|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 22 2019 11:40 Lazare1969 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2019 11:12 Introvert wrote:
However, neither she, nor any other Democrat, is willing to talk about the massive tax hikes required for her ideas. For all the "bravery" of this new crop of Democrats, they still can't come out and say what is needed to fund what they want.
The other method is to just print more money, aka quantitative easing, like Reagan did to expand the military budget by almost 50%. Show nested quote +She is going to be criticized from the left for proposing ideas that will lead to less federal revenue. I assume you mean the right or centre, because the left generally doesn't scaremonger over the federal deficit.
no, they aren't debt hawks most of the time, but they act like tax revenue is the government's by right, and so generally oppose anything that leads to less of it.
On January 22 2019 11:28 KwarK wrote:
The US gov could afford single payer with the payroll taxes it currently takes in, if costs were comparable to the NHS. This idea that Single Payer will require massive tax hikes is absurd, it’s cheaper than what you already have.
found your problem. doesn't matter the organization, they all say it would cost an additional ~30 T over ten years, in a best case scenario. and we can't junk what we have all at once anyways. For some period of time, most people would be paying way more in taxes. No Democrat will say this, so I don't want to hear about how brave they are. You can make your argument all you want, but no politician will make it.
|
I think implementing an outright single payer system without raising taxes substantially requires somehow leveraging the money most employers spend on health insurance that is generally invisible to most employees despite being a significant part of their total compensation.
|
On January 22 2019 12:15 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2019 11:40 Lazare1969 wrote:On January 22 2019 11:12 Introvert wrote:
However, neither she, nor any other Democrat, is willing to talk about the massive tax hikes required for her ideas. For all the "bravery" of this new crop of Democrats, they still can't come out and say what is needed to fund what they want.
The other method is to just print more money, aka quantitative easing, like Reagan did to expand the military budget by almost 50%. She is going to be criticized from the left for proposing ideas that will lead to less federal revenue. I assume you mean the right or centre, because the left generally doesn't scaremonger over the federal deficit. no, they aren't debt hawks most of the time, but they act like tax revenue is the government's by right, and so generally oppose anything that leads to less of it. Show nested quote +On January 22 2019 11:28 KwarK wrote:
The US gov could afford single payer with the payroll taxes it currently takes in, if costs were comparable to the NHS. This idea that Single Payer will require massive tax hikes is absurd, it’s cheaper than what you already have. found your problem. doesn't matter the organization, they all say it would cost an additional ~30 T over ten years, in a best case scenario. and we can't junk what we have all at once anyways. For some period of time, most people would be paying way more in taxes. No Democrat will say this, so I don't want to hear about how brave they are. You can make your argument all you want, but no politician will make it.
The cost that people pay for health insurence now would be less then the tax they would pay for health insurance with single payer. Thats probably what kwark is trying to say.
|
United States43960 Posts
On January 22 2019 13:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2019 12:15 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2019 11:40 Lazare1969 wrote:On January 22 2019 11:12 Introvert wrote:
However, neither she, nor any other Democrat, is willing to talk about the massive tax hikes required for her ideas. For all the "bravery" of this new crop of Democrats, they still can't come out and say what is needed to fund what they want.
The other method is to just print more money, aka quantitative easing, like Reagan did to expand the military budget by almost 50%. She is going to be criticized from the left for proposing ideas that will lead to less federal revenue. I assume you mean the right or centre, because the left generally doesn't scaremonger over the federal deficit. no, they aren't debt hawks most of the time, but they act like tax revenue is the government's by right, and so generally oppose anything that leads to less of it. On January 22 2019 11:28 KwarK wrote:
The US gov could afford single payer with the payroll taxes it currently takes in, if costs were comparable to the NHS. This idea that Single Payer will require massive tax hikes is absurd, it’s cheaper than what you already have. found your problem. doesn't matter the organization, they all say it would cost an additional ~30 T over ten years, in a best case scenario. and we can't junk what we have all at once anyways. For some period of time, most people would be paying way more in taxes. No Democrat will say this, so I don't want to hear about how brave they are. You can make your argument all you want, but no politician will make it. The cost that people pay for health insurence now would be less then the tax they would pay for health insurance with single payer. Thats probably what kwark is trying to say.
What I said is probably what I'm trying to say.
The Federal government already spends more on healthcare than the cost of government healthcare, before you even consider the huge amount individuals pay towards health insurance, deductibles, copays, and so forth. There's not really any way that healthcare costs can't go down. There's nowhere else for them to go.
Americans are paying the full cost of single payer, and then also the full cost of private healthcare, and somehow have managed to get neither working well.
|
On January 22 2019 11:28 KwarK wrote:
The US gov could afford single payer with the payroll taxes it currently takes in, if costs were comparable to the NHS. This idea that Single Payer will require massive tax hikes is absurd, it’s cheaper than what you already have.
This is the thing I can't wrap my head around as a Canadian. Seeing Americans claim that single payer is too expensive and then also talk about how much they have to spend between taxes and insurance (monthly costs and copays and all of that). It seems insane to me. I'd way rather pay into a big pool in the form of taxes like we do here in Canada and know that if I need care, it's there for me no matter what rather than pay an insurance company that has it in their best interest not to give me care and screw me over at every opportunity. There are certain supplementary bits of health coverage we pay for here in Canada but most of the time our employer covers the majority of it, and it's not even close to anything I've seen for insurance costs in the US.
Everything I've read and seen has suggested that as is, the US has one of the least cost-efficient, least efficient overall healthcare systems in all of the big western countries despite of spending way more per capita on healthcare. It's just stupid.
|
On January 22 2019 13:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2019 13:35 Sermokala wrote:On January 22 2019 12:15 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2019 11:40 Lazare1969 wrote:On January 22 2019 11:12 Introvert wrote:
However, neither she, nor any other Democrat, is willing to talk about the massive tax hikes required for her ideas. For all the "bravery" of this new crop of Democrats, they still can't come out and say what is needed to fund what they want.
The other method is to just print more money, aka quantitative easing, like Reagan did to expand the military budget by almost 50%. She is going to be criticized from the left for proposing ideas that will lead to less federal revenue. I assume you mean the right or centre, because the left generally doesn't scaremonger over the federal deficit. no, they aren't debt hawks most of the time, but they act like tax revenue is the government's by right, and so generally oppose anything that leads to less of it. On January 22 2019 11:28 KwarK wrote:
The US gov could afford single payer with the payroll taxes it currently takes in, if costs were comparable to the NHS. This idea that Single Payer will require massive tax hikes is absurd, it’s cheaper than what you already have. found your problem. doesn't matter the organization, they all say it would cost an additional ~30 T over ten years, in a best case scenario. and we can't junk what we have all at once anyways. For some period of time, most people would be paying way more in taxes. No Democrat will say this, so I don't want to hear about how brave they are. You can make your argument all you want, but no politician will make it. The cost that people pay for health insurence now would be less then the tax they would pay for health insurance with single payer. Thats probably what kwark is trying to say. What I said is probably what I'm trying to say. The Federal government already spends more on healthcare than the cost of government healthcare, before you even consider the huge amount individuals pay towards health insurance, deductibles, copays, and so forth. There's not really any way that healthcare costs can't go down. There's nowhere else for them to go. Americans are paying the full cost of single payer, and then also the full cost of private healthcare, and somehow have managed to get neither working well.
That's just wishful thinking. Single payer won't make US healthcare magically cheaper. There have been numerous studies about Sanders initial plan of Medicare for all and it's associated costs. They were all in the trillions. Changing a system doesn't automatically make it more efficient.
|
On January 22 2019 13:53 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2019 11:28 KwarK wrote:
The US gov could afford single payer with the payroll taxes it currently takes in, if costs were comparable to the NHS. This idea that Single Payer will require massive tax hikes is absurd, it’s cheaper than what you already have. This is the thing I can't wrap my head around as a Canadian. Seeing Americans claim that single payer is too expensive and then also talk about how much they have to spend between taxes and insurance (monthly costs and copays and all of that). It seems insane to me. I'd way rather pay into a big pool in the form of taxes like we do here in Canada and know that if I need care, it's there for me no matter what rather than pay an insurance company that has it in their best interest not to give me care and screw me over at every opportunity. There are certain supplementary bits of health coverage we pay for here in Canada but most of the time our employer covers the majority of it, and it's not even close to anything I've seen for insurance costs in the US. Everything I've read and seen has suggested that as is, the US has one of the least cost-efficient, least efficient overall healthcare systems in all of the big western countries despite of spending way more per capita on healthcare. It's just stupid.
Every civilization and tribe has its instances of Stockholm syndrome, personality traits of adult children of alcoholics, or guardians of the status quo. Well-known modern examples include: healthcare in America, women's rights in Saudi Arabia, work culture in Japan and South Korea, human rights in Israel and North Korea, ethnic equality in India, and so on. Generally social rituals and systems of governance don't change until the internal contradictions become too immense to maintain social order. We can see that the internal contradictions of the American capitalist healthcare system are bubbling up, compounded with American mass consciousness not being able to fully isolate itself from outside information demonstrating that other nations that have successfully implemented single-payer healthcare systems. Ten years ago it was thought unimaginable single-payer would ever get passed in America due to the overwhelming force of the victims of Stockholm syndrome and the guardians of the status quo. Now, CNBC, a corporate media network, is reporting that 70% of Americans support single-payer, so the opposing force of social unrest has become stronger than the weakening force of the victims of Stockholm syndrome and the guardians of the status quo.
|
On January 22 2019 14:33 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2019 13:46 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2019 13:35 Sermokala wrote:On January 22 2019 12:15 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2019 11:40 Lazare1969 wrote:On January 22 2019 11:12 Introvert wrote:
However, neither she, nor any other Democrat, is willing to talk about the massive tax hikes required for her ideas. For all the "bravery" of this new crop of Democrats, they still can't come out and say what is needed to fund what they want.
The other method is to just print more money, aka quantitative easing, like Reagan did to expand the military budget by almost 50%. She is going to be criticized from the left for proposing ideas that will lead to less federal revenue. I assume you mean the right or centre, because the left generally doesn't scaremonger over the federal deficit. no, they aren't debt hawks most of the time, but they act like tax revenue is the government's by right, and so generally oppose anything that leads to less of it. On January 22 2019 11:28 KwarK wrote:
The US gov could afford single payer with the payroll taxes it currently takes in, if costs were comparable to the NHS. This idea that Single Payer will require massive tax hikes is absurd, it’s cheaper than what you already have. found your problem. doesn't matter the organization, they all say it would cost an additional ~30 T over ten years, in a best case scenario. and we can't junk what we have all at once anyways. For some period of time, most people would be paying way more in taxes. No Democrat will say this, so I don't want to hear about how brave they are. You can make your argument all you want, but no politician will make it. The cost that people pay for health insurence now would be less then the tax they would pay for health insurance with single payer. Thats probably what kwark is trying to say. What I said is probably what I'm trying to say. The Federal government already spends more on healthcare than the cost of government healthcare, before you even consider the huge amount individuals pay towards health insurance, deductibles, copays, and so forth. There's not really any way that healthcare costs can't go down. There's nowhere else for them to go. Americans are paying the full cost of single payer, and then also the full cost of private healthcare, and somehow have managed to get neither working well. That's just wishful thinking. Single payer won't make US healthcare magically cheaper. There have been numerous studies about Sanders initial plan of Medicare for all and it's associated costs. They were all in the trillions. Changing a system doesn't automatically make it more efficient.
So, is this american exceptionalism again?
Because other countries can have full healthcare for less than the public money that the US spends on their broken shit.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-global-perspective?redirect_source=/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective
Just compare the numbers in the right half of exhibit 2. The numbers are slowly getting more and more dated since i have started posting them years ago, but they still show a very clear picture. US healthcare costs similar amounts of public money than a real healthcare system, also costs a lot of other money, and produces worse results plus lots of stress for everyone.
And if you don't like single payer because you are scared of the government, take a look at the german system. We have lots of different health insurers, but they must obey to a lot of laws, including not being able to make a profit, and set payrates. We also have additional private health insurers, which may turn a profit, but also sometimes have other advantages that some people choose.
|
This reminds of the time when it was argued that American Exceptionalism means that Americans will always have shorter life expectancy than other developed countries. Seems rather self defeatist to me.
|
On January 22 2019 14:33 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2019 13:46 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2019 13:35 Sermokala wrote:On January 22 2019 12:15 Introvert wrote:On January 22 2019 11:40 Lazare1969 wrote:On January 22 2019 11:12 Introvert wrote:
However, neither she, nor any other Democrat, is willing to talk about the massive tax hikes required for her ideas. For all the "bravery" of this new crop of Democrats, they still can't come out and say what is needed to fund what they want.
The other method is to just print more money, aka quantitative easing, like Reagan did to expand the military budget by almost 50%. She is going to be criticized from the left for proposing ideas that will lead to less federal revenue. I assume you mean the right or centre, because the left generally doesn't scaremonger over the federal deficit. no, they aren't debt hawks most of the time, but they act like tax revenue is the government's by right, and so generally oppose anything that leads to less of it. On January 22 2019 11:28 KwarK wrote:
The US gov could afford single payer with the payroll taxes it currently takes in, if costs were comparable to the NHS. This idea that Single Payer will require massive tax hikes is absurd, it’s cheaper than what you already have. found your problem. doesn't matter the organization, they all say it would cost an additional ~30 T over ten years, in a best case scenario. and we can't junk what we have all at once anyways. For some period of time, most people would be paying way more in taxes. No Democrat will say this, so I don't want to hear about how brave they are. You can make your argument all you want, but no politician will make it. The cost that people pay for health insurence now would be less then the tax they would pay for health insurance with single payer. Thats probably what kwark is trying to say. What I said is probably what I'm trying to say. The Federal government already spends more on healthcare than the cost of government healthcare, before you even consider the huge amount individuals pay towards health insurance, deductibles, copays, and so forth. There's not really any way that healthcare costs can't go down. There's nowhere else for them to go. Americans are paying the full cost of single payer, and then also the full cost of private healthcare, and somehow have managed to get neither working well. That's just wishful thinking. Single payer won't make US healthcare magically cheaper. There have been numerous studies about Sanders initial plan of Medicare for all and it's associated costs. They were all in the trillions. Changing a system doesn't automatically make it more efficient.
We already pay trillions and have shitty healthcare. This is the problem with the healthcare discussion, it is that people look at the cost to the government and omit the fact that we are already paying that amount to healthcare companies that are more concerned with returns for their shareholders than the quality of our healthcare.
|
Plansix, USA already pay more per person even if you only account for cost to government.
For lesser coverage and for lesser gains.
The cost of private healthcare is just the icing on the cake.
|
the money certainly exists flowing through the system, the actual implementation of single payer is the real challenge.
|
On January 23 2019 00:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
the money certainly exists flowing through the system, the actual implementation of single payer is the real challenge.
Logistically it will be a nightmare implement. 50 states with their own systems, costs and inefficiencies. Even if it started tomorrow, it would take years to iron out all the problems and have the system function efficiently. And that assumes we don’t have the special snowflake states that revolt every time someone changes and they can’t deal with someone moving their cheese. That is why single payer has to be a national movement with bipartisan support. Without that, every single bump in the road will be a vector for attack by the other party in their bid to retake power.
|
On January 23 2019 00:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2019 00:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
the money certainly exists flowing through the system, the actual implementation of single payer is the real challenge. Logistically it will be a nightmare implement. 50 states with their own systems, costs and inefficiencies. Even if it started tomorrow, it would take years to iron out all the problems and have the system function efficiently. And that assumes we don’t have the special snowflake states that revolt every time someone changes and they can’t deal with someone moving their cheese. That is why single payer has to be a national movement with bipartisan support. Without that, every single bump in the road will be a vector for attack by the other party in their bid to retake power.
that's basically why i'm generally opposed to single payer, vs. a public option/ hybrid system, or some sort of combination of government subsidies/ price caps (a little like the ACA subsidies + rate increase caps, but much more extensive). does single payer work in other countries? certainly yes - in some it works really well, in others maybe a little less so. but is it the best option for the US? that's a very different question.
|
On January 23 2019 01:00 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2019 00:55 Plansix wrote:On January 23 2019 00:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
the money certainly exists flowing through the system, the actual implementation of single payer is the real challenge. Logistically it will be a nightmare implement. 50 states with their own systems, costs and inefficiencies. Even if it started tomorrow, it would take years to iron out all the problems and have the system function efficiently. And that assumes we don’t have the special snowflake states that revolt every time someone changes and they can’t deal with someone moving their cheese. That is why single payer has to be a national movement with bipartisan support. Without that, every single bump in the road will be a vector for attack by the other party in their bid to retake power. that's basically why i'm generally opposed to single payer, vs. a public option/ hybrid system, or some sort of combination of government subsidies/ price caps (a little like the ACA subsidies + rate increase caps, but much more extensive). does single payer work in other countries? certainly yes - in some it works really well, in others maybe a little less so. but is it the best option for the US? that's a very different question.
So you're against single payer because it might not work as well here as it does other places and instead choose to stay with the nightmare you know that continues spiraling out of control.
|
On January 23 2019 01:02 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2019 01:00 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 23 2019 00:55 Plansix wrote:On January 23 2019 00:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
the money certainly exists flowing through the system, the actual implementation of single payer is the real challenge. Logistically it will be a nightmare implement. 50 states with their own systems, costs and inefficiencies. Even if it started tomorrow, it would take years to iron out all the problems and have the system function efficiently. And that assumes we don’t have the special snowflake states that revolt every time someone changes and they can’t deal with someone moving their cheese. That is why single payer has to be a national movement with bipartisan support. Without that, every single bump in the road will be a vector for attack by the other party in their bid to retake power. that's basically why i'm generally opposed to single payer, vs. a public option/ hybrid system, or some sort of combination of government subsidies/ price caps (a little like the ACA subsidies + rate increase caps, but much more extensive). does single payer work in other countries? certainly yes - in some it works really well, in others maybe a little less so. but is it the best option for the US? that's a very different question. So you're against single payer because it might not work as well here as it does other places and instead choose to stay with the nightmare you know that continues spiraling out of control.
you're completely misinterpreting what i said.
the status quo is no good, especially with the extensive sabotage attempts of the ACA by republicans. however, single payer is not THE solution. there are many other strategies to improve/ solve healthcare in the US which would likely be much better than trying for single payer.
there is a big misconception about single payer being the end all be all of solving healthcare in the US. it really isn't.
|
Hey, the compromise bill has a bunch of poison pill bullshit Democrats would get destroyed for supporting. I guess the Republicans don’t want to reopen the government if they can’t also fuck over refugees in some way while also building a wall.
Why negotiate at all when these are the tactics?
|
On January 23 2019 01:05 Plansix wrote:Hey, the compromise bill has a bunch of poison pill bullshit Democrats would get destroyed for supporting. I guess the Republicans don’t want to reopen the government if they can’t also fuck over refugees in some way while also building a wall. Why negotiate at all when these are the tactics? https://twitter.com/reichlinmelnick/status/1087541175744188417
This should be as easy as yelling "human rights violation" and be the end of it, unfortunately it seems that half of America is completely fine with that.
|
On January 23 2019 00:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
the money certainly exists flowing through the system, the actual implementation of single payer is the real challenge.
Preceded by getting the corrupt f**ks that perpetuate the current system out of office or out of the pockets of the politicians that run for office.
Which is why someone like Ocasio-Cortez is actually standing up and saying real things, such as we can do medicare for all. Like Bernie Sanders, she isn't bought by anyone.
AOC can speak openly about what is in the best interest of the people, which at this point sounds radical, because everything that wasn't in the best interest of corporate America was filtered out before. Hence you didn't have voices like hers, or like yours.
|
On January 23 2019 01:04 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2019 01:02 Gahlo wrote:On January 23 2019 01:00 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 23 2019 00:55 Plansix wrote:On January 23 2019 00:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
the money certainly exists flowing through the system, the actual implementation of single payer is the real challenge. Logistically it will be a nightmare implement. 50 states with their own systems, costs and inefficiencies. Even if it started tomorrow, it would take years to iron out all the problems and have the system function efficiently. And that assumes we don’t have the special snowflake states that revolt every time someone changes and they can’t deal with someone moving their cheese. That is why single payer has to be a national movement with bipartisan support. Without that, every single bump in the road will be a vector for attack by the other party in their bid to retake power. that's basically why i'm generally opposed to single payer, vs. a public option/ hybrid system, or some sort of combination of government subsidies/ price caps (a little like the ACA subsidies + rate increase caps, but much more extensive). does single payer work in other countries? certainly yes - in some it works really well, in others maybe a little less so. but is it the best option for the US? that's a very different question. So you're against single payer because it might not work as well here as it does other places and instead choose to stay with the nightmare you know that continues spiraling out of control. you're completely misinterpreting what i said. the status quo is no good, especially with the extensive sabotage attempts of the ACA by republicans. however, single payer is not THE solution. there are many other strategies to improve/ solve healthcare in the US which would likely be much better than trying for single payer. there is a big misconception about single payer being the end all be all of solving healthcare in the US. it really isn't.
Can you lay out some things other than single payer you think would benefit the US to the extent single payer would?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
