists for emergencies in Canada, England, France, Germany, or any place with public health care.

 

[pknopp]

Doctors make more money under public health care than they do under private insurance.
That is because over half the current overhead for running a medical practice is hiring the huge staff needed to fill out all the insurance paperwork. We are talking about tens of billions wasted.
Also the corporate layers currently skimming are removed, such as the insurance companies and the large medical corporations that have bought up all the medical providers, into monopolies.

Without insurance companies dictating which doctors you have to see, then you have a wider range of choice, so you need fewer doctors and can just keep them more busy.

Another advantage of public health care that people do not realize, is that private insurance often is not taken by out of state providers or in other countries. Travelers do not realize they are not covered at all. And all those prepaid insurance premiums are useless and lost if you change jobs.

Wrong. Providers and doctors are paid less with government patients; typically they only get 2/3 of what they bill out. That's why some are refusing new Medicare and Medicaid patients. It's also why when you see medical facilities close down, it's in lower income neighborhoods where most of the patients are government patients. There is nowhere to recoup those losses.

So how do they recover that lost money? Simple, they increase prices, and private insurance ends up paying the loss. Government is part of the reason insurance premiums keep going up. We baby boomers are retiring.

So what happens with Medicare for All? The same thing that happened in those lower income areas.

Survey: More doctors report they cannot afford to take new Medicaid, Medicare patients

Doctors limit new Medicare patients - USATODAY.com

Insurance only pays a fraction of the bill also.

Correct, but working people are more likely to pay the rest than a senior citizen.

Nobody pays it.

Bill: $9000

Insurance: pays $3800.

You owe: $240.

No, we all pay for it. Do you think doctors and hospitals operate at a loss? They get that lost money back from other places.

It's also why these figures are all wrong by Sander's or anybody else. They are calculating what it would cost for all of us to be on Medicare, not figuring in how to pay for those losses since private pay and private insurance would no longer be doing it.

No they don't. It's a tax scam. They take the money they get (and obviously do very well) and then write the "paper loss" off on their taxes.

 

[Rigby5]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

This thread is the very definition of Fake News.

True
The Sander's campaign released a document describing how Medicare for All could be financed. A 4 percent income-based premium paid by employees, exempting the first $29,000 in income for a family of four was one of nine options.
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/down...4ADD-8C1F-0DEDC8D45BC1&download=1&inline=file

Which is about half what most people are paying now for private health insurance.

 

[Flash]

I see no one demanding higher taxes to pay down the 23 Trillion.

I am. Have been for years. I think taxes should automatically go up (across the board, not the usual "targeted" bullshit - the increase needs to hit everyone) until we reach a balanced budget. It's the only way we'll get a true read on how much government people actually want. As it is, with no one paying for it, people will vote for every "free shit" program that is proposed.

I have better idea.

Why don't we for the time being keep the taxes where they are and cut back on spending? The money we cut back on we could use to pay the debt.

We could easily cut back a couple of trillion a year on Federal spending and still spend more money on the cost of government than almost any other country on earth.

When everything is paid off then we can reduce taxes by the amount we had been spending on the debt. Win win for everybody except the filthy welfare queens that suck on the teat of big government.

We have a militarist global empire to maintain for the Wall Street banksters and "job creator" class.

Is that why Obama was at war for every day of his administration? To pay back the Wall Street Bankers that contributed considerably more to him than they did to McCain or Romney?

Is that why he also bailed out banks and corporations?

Yes, very good, it is all bipartisan isn't it.

Did you vote for Obama or Crooked Hillary? Because if you did you voted for somebody in the back pocket of corporations and banks.

In other words don't bitch about things that you help create.

 

[Rigby5]

Robin Hood stole from rich to give to poor but Robin Bernie want to steal from all levels of contributors to give to all illegals and non contributors.

Illegals are too young to need any significant health care.
And we currently pay for the health care of non contributors now, but about 4 times what it should cost because it is done throught the ER.
Face facts, Medicare for all would cost most people less than half what they pay now.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

I love the "tax the corporations" ploy.

Tax corp's and they raise the price of their product that you and I pay for.

Tax big oil & the price of gasoline goes up & you and I pay for it.

STOP VOTING FOR PEOPLE WHO SAY TAX CORPORATIONS!!!

We already subsidize corporations with socialism.

Then lets stop the socialism welfare state and let the chips fall where they may.

Your Wall Street banksters and "job creator" class won't allow it, are you paying any attention at all?

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

I am. Have been for years. I think taxes should automatically go up (across the board, not the usual "targeted" bullshit - the increase needs to hit everyone) until we reach a balanced budget. It's the only way we'll get a true read on how much government people actually want. As it is, with no one paying for it, people will vote for every "free shit" program that is proposed.

I have better idea.

Why don't we for the time being keep the taxes where they are and cut back on spending? The money we cut back on we could use to pay the debt.

We could easily cut back a couple of trillion a year on Federal spending and still spend more money on the cost of government than almost any other country on earth.

When everything is paid off then we can reduce taxes by the amount we had been spending on the debt. Win win for everybody except the filthy welfare queens that suck on the teat of big government.

We have a militarist global empire to maintain for the Wall Street banksters and "job creator" class.

Is that why Obama was at war for every day of his administration? To pay back the Wall Street Bankers that contributed considerably more to him than they did to McCain or Romney?

Is that why he also bailed out banks and corporations?

Yes, very good, it is all bipartisan isn't it.

Did you vote for Obama or Crooked Hillary? Because if you did you voted for somebody in the back pocket of corporations and banks.

In other words don't bitch about things that you help create.

Correct, no voter should say anything at all for just that reasoning.

 

[jillian]

You might pay more in taxes, but you would pay $20,000 a year less for health insurance.

Obamacare imposed a huge tax on health-insurance corp's and my monthly premiums QUADRUPLED!

Go ahead you idiots...vote to tax corporations! And enjoy paying those taxes.

If you need proof...look at any one of your monthly bills....at the bottom you'll see TAXES! Taxes that YOU PAY every month!

The ACA did no such thing.

most of us get health care through our employers. If you are paying more it’s because you had a garbage policy.

and the poor insurance companies no longer get to cancel policies when someone gets sick.

no one has control of them manipulating the prices.

 

[Flopper]

I love the "tax the corporations" ploy.

Tax corp's and they raise the price of their product that you and I pay for.

Tax big oil & the price of gasoline goes up & you and I pay for it.

STOP VOTING FOR PEOPLE WHO SAY TAX CORPORATIONS!!!

We already subsidize corporations with socialism.

Then lets stop the socialism welfare state and let the chips fall where they may.

Since half the country receives some form of social welfare, that is not going to happen.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

I love the "tax the corporations" ploy.

Tax corp's and they raise the price of their product that you and I pay for.

Tax big oil & the price of gasoline goes up & you and I pay for it.

STOP VOTING FOR PEOPLE WHO SAY TAX CORPORATIONS!!!

We already subsidize corporations with socialism.

Then lets stop the socialism welfare state and let the chips fall where they may.

Since half the country receives some form of social welfare, that is not going to happen.

Like Jeff Bezos.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Correct, but working people are more likely to pay the rest than a senior citizen.

Nobody pays it.

Bill: $9000

Insurance: pays $3800.

You owe: $240.

No, we all pay for it. Do you think doctors and hospitals operate at a loss? They get that lost money back from other places.

It's also why these figures are all wrong by Sander's or anybody else. They are calculating what it would cost for all of us to be on Medicare, not figuring in how to pay for those losses since private pay and private insurance would no longer be doing it.

I disagree.
When medical providers are only paid a third of what they charge, they are not operating at a loss.
It is just that they have jacked up their bills by over 4 times what they should be.

The savings that would pay for medicare for all would be the billions currently wasted on filling out private insurance claims, prepaying premiums, tax exempt employer benefits, incredibly jacked up provider charges, profit skimming by insurance companies and medical corporation monopolies, etc.
Other countries prove health care costs can be cut in half and still provide better quality service.

Nobody has better healthcare than the US when it comes to quality.

I'm a patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic. In fact, was just there yesterday to get checked out. When you go to their downtown campus, you are the one who feels like a foreigner.

It's not just patients, it's doctors as well. They either come here from their socialized medical care countries to make some real money, or come here, get educated, and never return home. So because of our system, we draw the best talent from around the world.

My sister works there as well. She can testify to the amount of Canadian patients at the Clinic looking for some relief that they couldn't get in their socialized medical care country. In fact, all our northern hospitals have Canadian patients.

So you can't tell me of another country that's problem-less either. They all have either extremely slow services, low quality equipment, medications we quit using decades ago, or outright refuse to treat some people. Nobody has a perfect medial system, including ours.

Not at all true.
The US is ranked something like 29th in health care.
Medical tourism FROM the US is 100 times higher than people coming to the US for medical care.
The only people coming to the US for medical care are the very wealthy who want elite care.
That is not what most people in the US get.
The US has over 100,000 a year dying from medical malpractice, and is one of the worst in the world for health care quality.
The fact we pay physicians more does not mean we get better quality health care.

Government was only responsible for the real estate collapse in that they had repealled Glass-Steagall, and allowed banks to make incredibly risky loans to each other, knowing the government would then be forced to bail them out.

Glass-Steagall didn't prevent banks from writing bad mortgages.

Writing bad mortgages had nothing at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.
What caused the collapse was bundling the bad mortgages into derivatives that then were traded as stocks, as if they were of far greater value than they really were, both allowing banks to pretend they had more assets than they really did, and to essentially force government to secure risky stock investments the government would not have had to secure if Glass-Steagall had not been repealled.

The proof these were not bad mortgages in the first place, is that people had been successfully making payments on them for many years.
It was the changes in 2008 that doubled their monthly payment that caused the home buyers to default, and that was NOT their fault. Blaming individual home buyers is totally incorrect.

Writing bad mortgages had nothing at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.

That's hilarious!!

The proof these were not bad mortgages in the first place, is that people had been successfully making payments on them for many years.

Refinancing during the growth phase of a bubble is easy.

It was the changes in 2008 that doubled their monthly payment that caused the home buyers to default

You mean that mortgages that were current at 1% interest and in default at 5% interest were good mortgages?

and that was NOT their fault.

People who took out loans they couldn't afford are entirely blameless?

The mortage defaults were never allowed to refinance.
The bubble busting made their home not worth enough for them to qualify.
They owed more than the home was worth.
But they still would have kept making their old payments because they would want to protect their down payment.
But they could not make the new ARM payments that as much as doubled.

There were no 1% interest mortgages.
They lowest mortgages during the bubble were around 8%, and the bust made them jump to over 15%.
The drop to 3% did not happen until years later, when there were so many foreclosures that banks had to eventually drop rates.

Almost no one took out real estate loans they could not afford.
They were making the payments successfully, and could have continued doing so.
It was their rates being jack up deceptively by ARM loans that forced them to default.
Do you think they just wanted to throw away their down payment and years of monthly payments?
They liked being make homeless?

Again, read about the LIBOR scandal.
Libor scandal - Wikipedia

But they could not make the new ARM payments that as much as doubled.

If you can only afford the teaser rate.....chances are you got a bad mortgage.

There were no 1% interest mortgages.

There were definitely mortgages with very low teaser rates as well as negative amortization mortgages.

They lowest mortgages during the bubble were around 8%,

If rates were 8% or higher, the bubble wouldn't have happened.

and the bust made them jump to over 15%.

You're lying.

It was their rates being jack up deceptively by ARM loans that forced them to default.

Deceptively? LOL!
When was the last time you took out a mortgage?
The pages and pages of rate disclosure documents are hard to miss.

Do you think they just wanted to throw away their down payment and years of monthly payments?

Many had very low or no down payment at all.

First of all, teaser rates most definitely ARE DECEPTIVE and not the fault of the borrower.
Second is that the loan paper work did NOT disclose that the loan was based on the British LIBOR instead of the US Prime, and that in a recession when the US Prime would go down, the LIBOR would greatly go UP!

First of all, teaser rates most definitely ARE DECEPTIVE

You're lying.

Second is that the loan paper work did NOT disclose that the loan was based on the British LIBOR instead of the US Prime

You're lying.

in a recession when the US Prime would go down, the LIBOR would greatly go UP!

No one knew LIBOR would go up. Any specifics?
Or just something you heard?

3-Month London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), based on U.S. Dollar | FRED | St. Louis Fed

Was this "greatly go UP"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We are 23 Trillion in debt. When do we hit bankruptcy? If we do not have to pay for bombs and bailouts, why do we have to pay for healthcare?

Almost all of the national debt is defense spending.
Most of our annual budget is defense once you include things like VA and GIBill costs.
The national debt still includes SDI, Desert Storm, the invasion of Iraq, etc.
There is essentially no social services in the national debt.
There will be some when SS temporarily short falls by 10% or so, but nothing significant yet.

Almost all of the national debt is defense spending.

You misspelled "entitlement spending".

That is not at all true.
First of all, you can not include self funding programs like Social Security of Medicare.
Second is that not only is about 50% of the rest of the national budget for defense, but all of the interest on past debt is also defense. So the real total for defense spending is more like 75% of the discretionary budget.

First of all, you can not include self funding programs like Social Security of Medicare.

Look at all the transfer payments. They dwarf defense spending.

What transfer payments?
Clearly programs like Social Security had been running a surplus that was used to fund the national debt for almost a century.

All the transfer programs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

An entire thread of Leftards justifying raising taxes on people making $14/hr. Wowzers.

No, public health care would save everyone lots of money, and not cost anyone any more than they spend now.
The rest of the world is proof.

Rationing and long waiting lists are awesome!!!

There is no rationing or long waiting lists for emergencies in Canada, England, France, Germany, or any place with public health care.

There is no rationing or long waiting lists for emergencies in Canada, England, France, Germany, or any place with public health care.

What about for non-emergencies?

 

[flack]

2020 Presidential Election
Published 2 hours ago
Warren in polling freefall as ‘Medicare-for-all’ comes under fire
By Alex Pappas | Fox News
She wants to spend $5.2 trillion a year on Medicare for all. In 2018 the federal government spent $4.1 trillion on the entire government. Just think about that.

 

[pknopp]

2020 Presidential Election
Published 2 hours ago
Warren in polling freefall as ‘Medicare-for-all’ comes under fire
By Alex Pappas | Fox News
She wants to spend $5.2 trillion a year on Medicare for all. In 2018 the federal government spent $4.1 trillion on the entire government. Just think about that.

Fox news saying bad things about Warren. Imagine that.

 

[satrebil]

This thread is the very definition of Fake News.

Can you explain how so, or was yours a fake statement?

The Democratic Debate Over 'Medicare For All' And Middle-Class Taxes, Explained

It's misleading to just say taxes are going up. Because those increases will be more than offset by the complete removal of healthcare premiums, co-pays and minimal prescription drug costs. Leaving out the full statement is creating Fake News.

It is downright laughable that you actually believe this. The government can't even deliver the fucking mail without pissing red ink all over the place, and you think they'll be able to optimally budget the multi-trillion dollar industry that is healthcare?

You don't smart so good, do you...

How many times has the banking industry needed bailed out? We should trust private industry?

Where the fuck have I ever said they should have been bailed out?

Can you explain how so, or was yours a fake statement?

The Democratic Debate Over 'Medicare For All' And Middle-Class Taxes, Explained

It's misleading to just say taxes are going up. Because those increases will be more than offset by the complete removal of healthcare premiums, co-pays and minimal prescription drug costs. Leaving out the full statement is creating Fake News.

It is downright laughable that you actually believe this. The government can't even deliver the fucking mail without pissing red ink all over the place, and you think they'll be able to optimally budget the multi-trillion dollar industry that is healthcare?

You don't smart so good, do you...

So you think if there is government takeover of healthcare you'll still be paying premiums for private insurance?

And you're questioning my intelligence?

No, dumbass. I'm saying your "offset" won't exist because the government can't even budget a free lunch.

Jesus Christ do I need to spell things out in crayon for you or what?

Do seniors like and support Medicare?

What the hell does this have to do with the discussion at hand? I'd like it if the government paid my mortgage. That doesn't mean it's fiscally sustainable.

 

[flack]

2020 Presidential Election
Published 2 hours ago
Warren in polling freefall as ‘Medicare-for-all’ comes under fire
By Alex Pappas | Fox News
She wants to spend $5.2 trillion a year on Medicare for all. In 2018 the federal government spent $4.1 trillion on the entire government. Just think about that.

Fox news saying bad things about Warren. Imagine that.

The text under the guy's name is mine.

 

[dblack]

I have better idea.

Why don't we for the time being keep the taxes where they are and cut back on spending? The money we cut back on we could use to pay the debt.

We could easily cut back a couple of trillion a year on Federal spending and still spend more money on the cost of government than almost any other country on earth.

When everything is paid off then we can reduce taxes by the amount we had been spending on the debt. Win win for everybody except the filthy welfare queens that suck on the teat of big government.

We have a militarist global empire to maintain for the Wall Street banksters and "job creator" class.

Is that why Obama was at war for every day of his administration? To pay back the Wall Street Bankers that contributed considerably more to him than they did to McCain or Romney?

Is that why he also bailed out banks and corporations?

Yes, very good, it is all bipartisan isn't it.

Did you vote for Obama or Crooked Hillary? Because if you did you voted for somebody in the back pocket of corporations and banks.

In other words don't bitch about things that you help create.

Correct, no voter should say anything at all for just that reasoning.

Unless they refused to vote for either of them.

 

[flack]

Time to jet. Happy Thanksgiving to all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong. Providers and doctors are paid less with government patients; typically they only get 2/3 of what they bill out. That's why some are refusing new Medicare and Medicaid patients. It's also why when you see medical facilities close down, it's in lower income neighborhoods where most of the patients are government patients. There is nowhere to recoup those losses.

So how do they recover that lost money? Simple, they increase prices, and private insurance ends up paying the loss. Government is part of the reason insurance premiums keep going up. We baby boomers are retiring.

So what happens with Medicare for All? The same thing that happened in those lower income areas.

Survey: More doctors report they cannot afford to take new Medicaid, Medicare patients

Doctors limit new Medicare patients - USATODAY.com

Insurance only pays a fraction of the bill also.

Correct, but working people are more likely to pay the rest than a senior citizen.

Nobody pays it.

Bill: $9000

Insurance: pays $3800.

You owe: $240.

No, we all pay for it. Do you think doctors and hospitals operate at a loss? They get that lost money back from other places.

It's also why these figures are all wrong by Sander's or anybody else. They are calculating what it would cost for all of us to be on Medicare, not figuring in how to pay for those losses since private pay and private insurance would no longer be doing it.

No they don't. It's a tax scam. They take the money they get (and obviously do very well) and then write the "paper loss" off on their taxes.

Write offs don't amount to much. I have nearly a hundred every year. They still lose money if they don't make it up elsewhere.