US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8737

On September 15 2017 04:48 LegalLord wrote:
Just noticed Sanders has a new book as well. Won't make the same mistake twice, I'm getting this one digital.

On September 15 2017 04:43 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump will definitely have to veto this one.



Lol

On September 15 2017 05:37 Doodsmack wrote:
I was being sarcastic, Trump is apparently unaware that he won't have to veto it because it won't pass Congress. I don't think Trump is referring to after the 2018 election.

On September 15 2017 05:43 Plansix wrote:
It won’t get a vote in the senate, much less the house.

On September 15 2017 05:43 Plansix wrote:
It won’t get a vote in the senate, much less the house.

On September 15 2017 04:58 LegalLord wrote:
Nah, I prefer supporting the rise of the internet retailer over the brick and mortar. Plus it's like 50% of the price.

On September 15 2017 05:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
did we get the math and transition plan for the medicare for all yet or nah

On September 15 2017 05:59 Plansix wrote:

Not yet. You won’t get that until public hearings. The number I see thrown around is that it costs 32 trillion and we are projected to spend 49 trillion on healthcare. Of course, how make it work within the current infrastructure and government systems is the hardest part.

On September 15 2017 06:01 ticklishmusic wrote:


...what? our GDP isn't even that big. or is it over the course of a few years?

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST AND HOW DO WE PAY FOR IT?

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

This plan has been estimated to cost $1.38 trillion per year.

THE PLAN WOULD BE FULLY PAID FOR BY:

A 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers.
Revenue raised: $630 billion per year.

A 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households.
Revenue raised: $210 billion per year.This year, a family of four taking the standard deduction can have income up to $28,800 and not pay this tax under this plan.A family of four making $50,000 a year taking the standard deduction would only pay $466 this year.

Progressive income tax rates.
Revenue raised: $110 billion a year.Under this plan the marginal income tax rate would be:
37 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000.
43 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million.
48 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. (In 2013, only 113,000 households, the top 0.08 percent of taxpayers, had income between $2 million and $10 million.)
52 percent on income above $10 million. (In 2013, only 13,000 households, just 0.01 percent of taxpayers, had income exceeding $10 million.)

Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work.
Revenue raised: $92 billion per year.Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest American in the country, has said that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. The reason is that he receives most of his income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a much lower rate than income from work. This plan will end the special tax break for capital gains and dividends on household income above $250,000.

Limit tax deductions for rich.
Revenue raised: $15 billion per year. Under Bernie’s plan, households making over $250,000 would no longer be able to save more than 28 cents in taxes from every dollar in tax deductions. This limit would replace more complicated and less effective limits on tax breaks for the rich including the AMT, the personal exemption phase-out and the limit on itemized deductions.

The Responsible Estate Tax.
Revenue raised: $21 billion per year.This provision would tax the estates of the wealthiest 0.3 percent (three-tenths of 1 percent) of Americans who inherit over $3.5 million at progressive rates and close loopholes in the estate tax.

Savings from health tax expenditures.
Revenue raised: $310 billion per year. Several tax breaks that subsidize health care (health-related “tax expenditures”) would become obsolete and disappear under a single-payer health care system, saving $310 billion per year.Most importantly, health care provided by employers is compensation that is not subject to payroll taxes or income taxes under current law. This is a significant tax break that would effectively disappear under this plan because all Americans would receive health care through the new single-payer program instead of employer-based health care.

On September 15 2017 06:03 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Do we even know what yet what premiums non-seniors would have to pay? Because Bernie's previous plan didn't involve premiums afaik (that's why he mostly talked tax cost vs current premiums). And his plan focused on no copays or deductibles, which is again not an actual component of Medicare (part D has cost sharing for sure, part A and B as well I think but am less sure on).

Of course it might be more useful to just ignore what Medicare actually is while still calling it Medicare for all (since the more accurate Medicaid for version has less positive associations, and even that still has some pittance cost sharing mechanisms for pharmacy benefits). Just look at cultural Marxism

On September 15 2017 06:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I guess from a logistical perspective when you're trying to sway people who currently don't have Medicare it doesn't much matter how "true" you are to Medicare. Maybe the upside here could be some improvements for actual Medicare too thrown into the bargain *cough donut hole cough part D cough drug price negotiation cough*

On September 15 2017 06:10 GreenHorizons wrote:


10 years (like most of these things are rated, but that was a previous version), we're heading toward healthcare being almost 25% of GDP by 2038 with current legislation.

Here's some of what I've seen regarding the math.



Source



Pretty sure it boils down to "Medicare for all" polling the best when it comes to this stuff.

On September 15 2017 06:19 ticklishmusic wrote:


this is the old plan.

On September 15 2017 06:21 Mohdoo wrote:
So what in the world do we do with the existing insurance companies? Would the US government purchase EVERY insurance company or something?

On September 15 2017 06:01 ticklishmusic wrote:


...what? our GDP isn't even that big. or is it over the course of a few years?