Modded Mustang Forums banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Interesting read. Opinions?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/perspectives/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-taxes-middle-class/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
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
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.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Here is an article on socialized medicine. According to it the socialists in the Democratic party use Canada's system as a model. I cannot imagine a worst system. I'm almost 70 and I had a heart attack five years ago. If I lived in Canada I would be dead.

As soon as I walked in the door of the emergency room I had medical help. Before my wife could park the car I was on IVs and arrangements were being made to get me to the cardiac center. They wanted to fly me there but the helicopter was on another run. On the way, the ambulance EMT offered to give me something for the pain but it would complicate things later so I said no.

At the cardiac center an entire crew met the ambulance at the door and I was being prepped for surgery as they pushed me down the hall. We went straight to the operating room and my last memories were of the surgeon asking for permission to operate and then giving me anesthesia. I woke up with stents in my heart and only a small amount of scarring where a little heart tissue died. It could have been a lot, lot worse. We have some of the best medical facilities in the world... even out here in the sticks.

In Canada:

"It’s true that everyone in Canada has health coverage. But that coverage doesn't always secure care. According to the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, patients waited a median of nearly 20 weeks to receive specialist treatment after referral by a general practitioner in 2018. That's more than double the wait patients faced 25 years ago.'

"In Nova Scotia, patients faced a median total wait time of 34 weeks. More than 6 percent of the province's population was waiting for treatment in 2018.'

"Waiting for care is perhaps better than not being able to seek it at all. The hospital emergency department in Annapolis Royal in Nova Scotia recently announced that it would simply close on Tuesdays and Thursdays. There aren't enough doctors available to staff the facility."

I have no idea what we would have done if we had arrived at the emergency room door and it was closed.

"....Dr. Roland Orfaly of the British Columbia Anesthesiologists' Society testified that over 300 patients in the province died waiting for surgery from 2015 to 2016 because of a shortage of anesthesiologists. And that was in just one of the province's five regional health authorities!"

What would have happened if I had arrived at the cardiac center and there were no anesthesiologists? They would not have been able to do surgery.

"Shortages of crucial medical personnel and equipment are common throughout Canada. The country has fewer than three doctors for every 1,000 residents. That puts it 26th among 28 countries with universal health coverage schemes. If current trends continue, the country will be short 60,000 full-time nurses in just three years. In 2018, Canada had less than 16 CT scanners for every million people. The United States, by comparison, had nearly 45 per million. These shortages, combined with long waits, can lead to incredible suffering.'

"In 2017, one British Columbia woman who was struggling to breathe sought treatment in an overcrowded emergency room. She was given a shot of morphine and sent home. She died two days later."

This is what they want for us? You have got to be kidding. They are bribing people to vote for them by offering "free stuff"... everything you might possibly need will be free. But as the author pointed out, it might be free but it is also not available.

This is not a theoretical exercise for me. My answer is no thanks. You can keep socialized medicine in Canada. I think you would have to be insane to prefer that system over ours.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top