Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Soc Sec cap is probably history, you're correct. I do think we could increase personal brackets to 50% top end as well without significant drag.
Bernies plan combined with 70%, which are also proposed by the leftwing fringe, marginal tax rates on income would amount to confiscatory tax rates of well over 100%.
I really think that the 2.2% should be a flat rate that is not progressive, cap progressive tax rates on personal income at 50% for money earned over $1 million per household, and completely remove the cap on social security taxes.
The way the Regressives are playing with words on this, we're going to end up with either Single Payer or something like what I'm talking about.The Medicare plan should not be the government plan offered to everyone, the Medicaid insurance should be and it should be a sliding sclae, one size fits all simple insurance that covers 100% of costs.Now tell me how private HC insurance can possibly compete with an expanded gov't paid Medicare program. Answer: they can't. Right now, Medicare pays for about 80% or so of most HC expenses, right? How does private HCI match that? Answer: they can't, so we're going to end up with something very close to single Payer by another name. .Would it increase our income taxes? Decent chance. But it would also keep costs down because we'd be catching serious conditions earlier. And it would be a SHITLOAD better than true Single Payer, the monopoly of all monopolies. I'd take a small tax increase over the large one that Single Payer would cause.
.
PHCI should be competitive by offering tailored coverage to the specific person via state insurance pools so folks can still get group rates.
That is one way they can compete and I am sure they would find other ways still as a huge number of Americans never want to go within five miles of Medicaid.
They're fine with lying, that's up to them. But if the GOP goes for all or nothing, it could all go south.
.
I'd love to meet the person who turns down Medicare in favor of buying a plan from Aetna or United,
That would really depend on the plan offered by Aetna or United when squared up against the Medicare program.
If Aetna has the quality doctors under exclusive contract, and you give a shit about your health, why wouldn't you go with Aetna?
The Hell if I know, Mac.I haven't seen any details on this "wealth tax" thing. How in the world is that supposed to be imposed?
.
Some nerves are fun to strike, you know.
I'd love to meet the person who turns down Medicare in favor of buying a plan from Aetna or United,
That would really depend on the plan offered by Aetna or United when squared up against the Medicare program.
If Aetna has the quality doctors under exclusive contract, and you give a shit about your health, why wouldn't you go with Aetna?
When we have Medicare For All, single payer health care, all of the doctors will be under contract.
I'd love to meet the person who thinks the US government could competently and efficiently run a lemonade stand, let alone administer a national health insurance program. Forget Paying for Medicare for All—We Can't Pay for the Medicare We HaveI'd love to meet the person who turns down Medicare in favor of buying a plan from Aetna or United,
As I said in the original post, a base Medicare foundation would allow people access to diagnostic and preventive care, allowing us to catch problems earlier and when they're cheaper. The younger you are, the less of a drag you are on the system. Let free market competition and innovation provide the rest.Perhaps you missed the whole section where I point out that private insurance companies would cover a much higher percentage when people are younger and cost the system less. Individuals would be responsible for the rest of their coverage.49% of our lifetime health costs are incurred after age 65, and we're already covering that under the overall Medicare system. Because the cost of supplemental free market health plans would be so cheap for younger people, we'd have a sliding scale so that their actual Medicare coverage is far lower, say 30% and rising to 80% over time. That way we know that preventive/diagnostic treatments would be covered, instead of letting conditions fester and worsen for those who have no coverage."Expand the current Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system to all, with graduated coverage as we age. Maintain the current and popular free market component, and take a massive cost monkey off the backs of American employers."
If you take the massive cost monkey off the backs of American employers, who picks up the tab? I'm guessing the American taxpayers, true? And how is the current free market component going to compete with an expanded Medicare system that is mostly paid for by the gov't?
The free market would expand its current Medicare Supplement and Medicare Advantage offerings to all. Competition. Innovation.
Would it increase our income taxes? Decent chance. But it would also keep costs down because we'd be catching serious conditions earlier. And it would be a SHITLOAD better than true Single Payer, the monopoly of all monopolies. I'd take a small tax increase over the large one that Single Payer would cause.
.
A decent chance? More like an absolute sure thing, and I don't think it'll be a small increase either.
Now tell me how private HC insurance can possibly compete with an expanded gov't paid Medicare program. Answer: they can't. Right now, Medicare pays for about 80% or so of most HC expenses, right? How does private HCI match that? Answer: they can't, so we're going to end up with something very close to single Payer by another name. Private insurance would effectively be reduced to Medicare supplement and advantage plans, but there's a whole lot of people at or below whatever the income level is for qualifying for gov't paid medical care.
So - right now we pay for Medicare for those 65 and up, if we change it to just about everybody then that's not going to be an insignificant increase in cost to the taxpayers. And we haven't talked about the increased demand, if you add almost everybody into the HC system then you're going to have huge access problems. Except for the rich guys, who can afford the cost of private insurance here or will be flying off to another country for treatment.
Nice idea, but until I see some numbers I won't be buying into the concept. Recent estimates are about $30 trillion (give or take) over 10 years for single payer, what have you got for this proposal? I don't see how the idea is fiscally feasible.
We would not be just adding people at 80%, not even close.
.
" Perhaps you missed the whole section where I point out that private insurance companies would cover a much higher percentage when people are younger and cost the system less. Individuals would be responsible for the rest of their coverage. "
Okay wait a minute. You said "Expand the current Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system to all". That sounds like adding EVERYBODY who wants it into Medicare to me. So why in hell would a young person or anybody other than a rich person buy private insurance, unless they've already got a pre-existing condition? You're gonna cover previously existing conditions, right? Free Medicare coverage is cheaper than whatever you can lower the cost of private insurance to, all anybody has to do is sign up for a supplement/advantage plan if and when they need it.
.
5. This has the distinct feel of another back door approach that eventually ends up with Single Payer. Young healthy people only signed up for the ACA cuz of the tax penalty if they didn't, and a lot of them paid the penalty if they had to. Now that the penalty is gone, millions are dropping out. Why is your system any different?
Third try.As I said in the original post, a base Medicare foundation would allow people access to diagnostic and preventive care, allowing us to catch problems earlier and when they're cheaper. The younger you are, the less of a drag you are on the system. Let free market competition and innovation provide the rest.Perhaps you missed the whole section where I point out that private insurance companies would cover a much higher percentage when people are younger and cost the system less. Individuals would be responsible for the rest of their coverage.49% of our lifetime health costs are incurred after age 65, and we're already covering that under the overall Medicare system. Because the cost of supplemental free market health plans would be so cheap for younger people, we'd have a sliding scale so that their actual Medicare coverage is far lower, say 30% and rising to 80% over time. That way we know that preventive/diagnostic treatments would be covered, instead of letting conditions fester and worsen for those who have no coverage.
The free market would expand its current Medicare Supplement and Medicare Advantage offerings to all. Competition. Innovation.
Would it increase our income taxes? Decent chance. But it would also keep costs down because we'd be catching serious conditions earlier. And it would be a SHITLOAD better than true Single Payer, the monopoly of all monopolies. I'd take a small tax increase over the large one that Single Payer would cause.
.
A decent chance? More like an absolute sure thing, and I don't think it'll be a small increase either.
Now tell me how private HC insurance can possibly compete with an expanded gov't paid Medicare program. Answer: they can't. Right now, Medicare pays for about 80% or so of most HC expenses, right? How does private HCI match that? Answer: they can't, so we're going to end up with something very close to single Payer by another name. Private insurance would effectively be reduced to Medicare supplement and advantage plans, but there's a whole lot of people at or below whatever the income level is for qualifying for gov't paid medical care.
So - right now we pay for Medicare for those 65 and up, if we change it to just about everybody then that's not going to be an insignificant increase in cost to the taxpayers. And we haven't talked about the increased demand, if you add almost everybody into the HC system then you're going to have huge access problems. Except for the rich guys, who can afford the cost of private insurance here or will be flying off to another country for treatment.
Nice idea, but until I see some numbers I won't be buying into the concept. Recent estimates are about $30 trillion (give or take) over 10 years for single payer, what have you got for this proposal? I don't see how the idea is fiscally feasible.
We would not be just adding people at 80%, not even close.
.
" Perhaps you missed the whole section where I point out that private insurance companies would cover a much higher percentage when people are younger and cost the system less. Individuals would be responsible for the rest of their coverage. "
Okay wait a minute. You said "Expand the current Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system to all". That sounds like adding EVERYBODY who wants it into Medicare to me. So why in hell would a young person or anybody other than a rich person buy private insurance, unless they've already got a pre-existing condition? You're gonna cover previously existing conditions, right? Free Medicare coverage is cheaper than whatever you can lower the cost of private insurance to, all anybody has to do is sign up for a supplement/advantage plan if and when they need it.
.
1. Young, healthy people are not going to pay for HCI no matter how cheap it is, especially if you're going to offer them Medicare for all.
2. You did say this, right?
"Expand the current Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system to all".
Are you backing off of that? Are you going to cover the currently uninsured in your Medicare For All plan? Including illegals?
3. You also said "take a massive cost monkey off the backs of American employers". Ok, onto whose back are you going to lay that cost? Taxpayers, right? How many people and how much money are we talking about here?
4. Still sounds like you'll be adding a lot more people into our HC system that is already overburdened.
5. This has the distinct feel of another back door approach that eventually ends up with Single Payer. Young healthy people only signed up for the ACA cuz of the tax penalty if they didn't, and a lot of them paid the penalty if they had to. Now that the penalty is gone, millions are dropping out. Why is your system any different?
I'd love to meet the person who turns down Medicare in favor of buying a plan from Aetna or United,
That would really depend on the plan offered by Aetna or United when squared up against the Medicare program.
If Aetna has the quality doctors under exclusive contract, and you give a shit about your health, why wouldn't you go with Aetna?
When we have Medicare For All, single payer health care, all of the doctors will be under contract.
Why would that be? Does the proposed MFA program outlaw the practice of healthcare outside of the government system?
5. This has the distinct feel of another back door approach that eventually ends up with Single Payer. Young healthy people only signed up for the ACA cuz of the tax penalty if they didn't, and a lot of them paid the penalty if they had to. Now that the penalty is gone, millions are dropping out. Why is your system any different?
A lot of young, healthy people really don't need health care. I don't think I went to a doctor once during my 20's, for any reason.
I'd love to meet the person who thinks the US government could competently and efficiently run a lemonade stand, let alone administer a national health insurance program. Forget Paying for Medicare for All—We Can't Pay for the Medicare We HaveI'd love to meet the person who turns down Medicare in favor of buying a plan from Aetna or United,
Have people never heard of the VA and the mess it is? Do they not know this?
"This week, Medicare's actuaries released a new report projecting that over the next decade, national health spending will grow 0.8 percent faster than the economy each year, eventually reaching $5.96 trillion. As a result, health spending as a percentage of gross domestic product is set to grow from 17.9 percent last year to 19.4 percent in 2027. Health care spending will then consume nearly a fifth of America's total economy.
That figure accounts for both public and private payers, but the government-run programs are the largest drivers of the growth, with Medicare by far the biggest of the bunch. Over the next decade, Medicare spending is expected to rise by 7.4 percent each year, while spending on Medicaid, the joint federal-state health program for the poor and disabled, is set to rise by 5.5 percent annually. Spending on private health insurance is projected to rise as well—but at 4.7 percent annually, the increase won't be as fast. Increased spending on Medicare (and to a lesser extent Medicaid) is the main factor."
It's okay if the socialists want to live in a fool's paradise but please don't think you can
pull the rest of us in with you.
Thanks for your thought free, carefully researched and reasoned out rebuttal. It says so much for yourAll horseshit.
I'd love to meet the person who turns down Medicare in favor of buying a plan from Aetna or United,
That would really depend on the plan offered by Aetna or United when squared up against the Medicare program.
If Aetna has the quality doctors under exclusive contract, and you give a shit about your health, why wouldn't you go with Aetna?
When we have Medicare For All, single payer health care, all of the doctors will be under contract.
Why would that be? Does the proposed MFA program outlaw the practice of healthcare outside of the government system?
Well, that is the general idea. I'm sure exceptions will be granted, however.
