MediCare for All - Forums at Modded Mustangs
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 5 Old November 4th, 2019, 12:50 PM Thread Starter
US Air Force (retired)
 
Eagle2000GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 13,491
                     
Garage
iTrader: 1 reviews
MediCare for All

I am against this $52 trillion program. I have paid into Medicare my entire working life. I still pay a premium that is deducted from my Social Security check. And, Medicare only pays 80%. I pay the rest. So the entire thing about "free" health care is complete bull.

But I believe in a fair reporting of the facts which is something that is hard to find these days. This article is slightly misleading but it is actually Warren's fault. I saw her answering these types of questions on television. The reporter was asking about middle class taxes. Warren answered saying that middle class costs would not go up. Taxes and costs are not the same thing. I did not see the interview where she talked about taxes. If she said taxes will not go up on the middle class then she is misleading the public.

She intends to eliminate private health insurance. When it was pointed out that 2 million people would lose their jobs she said they could find jobs in other areas of insurance. For the most part employers pay the bulk of the health insurance costs but there is a payroll deduction for the employee's part. Warren plans to take that money including the employee's part. So yes, taxes will go up on the middle class but she is hoping the employee's total cost doesn't.

To pay for all the people who do not have jobs she intends to raise taxes on the rich and on companies. As the CFO of a manufacturing company I assure you that any increase on taxes on the company will flow through to the customer. Since this will affect all products the middle class will be paying more for the goods and services they currently get. Perhaps there was no direct increase in middle class costs but there will certainly be an increase in indirect costs.

If a major international corporation corporation cannot pass on the full costs of the tax increase then they will start making the product off shore. That means more than 2 million people will lose their jobs as jobs move offshore. Or as people's wages are squeezed they may decide they don't need the product at all.

I wish people proposing this stuff would take a basic economics class. They would then understand that costs will go up. But then again if they understood it they wouldn't vote for her.

ProCharger P-1SC, 9 psi, STD 396/383; Uncorrected 388/375; SAE 383/370.
Ret. USAF 1969-1973,1980-1996: Vietnam veteran. Aircraft maintenance. R & D, ICBM Operations.
Also own: 1997 Harley FXDWG, 1998 F-150, and 2002 Corvette LS1
Eagle2000GT is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 5 Old November 6th, 2019, 03:06 AM
I Post Entirely Way Too Much
 
Novanutcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 6,088
               
iTrader: 0 reviews
In part I agree that "Medicare for All" is probably not feasible on an immediate basis. I think that a public option is the perfect way to move towards it though. Republicans scream about having a choice but are adamantly against a public option. I don't agree that private insurance should be eliminated. I believe the two can exist.

John

SOLD - '03 GT, Max Moto Max Grip Box, Wilwood SL 6 front/DL4 rear Big Brake Kit, Corbeau Seats, MGW Short Shifter, MAC Long Tube Headers/Prochamber mid/ Flowmaster 40, FRPP 4.10, TrickFlow Diff Cover/75mm TB/Plenum, Eaton Posi, Moser 31 spl Axles
Novanutcase is offline  
post #3 of 5 Old November 13th, 2019, 09:54 PM
I Post Entirely Way Too Much
 
Novanutcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 6,088
               
iTrader: 0 reviews
Interesting read. Opinions?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/persp...ass/index.html

Economist: Warren is right. Her Medicare for All plan won't raise taxes on the middle class
By Mark Zandi for CNN Business Perspectives

Updated 3:26 PM ET, Wed November 13, 2019

Mark Zandi is chief economist of Moody's Analytics. He was an advisor to John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign and supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own.

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Medicare for All. That's why I'm impressed that Senator Elizabeth Warren's campaign reached out to me to independently review her proposed financing plan for the program. Her numbers add up and her plan fully finances the program without imposing any new taxes on middle-class families.
The most important source of revenue for Warren's Medicare for All plan is simply to have businesses pay their employees' health insurance premiums to Medicare instead of private insurance companies. Over time, businesses would be required to pay slightly less to Medicare for health insurance than they would otherwise have paid to private insurers. New small businesses with fewer than 50 employees would not be required to make these payments.
There has been some handwringing that this would be regressive. That is, lower-paid workers would suffer, since businesses would pay more for lower-paid workers' health insurance as a percent of their pay than for higher-paid workers. But companies' current premiums generally vary by the type of insurance plan and family size, and not by employee income. Warren's Medicare for All plan effectively preserves this. And by replacing trillions of dollars in individual spending on health care with new taxes on large corporations and the rich, her plan overall is clearly progressive.

Warren's Medicare for All plan is also paid for in part by the taxes generated from the increase in take-home pay that workers will enjoy as they no longer pay toward private health insurance. The typical worker shells out several thousand dollars a year, untaxed, to insure their family. Under Medicare for All, that worker would receive that money as wages, which would be subject under existing law to income and payroll taxes.
Large too-big-to-fail banks, financial firms and large multinational corporations would also pay more to fund Warren's M4A. While the merits of these tax increases are debatable, there is little debate regarding the revenues they will generate. This is based on past work done by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, the non-partisan government organizations that assess the budgetary costs of government spending and tax policies.
Perhaps the most controversial of Warren's proposed methods to finance Medicare for All is to increase taxes on the super-rich. This includes significantly upping her wealth tax on the nation's 600-plus billionaires. Some critics believe Warren's taxes on the wealthy would be unfairly confiscatory, substantially cutting into their wealth. Perhaps. But over the past two generations, the top 0.1% of Americans has seen its share of the nation's wealth more than double to 20%. This trend is not consistent with a well-functioning market economy and democracy like ours'.
Criticism that Warren is overestimating the revenue she can hope to generate from the wealth tax is overblown. She addresses these concerns by saying she will empower and appropriately fund the Internal Revenue Service to go after those who willfully avoid paying their taxes. Enforcing our tax laws and best practices on tax compliance can generate significant revenue. Closing America's tax gap — the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid —would help Warren get the revenue she needs.

To be sure, these aren't the only taxes on the wealthy that Warren has proposed. In addition to the wealth tax, which she also uses to pay for her child care, college affordability and K-12 education plans, she wants a larger estate tax to pay for her housing plan, higher payroll and net investment income taxes would go toward her Social Security reforms, and she supports repealing Trump's tax cuts for high-income households to generate even more revenue for her plans. With this combination of tax changes, there is a reasonable concern that the wealthy will work overtime to avoid paying.
But once we start to consider the broader consequences of the totality of Warren's plans, it's incumbent we do so with regard to both her tax proposals but also the investments those taxes will fund. Based on my own analyses, Warren's plans for child care, housing and green manufacturing would spur economic growth and produce more tax revenue. Considering the economic impact of all her proposals (an analysis no one has done yet), it is very possible that total government revenues generated by her plans will exceed the total amount of new investments she proposes. Criticism that Senator Warren's Medicare for All plan can't be paid for, at least not without putting a greater financial burden on lower- and middle-income Americans, is wrong.

Of course, Warren's Medicare for All plan isn't the only way to provide health insurance to all Americans, rein in growing health care costs and improve health care outcomes. A more tractable approach in my view is to allow those who like their private health insurance to keep it and to build on Obamacare by giving everyone else an option to get Medicare.
I don't agree with Warren's vision for our health care system, but I admire that she has clearly and credibly laid out that vision and that she sought out the opinions of those who may disagree with her to provide independent validation of her numbers. That's the kind of rigor we should expect from all of our presidential candidates.


John

SOLD - '03 GT, Max Moto Max Grip Box, Wilwood SL 6 front/DL4 rear Big Brake Kit, Corbeau Seats, MGW Short Shifter, MAC Long Tube Headers/Prochamber mid/ Flowmaster 40, FRPP 4.10, TrickFlow Diff Cover/75mm TB/Plenum, Eaton Posi, Moser 31 spl Axles
Novanutcase is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 5 Old November 14th, 2019, 01:30 AM Thread Starter
US Air Force (retired)
 
Eagle2000GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 13,491
                     
Garage
iTrader: 1 reviews
Interesting. We are going to tax the crap out of those who invest and that is going to spur on our economy. There are demand side economist and supply side economists. Zandi appears to be on the demand side which has a lot of support. Ronald Reagan was on the supply side.

ProCharger P-1SC, 9 psi, STD 396/383; Uncorrected 388/375; SAE 383/370.
Ret. USAF 1969-1973,1980-1996: Vietnam veteran. Aircraft maintenance. R & D, ICBM Operations.
Also own: 1997 Harley FXDWG, 1998 F-150, and 2002 Corvette LS1
Eagle2000GT is offline  
post #5 of 5 Old November 15th, 2019, 02:21 AM
I Post Entirely Way Too Much
 
Novanutcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 6,088
               
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
Ronald Reagan was on the supply side.



John

SOLD - '03 GT, Max Moto Max Grip Box, Wilwood SL 6 front/DL4 rear Big Brake Kit, Corbeau Seats, MGW Short Shifter, MAC Long Tube Headers/Prochamber mid/ Flowmaster 40, FRPP 4.10, TrickFlow Diff Cover/75mm TB/Plenum, Eaton Posi, Moser 31 spl Axles
Novanutcase is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Forums at Modded Mustangs forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome