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

[Rigby5]

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.

You are full of it.

Federal Spending Breakdown
Almost two-thirds of federal spending goes toward paying the benefits required by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These are part of mandatory spending. Those are programs established by prior Acts of Congress.


The interest payments on the national debt consume 10% of the budget. These are also required to maintain faith in the U.S. government.


The remaining 30% of spending goes toward discretionary spending. This pays for all federal government agencies. The largest is the military.

WRONG!
NO federal spending goes toward paying the benefits required by Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.
They are all pretty much self funding currently, through FICA.
They are not currently part of the federal budget at all.
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is our own money being given back to us.
Over the last century, FICA has been running a surplus, which has been used to pay the national debt.
It is only in the next 10 years or so that Social Security will start to run a slight deficit and need federal funding.

Military spending has always been more than half the federal budget.

It is STUNNING that 40% of the under 35 crowd does not know nor even believe that We paid into social and Medicare for 30/40/50 years and that if properly invested by government those $200,000 amounts would have rightly doubled and now we are drawing off of what we have already paid for.
COMPLETELY different than food stamps, unemployment, housing vouchers and other moocher distributions.

Can't argue with you there.
Social Security is only paying us back with about a 5% interest return on our investment, so is not a Ponzi scheme or anything unrealistic.

The only argument I would make is that you put unemployment into the unfunded moocher category, and unemployment also is an insurance program that is self funded by our pay ins.

 

[pknopp]

Bernie the angry elder and his angry younger minions want to punish those who put this country on their back, sacrificed and saved, and made the USA great, They are angry because the woikd not and did not do it themselves and they feel justified to take..take..take..

Who is working for the billions the Fed just pumped into wall street?

Not the topic so lousy diversion and go ahead and answer your deflective smoke screen yourself.

Your point was people who do not work for what they get. My point was then spot on.

 

[Rigby5]

Did I ask you if you did? No. Why not just skip questions you don't want to answer?

What am I skipping? We're talking about government management of a private industry. I'm opposed to it and your argument is... to bring up another instance where government got involved that it shouldn't have? WTF?

You were complaining that the government makes bad decisions. I was pointing out that private business does also.

Actually I'm actually saying the government ALWAYS makes bad decisions. And why wouldn't they when there's no accountability? When they fuck up they can just dump it on the taxpayers.

When private industry fucks up, they either have to fix it or lose out to competition. So yeah, I have far more faith in private enterprise than a bunch of bureaucrats.

Private industry cry's to the government to bail them out and they do. I do not care that you say you do not support that, it's what happens.

Now again, try and end Medicare.

Then what the fuck are you even arguing with me about?

I already gave you my response on Medicare - just because it's "liked" doesn't mean it's viable. I don't have to do jack shit, it will implode on it's own. As will Social Security. Mathematics are immutable.

No, social security and Medicare will only go through about a decade of shortfall, and then will be showing a surplus again.
There is nothing wrong with either of them, and they are both perfectly viable programs.
We Boomers skewed it slightly, but only for awhile.

 

[pknopp]

Did I ask you if you did? No. Why not just skip questions you don't want to answer?

What am I skipping? We're talking about government management of a private industry. I'm opposed to it and your argument is... to bring up another instance where government got involved that it shouldn't have? WTF?

You were complaining that the government makes bad decisions. I was pointing out that private business does also.

Actually I'm actually saying the government ALWAYS makes bad decisions. And why wouldn't they when there's no accountability? When they fuck up they can just dump it on the taxpayers.

When private industry fucks up, they either have to fix it or lose out to competition. So yeah, I have far more faith in private enterprise than a bunch of bureaucrats.

Private industry cry's to the government to bail them out and they do. I do not care that you say you do not support that, it's what happens.

Now again, try and end Medicare.

Then what the fuck are you even arguing with me about?

I already gave you my response on Medicare - just because it's "liked" doesn't mean it's viable. I don't have to do jack shit, it will implode on it's own. As will Social Security. Mathematics are immutable.

It will all implode. Too many think we can end the deficits with tax cuts and more spending.

So be it. I would prefer to see it implode by helping people than bombing them.

 

[Rigby5]

Did I ask you if you did? No. Why not just skip questions you don't want to answer?

What am I skipping? We're talking about government management of a private industry. I'm opposed to it and your argument is... to bring up another instance where government got involved that it shouldn't have? WTF?

You were complaining that the government makes bad decisions. I was pointing out that private business does also.

Actually I'm actually saying the government ALWAYS makes bad decisions. And why wouldn't they when there's no accountability? When they fuck up they can just dump it on the taxpayers.

When private industry fucks up, they either have to fix it or lose out to competition. So yeah, I have far more faith in private enterprise than a bunch of bureaucrats.

That makes no sense to be because the bureaucrats are elected, and therefore have to do exactly what we want them to do.
That is way better than for profit corporations that admit they are out to screw us.
And we do not have to speak theoretically.
Public health is the world norm, and is well proven to be vastly superior.

No it's not and no it isn't. There is a wealth of information about the failures of socialized medicine available at your fingertips. Read it.

Socialized medicine has not failed anywhere, and essentially is everywhere now, except the US.
And not having socialized medicine is destroying the US.
By having health care paid for by the employer, we can't change jobs, our products cost too much, we have no control over quality or cost of health care, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

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?

View attachment 291977

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

Was this "greatly go UP"?

Yes, teaser interest rates most definitely are deliberately deceptive.
The buyers were lead to belief they could easily refinance at reasonable rates when the balloon payment came due.
But the market collapse meant they were denied any refinance.

Your graph shows a spike in the LIBOR that doubled.
And the LIBOR scandal was about the fact it was not just known about, but deliberately created.

Libor scandal - Wikipedia

 

[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.

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?

Anyone can make a lying video.
There are long waits for non-emergency medical care in the US as well.
When I had a colonoscopy scheduled, the soonest was 8 months out.
The people I know in other countries, like Canada, definitely have shorter waits, and better quality care.
Not to mention they pay less than half as much.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

That is not at all true.
Medicare for all is projected by everyone to cost less than half what we are paying now.
When you add in the current employer contribution, as well as deductibles, we pay more now than with Medicare for all.

 

[Rigby5]

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?

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.

The point is we all pay into Medicare and then get back the health care, so clearly it can be increased to cover all ages, just like they currently pay into private insurance and then get back the health care.
If private health insurance is solvent, then so much Medicare for all, since its costs and administration fees, profit skimming, etc., are far less.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Medicare for All reminds me of the original Obamacare, "Health Care for America Plan" which contained a public option allowing people to transfer to a Medicare like system without age restriction. The public option was of course a major target of the insurance companies and was dropped almost immediately by congress.

I think there are some misconceptions about how the Medicare for All proposals would be implemented. Once congress gets hold of any of the current proposals, they would change radically.

• First, it would not be Medicare. It would be a healthcare plan similar to Medicare but would look more like an employer sponsored plan than Medicare.
• It would be phased in over many years opening up first to older Americans and gradually extended to all ages.
• Lastly, there would be supplemental insurance just as there is with Medicare.

Any national healthcare plan would be a series of compromises. We have to remember this is not 1965 when Medicare was passed where deals were made between democrats and republicans to pass major legislation and the influence of lobbyists was far less than today.

Maybe so. All depends on how loud and united we can get. With Bernie as POTUS things could be radically different as Congress has also ceded much of its former responsibility and control to the WH. Bernie can't be bought. Huge difference.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

They don't lose a cent if the bills are artificially and deliberately inflated by over 75%.
And they are.
Which is why ACA is not a fix.
The providers are still way over charging.

 

[BluesLegend]

Dem policies are so awesome and popular they have to punish people with taxes and threaten them with laws to force people to OBEY!

Jesus fuck,. God forbid we have laws & God forbid we pay for what we spend.

No wonder you love these skyrocketing deficits. Is this why you voted for Trump?

Wait for it...Trump didn't have to threaten people to accept his tax cut...OH SNAP!!!

 

[francoHFW]

Dem policies are so awesome and popular they have to punish people with taxes and threaten them with laws to force people to OBEY!

Jesus fuck,. God forbid we have laws & God forbid we pay for what we spend.

No wonder you love these skyrocketing deficits. Is this why you voted for Trump?

Wait for it...Trump didn't have to threaten people to accept his tax cut...OH SNAP!!!

Everyone who has health insurance would save money under this plan, but I know you are an irresponsible misinformed dupe of the GOP so you are scared shittless of anything that could help you and your friends and family.....

 

[francoHFW]

Dem policies are so awesome and popular they have to punish people with taxes and threaten them with laws to force people to OBEY!

Jesus fuck,. God forbid we have laws & God forbid we pay for what we spend.

No wonder you love these skyrocketing deficits. Is this why you voted for Trump?

Wait for it...Trump didn't have to threaten people to accept his tax cut...OH SNAP!!!

Everyone who has health insurance would save money under this plan, but I know you are an irresponsible misinformed dupe of the GOP so you are scared shittless of anything that could help you and your friends and family.....

so I'm for Biden and the public option because it is all important that we get your scumbag Heroes out of the White House etc etc.

 

[satrebil]

What am I skipping? We're talking about government management of a private industry. I'm opposed to it and your argument is... to bring up another instance where government got involved that it shouldn't have? WTF?

You were complaining that the government makes bad decisions. I was pointing out that private business does also.

Actually I'm actually saying the government ALWAYS makes bad decisions. And why wouldn't they when there's no accountability? When they fuck up they can just dump it on the taxpayers.

When private industry fucks up, they either have to fix it or lose out to competition. So yeah, I have far more faith in private enterprise than a bunch of bureaucrats.

Private industry cry's to the government to bail them out and they do. I do not care that you say you do not support that, it's what happens.

Now again, try and end Medicare.

Then what the fuck are you even arguing with me about?

I already gave you my response on Medicare - just because it's "liked" doesn't mean it's viable. I don't have to do jack shit, it will implode on it's own. As will Social Security. Mathematics are immutable.

No, social security and Medicare will only go through about a decade of shortfall, and then will be showing a surplus again.
There is nothing wrong with either of them, and they are both perfectly viable programs.
We Boomers skewed it slightly, but only for awhile.

That is absolutely false.

Try and wrap your mind around this - Medicare/social security/etc were based on the premise of shorter lifespans and an ever increasing workforce. However, lifespans have substantially increased and birth rates have substantially declined.

For the sake of simplified argument, assume the following: 3 generations starting in 1980, each with a lifespan of 80 years and a career life of 40 years (starting at age 20 and ending at 60).

In 1980 there are 100 couples. They each have 1 child. This is Gen1.
In 2000, their 50 children enter the workforce. They also couple up and produce 1 child. This is Gen2.
In 2020, their 25 children enter the workforce. This is Gen3.

Immediately when Gen3 enters the workforce, it is sharing the responsibility of Gen1 (who is now retired) with Gen2. 75 people who, on top of their own obligations, must support their original 100 progenitors. Already an issue. Then in 2040 Gen2 retires. Now Gen1 is responsible for ALL of their progenitors, Gen1 AND Gen2. 25 people who must support themselves, plus another 150.

This is what is happening now, and it is completely unsustainable as the government will be forced to take an ever increasing slice of an ever decreasing pie.

Put all the bureaucratic spin on it you want, the math doesn't lie. There will NEVER be a surplus. There WILL be a catastrophic failure.

The ONLY way you keep these programs solvent is to increase birth rates. And with the left's relentless war against children by promoting abortion, carefree single lifestyles, and "I am woman hear me roar" nonsense - this isn't going to happen. We're already well below replacement level and there are no indications that this is going to reverse.

 

[BluesLegend]

Everyone who has health insurance would save money under this plan

LMAO Obama is that you??

 

[BluesLegend]

so I'm for Biden and the public option because it is all important that we get your scumbag Heroes out of the White House etc etc.

Biden is toast, we threw him under the bus with the Ukraine scandal.

 

[francoHFW]

Everyone who has health insurance would save money under this plan

LMAO Obama is that you??

No but Obama was correct also. Everything you know is a lie. of course Obamacare was all they could get at the time and is a framework for reform which we will never get with your scumbag Heroes, brainwashed functional moron.

Bernie's plan would give us the ability to strongly go after costs which are the actual problem after having a scam GOP system forever.

 

[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.

Whether such as system would be successful would depend on how reimbursement rates are determined. If reimbursement rates are too low, then doctors and hospitals will pad their bills, reduce services, and use other means detrimental to patient care to increase their revenue.

That is a risk, but then we can also socialize hospitals, in order to provide some fair competition.
We could use the VA hospitals as minimal safety net, just to keep prices down with a low cost alternative.

 

[francoHFW]

so I'm for Biden and the public option because it is all important that we get your scumbag Heroes out of the White House etc etc.

Biden is toast, we threw him under the bus with the Ukraine scandal.

people in the real world know that is just another of your hundreds of phony scandals that go nowhere in the real world, brainwashed functional moron. It would be nice to have an honest public servant again after this scumbag mobbed up lying fool con man fraud...