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

[dblack]

People pay a ton for health care now. People seem to forget that. So if it costs you $650 a month now or $450 in higher taxes you are ahead.

Because when government gets involved, stuff gets cheaper......DURR.

Eliminate the profit angle and there is no reason it shouldn't.

LOL, no? Here's a clue: Controlling prices doesn't eliminate profit. It ensures it for those doing the controlling.

Controlling prices alone does not eliminate profits. Eliminating profits does though.

You'll have to eliminate people to eliminate profits. They just have this stubborn habit of not working unless they're getting paid.

 

[BrokeLoser]

None of this will work without price controls. So i don't see the point. The first argument needs to be over price controls.

And who controls them.

Why, Father Government of course...right Fort Fun Indiana ?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The first problem is we're doing it all wrong.

Health insurance is high. Why? Because healthcare costs are high.
Healthcare costs are high. Why?
And that's the starting point.

The proper way to address this is to get the cost of healthcare down first, then figure out how to pay for it. But whether it's Obama Care, Republican plan, Medicare for all, we are just shifting the costs, and not working on the costs.

There are several ways to reduce costs, but you have to talk to the people who are creating the costs. You have to meet with dozens and dozens of hospital and insurance company CEOs.

One article I read from an insurance CEO made the claim a lot of their costs involve nickel and dime bills. You go to the doctor for the flu, he charges 80 bucks, and it costs more in paperwork shuffling than it does to treat the patient. The solution to that would be a mandatory medical savings account. You build up some money, and when you have to see your doctor, a therapist, the ER, you simply swipe your medical savings card and it gets deducted from that. No paperwork which means less people needed to process it.

Spot on correct ... I agree 100% ... we'll never lower health care insurance costs until we lower the cost of health care itself ...

The problem with the "mandatory medical account" is what happens when the money runs out? ... are hospitals allowed to dump your sick body out into the streets? ... can ER's start checking "ability to pay" before initiating life-saving treatment? ... the idea of insurance is shared risk ... 80% of us use 20% of the money available ... do we let that other 20% who use 80% of the resources just die? ... I have a friend who just received her death warrant from her insurance company ... no more treatments for anything except what she pays for in cash ...

In Japan, and in some situations, only the doctors practicing at a facility can have ownership stakes; no Wall Street, Venture Capital or Insurance Companies dictating the business side of the affair ... yet still retain the methods to raise capital with corporate bonds and cookie sales ...

Well if you run out of savings in your MSA, it then goes to insurance like it does now. But in the meantime, it will save insurance companies a lot of money, as well as hospital or doctors staff if we just paid out of our account first.

For people who start young, the MSA would likely be pretty hefty before they start using it. I didn't say it would replace insurance for everything, just the nickel and dime charges that we all wait for our insurance company to pay.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

None of this will work without price controls. So i don't see the point. The first argument needs to be over price controls.

That's exactly what Hillary once thought.

https://nypost.com/2015/10/18/hillarys-vaccine-price-plan-didnt-work-the-first-time-for-a-reason/

 

[pknopp]

People pay a ton for health care now. People seem to forget that. So if it costs you $650 a month now or $450 in higher taxes you are ahead.

Because when government gets involved, stuff gets cheaper......DURR.

Eliminate the profit angle and there is no reason it shouldn't.

LOL, no? Here's a clue: Controlling prices doesn't eliminate profit. It ensures it for those doing the controlling.

Controlling prices alone does not eliminate profits. Eliminating profits does though.

You'll have to eliminate people to eliminate profits. They just have this stubborn habit of not working unless they're getting paid.

You do not understand the word. Salary is NOT the same as profit. Do you really think people that work at a non profit don't get paid?

 

[Weatherman2020]

None of this will work without price controls. So i don't see the point. The first argument needs to be over price controls.

So you don’t want any new drugs created.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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

Health Insurance Costs Surpass $20,000 Per Year, Hitting a Record

And Obamacare made medical costs affordable!

Are you really that stupid to pull that BS again? Never mind.

 

[MAGAman]

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!!!

The same dipsticks that whine about tariffs squirm with delight just thinking of corporate taxes.

 

[pknopp]

None of this will work without price controls. So i don't see the point. The first argument needs to be over price controls.

So you don’t want any new drugs created.

Why? People who create drugs would no longer wish to create drugs?

 

[pknopp]

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!!!

The same dipsticks that whine about tariffs squirm with delight just thinking of corporate taxes.

And as it would seem visa versa.

 

[ReinyDays]

Spot on correct ... I agree 100% ... we'll never lower health care insurance costs until we lower the cost of health care itself ...

The problem with the "mandatory medical account" is what happens when the money runs out? ... are hospitals allowed to dump your sick body out into the streets? ... can ER's start checking "ability to pay" before initiating life-saving treatment? ... the idea of insurance is shared risk ... 80% of us use 20% of the money available ... do we let that other 20% who use 80% of the resources just die? ... I have a friend who just received her death warrant from her insurance company ... no more treatments for anything except what she pays for in cash ...

In Japan, and in some situations, only the doctors practicing at a facility can have ownership stakes; no Wall Street, Venture Capital or Insurance Companies dictating the business side of the affair ... yet still retain the methods to raise capital with corporate bonds and cookie sales ...

Well if you run out of savings in your MSA, it then goes to insurance like it does now. But in the meantime, it will save insurance companies a lot of money, as well as hospital or doctors staff if we just paid out of our account first.

For people who start young, the MSA would likely be pretty hefty before they start using it. I didn't say it would replace insurance for everything, just the nickel and dime charges that we all wait for our insurance company to pay.

I think you're right, this would work to a point ... we still have a group of people who will pay their rent first and skip the MSA payment ... that was the problem before the ACA was enacted ... the cost of health care goes up, the cost of health care insurance goes up, and certain group of people have to drop their insurance or be homeless ... health care insurance has to go up a little more to cover the claims ... a year later: wash, rinse, spin ... fewer people paying premiums to pay for higher costs ... this is unsustainable ...

The ACA simply made it illegal to drop the health insurance ... (thus the homelessness crisis) ... and health care costs are still growing by leaps and bounds ... it's still unsustainable ...

Looks like an economical bubble to me ... {pop} ...

 

[ReinyDays]

And Obamacare made medical costs affordable!

Are you really that stupid to pull that BS again? Never mind.

<sarcasm>

What are you talking about ... there's a damn 3.9% surtax on all capital gains and dividend income over $250,000 to pay for this useless program !!! ... how the hell is THAT affordable ??? ...

</sarcasm>

 

[Weatherman2020]

None of this will work without price controls. So i don't see the point. The first argument needs to be over price controls.

So you don’t want any new drugs created.

Why? People who create drugs would no longer wish to create drugs?

You going to gamble $500M on a 3% probability it’ll get thru testing and survive the FDA gauntlet so you can have a 1% return?

 

[Mike473]

Bernie Sanders is too old and recently had a heart attack. He has no chance of winning. He just loves the attention at this point. He let Hillary treat him like a door mat when it matter most, and now he is old news.

 

[pknopp]

None of this will work without price controls. So i don't see the point. The first argument needs to be over price controls.

So you don’t want any new drugs created.

Why? People who create drugs would no longer wish to create drugs?

You going to gamble $500M on a 3% probability it’ll get thru testing and survive the FDA gauntlet so you can have a 1% return?

The fact is, much of the development of drugs is done on the University level.

Universities Stepping Up Efforts To Discover Drugs

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Spot on correct ... I agree 100% ... we'll never lower health care insurance costs until we lower the cost of health care itself ...

The problem with the "mandatory medical account" is what happens when the money runs out? ... are hospitals allowed to dump your sick body out into the streets? ... can ER's start checking "ability to pay" before initiating life-saving treatment? ... the idea of insurance is shared risk ... 80% of us use 20% of the money available ... do we let that other 20% who use 80% of the resources just die? ... I have a friend who just received her death warrant from her insurance company ... no more treatments for anything except what she pays for in cash ...

In Japan, and in some situations, only the doctors practicing at a facility can have ownership stakes; no Wall Street, Venture Capital or Insurance Companies dictating the business side of the affair ... yet still retain the methods to raise capital with corporate bonds and cookie sales ...

Well if you run out of savings in your MSA, it then goes to insurance like it does now. But in the meantime, it will save insurance companies a lot of money, as well as hospital or doctors staff if we just paid out of our account first.

For people who start young, the MSA would likely be pretty hefty before they start using it. I didn't say it would replace insurance for everything, just the nickel and dime charges that we all wait for our insurance company to pay.

I think you're right, this would work to a point ... we still have a group of people who will pay their rent first and skip the MSA payment ... that was the problem before the ACA was enacted ... the cost of health care goes up, the cost of health care insurance goes up, and certain group of people have to drop their insurance or be homeless ... health care insurance has to go up a little more to cover the claims ... a year later: wash, rinse, spin ... fewer people paying premiums to pay for higher costs ... this is unsustainable ...

The ACA simply made it illegal to drop the health insurance ... (thus the homelessness crisis) ... and health care costs are still growing by leaps and bounds ... it's still unsustainable ...

Looks like an economical bubble to me ... {pop} ...

My thought is that it would be deducted from your paycheck like Medicare or SS. Commie Care only shifted the costs from the french fry maker to the electrician. The reason being french fry makers and floor sweepers are likely Democrat voters, and the tradesmen and other middle-class workers likely Republican voters. That's why you never hear the floor sweepers complaining about it like we do.

There is a solution that could make everybody happy on both sides of the fence. If you are on disability for at least a year, you can buy a Medicare plan. So if they extended that same plan to people with preexisting conditions, and allowed us to buy into it as well, it would take all the high risk people off of private insurance and put them on government insurance. That would at least stop drastic premium increases, and Democrats could get what they want which is more people depending on government.

 

[pknopp]

Spot on correct ... I agree 100% ... we'll never lower health care insurance costs until we lower the cost of health care itself ...

The problem with the "mandatory medical account" is what happens when the money runs out? ... are hospitals allowed to dump your sick body out into the streets? ... can ER's start checking "ability to pay" before initiating life-saving treatment? ... the idea of insurance is shared risk ... 80% of us use 20% of the money available ... do we let that other 20% who use 80% of the resources just die? ... I have a friend who just received her death warrant from her insurance company ... no more treatments for anything except what she pays for in cash ...

In Japan, and in some situations, only the doctors practicing at a facility can have ownership stakes; no Wall Street, Venture Capital or Insurance Companies dictating the business side of the affair ... yet still retain the methods to raise capital with corporate bonds and cookie sales ...

Well if you run out of savings in your MSA, it then goes to insurance like it does now. But in the meantime, it will save insurance companies a lot of money, as well as hospital or doctors staff if we just paid out of our account first.

For people who start young, the MSA would likely be pretty hefty before they start using it. I didn't say it would replace insurance for everything, just the nickel and dime charges that we all wait for our insurance company to pay.

I think you're right, this would work to a point ... we still have a group of people who will pay their rent first and skip the MSA payment ... that was the problem before the ACA was enacted ... the cost of health care goes up, the cost of health care insurance goes up, and certain group of people have to drop their insurance or be homeless ... health care insurance has to go up a little more to cover the claims ... a year later: wash, rinse, spin ... fewer people paying premiums to pay for higher costs ... this is unsustainable ...

The ACA simply made it illegal to drop the health insurance ... (thus the homelessness crisis) ... and health care costs are still growing by leaps and bounds ... it's still unsustainable ...

Looks like an economical bubble to me ... {pop} ...

My thought is that it would be deducted from your paycheck like Medicare or SS. Commie Care only shifted the costs from the french fry maker to the electrician. The reason being french fry makers and floor sweepers are likely Democrat voters, and the tradesmen and other middle-class workers likely Republican voters. That's why you never hear the floor sweepers complaining about it like we do.

There is a solution that could make everybody happy on both sides of the fence. If you are on disability for at least a year, you can buy a Medicare plan. So if they extended that same plan to people with preexisting conditions, and allowed us to buy into it as well, it would take all the high risk people off of private insurance and put them on government insurance. That would at least stop drastic premium increases, and Democrats could get what they want which is more people depending on government.

Thousands would still not be able to afford insurance. Would that be a step in the right direction? Yes, but we have to get to where everyone that needs to see a doctor can afford to.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

None of this will work without price controls. So i don't see the point. The first argument needs to be over price controls.

So you don’t want any new drugs created.

Why? People who create drugs would no longer wish to create drugs?

You going to gamble $500M on a 3% probability it’ll get thru testing and survive the FDA gauntlet so you can have a 1% return?

The fact is, much of the development of drugs is done on the University level.

Universities Stepping Up Efforts To Discover Drugs

So where do the universities get their money from?

 

[pknopp]

None of this will work without price controls. So i don't see the point. The first argument needs to be over price controls.

So you don’t want any new drugs created.

Why? People who create drugs would no longer wish to create drugs?

You going to gamble $500M on a 3% probability it’ll get thru testing and survive the FDA gauntlet so you can have a 1% return?

The fact is, much of the development of drugs is done on the University level.

Universities Stepping Up Efforts To Discover Drugs

So where do the universities get their money from?

Many different sources. Students, the government, benefactors........what they don't have is an obligation to appease shareholders.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Spot on correct ... I agree 100% ... we'll never lower health care insurance costs until we lower the cost of health care itself ...

The problem with the "mandatory medical account" is what happens when the money runs out? ... are hospitals allowed to dump your sick body out into the streets? ... can ER's start checking "ability to pay" before initiating life-saving treatment? ... the idea of insurance is shared risk ... 80% of us use 20% of the money available ... do we let that other 20% who use 80% of the resources just die? ... I have a friend who just received her death warrant from her insurance company ... no more treatments for anything except what she pays for in cash ...

In Japan, and in some situations, only the doctors practicing at a facility can have ownership stakes; no Wall Street, Venture Capital or Insurance Companies dictating the business side of the affair ... yet still retain the methods to raise capital with corporate bonds and cookie sales ...

Well if you run out of savings in your MSA, it then goes to insurance like it does now. But in the meantime, it will save insurance companies a lot of money, as well as hospital or doctors staff if we just paid out of our account first.

For people who start young, the MSA would likely be pretty hefty before they start using it. I didn't say it would replace insurance for everything, just the nickel and dime charges that we all wait for our insurance company to pay.

I think you're right, this would work to a point ... we still have a group of people who will pay their rent first and skip the MSA payment ... that was the problem before the ACA was enacted ... the cost of health care goes up, the cost of health care insurance goes up, and certain group of people have to drop their insurance or be homeless ... health care insurance has to go up a little more to cover the claims ... a year later: wash, rinse, spin ... fewer people paying premiums to pay for higher costs ... this is unsustainable ...

The ACA simply made it illegal to drop the health insurance ... (thus the homelessness crisis) ... and health care costs are still growing by leaps and bounds ... it's still unsustainable ...

Looks like an economical bubble to me ... {pop} ...

My thought is that it would be deducted from your paycheck like Medicare or SS. Commie Care only shifted the costs from the french fry maker to the electrician. The reason being french fry makers and floor sweepers are likely Democrat voters, and the tradesmen and other middle-class workers likely Republican voters. That's why you never hear the floor sweepers complaining about it like we do.

There is a solution that could make everybody happy on both sides of the fence. If you are on disability for at least a year, you can buy a Medicare plan. So if they extended that same plan to people with preexisting conditions, and allowed us to buy into it as well, it would take all the high risk people off of private insurance and put them on government insurance. That would at least stop drastic premium increases, and Democrats could get what they want which is more people depending on government.

Thousands would still not be able to afford insurance. Would that be a step in the right direction? Yes, but we have to get to where everyone that needs to see a doctor can afford to.

I'm just giving a few suggestions that I came up with. There are more, like tort reform that would decrease the price of doctors malpractice insurance.

Years ago, you went to the doctor for something wrong with your arm, or ears. The doctor would treat you and send you on your way. Today, your family doctor is only a referral agency. Anything outside of a cold, you have to see a specialist, and sometimes several specialists. They do this to shift the liability to somebody else.

They also run you under every test imaginable. They don't do that to help them diagnose your problem, they do it to cover their ass in case something goes the slightest bit wrong and they get sued. Some of these unnecessary tests can run in the thousands, and of course, your insurance has to pay it.