We Don’t Need to Raise Taxes to Have ‘Medicare for All’

Yes, this is a no-brainer, except no one wants to be seen as the party that cut the military budget. They'd get labelled as traitors and bludgeoned come the next election.

Why do we need to talk about how to pay for Medicare for All, or for that matter, anything the Federal government does? We never talk about how to pay for the military, tax cuts, or any of the $trillions we give away to corporations, oil companies, and agricultural concerns.

because health care isn't a right while making money is.

Trump's idea about making foreign governments pay the USA to be the superpower would have had merit if it wasn't being voiced by Trump who had negative skills to ever hope to put it in place. The other choice is stop being the world's cop and shift to self defense. Very hard cultural shift and economic shift. Military industries are enormous, of course.

[quote]We’ve identified more than $300 billion in annual military savings alone that we could better invest in priorities like Medicare for All, working with a national grassroots movement called Poor People’s Campaign.

You're going to have to identify a hell of a lot more just to get even to $1 trillion.

If it were as easy as the Op says then Elizabeth Warren would be able to answer the question in the debates.

R5, it's easy because we're already paying for Medicare for all.

Just move the money you pay to the private insurance companies to Medicare. Actually, keep 1/3rd of it because that's how much more a private insurance system costs us,

The only reason some people are emphasizing tax increases is because they know the average American is too stupid to understand that he will pay less overall. Yes, taxes will go up. But you will pay less because you don't have to pay for private insurance.

Yeah, sure, r6...and you think the Sanders team completely overlooked all that? Even Sanders admits there will be a middle class tax.

But that doesn't mean we won't!

R7, read R6 again.

When you move the money that you pay to the private insurance to Medicare, you pay it in the form of a tax.

Of course, taxes will go up. Overall, the amount of money you have to shell out for health insurance will go down by a third.

Medicare for seniors already doesn't take in enough from medicare tax to cover just seniors. It's complete fantasy that there will ever be "Medicare for all", run by the government. It's more likely that existing Medicare will be increasingly privatized.

r10, younger people are generally healthier. So your argument that "Medicare for seniors already doesn't take in enough from medicare tax to cover just seniors" doesn't have merit.

When we can fire missiles from drones, we don't need to keep Northrup Grumman, Lockheed, KBR, General Dynamics, et al, in business with our tax dollars.

Most people don't know that fully 1/2 of their tax dollars go to the military. When Russia can "take us out" on Facebook, or by shutting down the electrical grid, or simply by having a conversation with our "commander-in-chief," why are we spending big, big bucks on military hardware that is already obsolete and regularly fails?

I agree with the guy who wrote the article at OP; I've been saying as much for years. And -- I'm a U.S. Army veteran.

That's how we should pay for American health care.

R11 You must be forgetting that the US population is lopsided.

The baby boomers are a large & costly generation to deal with.

Generation Z isn't large enough to pay for all of their needs.

When candidates talk about the current average cost of healthcare per person, it's an average. People with employer sponsored health insurance who are healthy with few or no doctor visits currently pay very little per year. Their share of a new scheme would be a huge increase in cost to them. People already learned from the implementation of Obamacare that there are clear winners and clear losers when there is government manipulation.

[quote]Most people don't know that fully 1/2 of their tax dollars go to the military.

You're not even close. It's around 15% of federal budget.

The fucking military itself has said they have enough money. It's the savages who are contractors who take the money. The morons who "support the troops" blindly are so fucking dumb, they don't see the money isn't being used for the betterment of this country. It's used to line the pockets of greedy scum and to worsen the standing of this country both at home and all over the world. We have such genuinely stupid faux patriots.

R6 is right. People can't seem to understand that it's what we'll be left with that counts. More money for us per year is more money. With just a small tax on the richest and the money saved that won't keep insurance company CEOs in the billions per CEO, will be enough. As for the young and very healthy all it takes is one accident or serious illness or having kids or getting fired to bankrupt them.

R15? Scroll down to "Discretionary Spending," the second pie chart. The rest of the budget is fixed expenditures, such as interest on the federal debt.

r18, you're embarrassing yourself by not knowing that discretionary spending is only part of federal expenditures.

I'm not -- but of you say so.

Discretionary income can be utilized for other things, you dipshit. Mandatory cannot.

Perhaps you work for Lockheed Martin.

R9, that remains to be seen because the specifics on any of the MFA plans haven't been fleshed out on the cost side.

And, again, it it were as easy as you're making it out to be it would be done. Elizabeth Warren would have her answers and Bernie wouldn't be admitting to **higher** middle class taxes.

But, if you think you have it all solved, then you should contact Bernie and Warren's campaigns because their economists, actuaries and communications teams could use your help.

Yes, r13, and most people here probably don't understand the issues Europe is facing because of declining birth rates.

[quote]We never talk about how to pay for the military, tax cuts, or any of the $trillions we give away to corporations, oil companies, and agricultural concerns.

At one time, we elected honest people to go to Congress and make these decisions. At least since the 1980s, Congress had been doing their own thing aside from what the American people want.

It's called karma, R22. You don't get to destroy the lives of people all over the world over centuries. Rob them of their natural resources, destroying nations and just kill do many people and get to go act like you never did a fucking thing wrong. I get that in your little bubble, the "west" is all rainbows and unicorns, but if you were actually introspective enough to delve into the reality of what has been done over time, perhaps you'd realize whatever is happening is deserved.

so* many

Not sure what women choosing to have smaller families has to do with any of what you wrote, r24.

And, as always with these pipe-dream promises, the question remains, how are we going to make this happen? Will we miraculously have a Congress full of BernieBros who will be happy to do it? This shit is nonsense, and I can't believe the Democrats are letting themselves get bogged down in it when there are fucking fascists in the White House.

I'm sure the fact that the "deserve" it will make the people who are suffering feel so much better, r24.

[quote] Just move the money you pay to the private insurance companies to Medicare. A

Wtf are you talking about? Today, employers and employees plus people buying insurance on their own are the ones paying the Kroc age insurance companies. NOT the govt.

So who is supposed to “move” this money? Bernie said there will be “no premiums and no out of pockets etc” which is why he admitted taxes will go up.

So people “move” the money from paying Aetna etc to paying more taxes. The theory is the increase in taxes will be less than currently paid toAetna. It that is not proven. Moreover on an Individual basis will likely not be true for many people. Some people who don’t utilize a kit will probably end up laying more in new taxes Vs their current premiums.

We are never going to stop giving a blank check to the military, at least not in the lifetime of anyone posting on this thread. Sure, we will make some symbolic cuts here and there, but nothing of any real consequence.

If you want MFA you are going to have to either raise taxes or cut programs. No one wants their programs cut and Congress is only going to go so far on cutting back the goodies and the pork. So that leaves raising taxes, which tends to be a nonstarter. I am not opposed to MFA, but I think the smarter solution is to fix the problems with the ACA. You could get that through Congress quicker and little less painlessly than MFA.

Wow, it's amazing that all the Democratic candidates needed to do to solve this uncomplicated issue was merely visit DL, where multiple contributers have all the answers

2030% of the cost of healthcare is due to the administrative burden imposed by having tons of different insurance companies, each with its own paperwork and set of referral systems.

Cut out all the middlemen! Insurance companies offer nothing but to take your money and give it to the providers. Plus, they take a huge chunk of it on the way.

[quote] Wtf are you talking about? Today, employers and employees plus people buying insurance on their own are the ones paying the Kroc age insurance companies. NOT the govt.

This is not just for people buying on their own. We are ALL paying for our health insurance. The money your employer is using to provide you health insurance is money that would have been part of your salary.

One of the issues NO candidates have spoken about is that everyday doctors in Europe do not haul in the megabucks that Dr. Joe Schmoe can and does in the USA. I meant doctors do fine, and they find some out of "universal care" income streams if they choose, but they are not all millionaires. Being a millionaire nowadays is only upper middle class but any American doctor is, by mid-career, at the latest.

So I can see stiffing the "Dillinger" Pharma and Insurance hard capitalist corps, (oh they are so very "evil"), but who is going to explain to the vast majority of doctors that the gravy chain is going to be radically altered.

The government already pays more than 50% of the nation's healthcare bill via Medicare, Medicaid, VA, health centers etc. That is why the federal government's healthcare budget is now hovering around 20%--crazy considering most developed countries are around 10% and they cover everyone

Some form of Medicare-for-all works just fine in all other developed countries without all the scare we hear about here.

In fact, in Denmark, for example, they pay about the same tax rate as in NYC. The Danes get a whole lot more than NYers get

The average salary for a GP in UK is 105K pounds. (135K USD) It's LOWER than that in France. The average GP in USA is 300K.

There only things stopping this are :

Politicians getting paid by Big Pharma and Big Healthcare

R33 re read what you quoted. I said that employers are paying.

The government however is not paying for people who are currently on private insurance.

[quote] The average salary for a GP in UK is 105K pounds. (135K USD) It's LOWER than that in France. The average GP in USA is 300K.

But with those salaries, the European doctors get free healthcare, free education, free child care, etc.

American doctors have to pay for their healthcare, education loads, child care, etc

The Average VA hospital MD is 200K. So who is going to take away hundreds of thousands a year from each American doctor? Hmmm???

[quote] The government however is not paying for people who are currently on private insurance.

I'm not sure what your point is. We are all paying for healthcare whether it's through private insurance or the government. It just depends on the mechanism we use--taxes or taken from our paycheck.

As for your assertion the its is not proven that the increase in taxes will be less that you will pay Aetna is refuted by study after study and the experiences of nearly every other developed country.

Every wonder why no other country has the same healthcare system we do? They've seen it and they know it sucks

R40, I perfectly agree with your point. But I would like a politician to be honest about the number crunching on health care worker salaries. Its so VERY convenient for Bernie the socialist to deplore the US top dollar paid for drugs. Or the Evil Health Insurance companies. But cutting drug prices is NOT magically going to bring universal care within reach.

How is going to tell doctors they are instantly now VA type doctors and need to take.a100K hit a year in salary? Or much much more than that?

[quote] it's amazing that all the Democratic candidates needed to do to solve this uncomplicated issue was merely visit DL, where multiple contributers have all the answers

The answers are simple--the world has proven that already.

The people making money on healthcare in America are pretending it's so complicated that we cant change

[quote] How is going to tell doctors they are instantly now VA type doctors and need to take.a100K hit a year in salary? Or much much more than that?

Doctors salaries have fallen precipitously over the last 30 years as politicians have reigned in Medicare, yet there is no shortage of student applying to Medical school. They all know there was a huge difference from the past but they still go through the hell of medical school

The situation in the USA is that capitalism has allowed ALL health care costs to mushroom far beyond the prices in other post industrial rich countries.

Obama caved to Big Pharma on drug prices alone.

Nobody but NOBOBY dares talk about doctor, nurse and dentist salaries.

Mind you, I don't begrudge the workers getting those salaries in the current system. Obviously cutting out the middle man insurance companies will be a step in the right direction.

I highly doubt it will provide enough cost cutting necessary, however. Europe still respects Pharma patents, for the moment! Intellectual property, and Europe has a Big Pharma industry as well. But European states are not paying the TOP price for drugs, there is plenty of dealing.

And every European doctor is not a millionaire within 5 - 10 years of starting to practice.

[quote] But I would like a politician to be honest about the number crunching on health care worker salaries. Its so VERY convenient for Bernie the socialist to deplore the US top dollar paid for drugs. Or the Evil Health Insurance companies. But cutting drug prices is NOT magically going to bring universal care within reach.

Unfortunately, honest politicians are the ones whose words are twisted. This is exactly why Warren doesn't mention taxes because she knows that her rivals and the GOP will immediately twist that into: Warren wants to raise your taxes!

We know that cutting drug prices won't suddenly bring us within reach of universal care, but these politicians are reacting to consumer anger. Consumers aren't seeing the big picture but reacting to what they feel--they know drugs prices are high and are demanding lower prices. What they don't see is that drug prices are part of a huge broken system.

But consumers will learn soon enough.

Yes, obviously Warren and Sanders can not parade around the country announcing 1/3 cuts to health worker salaries to institute universal care.

I think Biden and those "realists" are correct - best to promise to expand aggressively Obamacare and let this sort out over 10 years or more.

Yet Medicare has made doctors pretty wealthy

[quote] I think Biden and those "realists" are correct - best to promise to expand aggressively Obamacare and let this sort out over 10 years or more.

This is what will likely happen as it's exactly what happened in Germany over a hundred years ago when they tried the same thing. Relying on private insurance collapsed after 7 years and then Germany went to single payer. Private insurance still exists but for extras like private hospital room or seeing the health doctor.

In the meantime, private insurance will fight tooth and nail to keep the healthiest patients while leaving the government programs with the sickest. Private insurance profits go up while the government gets more and more in debt

I don’t think it’s fair to call out the salaries of doctors or anyone else. Doctors have to pay a shit ton in malpractice insurance, but they also put in a great deal of work to earn those degrees to practice medicine.

Well, maybe pot of gold malpractice can't be sustained, either. A friend of mine in Switzerland had a snafu at the dentist where a nerve was cut and her upper lip was frozen for over a decade. She got less than 10k in compensation. Gross malpractice mistakes are routinely compensated with 4 figures, not 7!

And R51, you didn't read and ingest what I wrote at R46. The salaries make sense NOW.

In Europe, medical and nursing school in many countries is about 1k a year or less. Plus most students are on a state stipend for living expenses anyway.

[quote] Doctors have to pay a shit ton in malpractice insurance,

In Europe, there are centralized, government run funds for malpractice.

Once again there are numerous insurance companies in the US peddling malpractice insurance, each working to make profits for themselves.

[quote] Doctors have to pay a shit ton in malpractice insurance, but they also put in a great deal of work to earn those degrees to practice medicine.

So do doctors in Europe

[quote] The government however is not paying for people who are currently on private insurance.

[quote]I'm not sure what your point is. We are all paying for healthcare whether it's through private insurance

Well point 1 is OP article Is talking about dinsing ways for the GOVERNMENT to lay for MFA and

2 your post suggested “moving money” that today is paid by American consumers

Ie you’re mixing apples and oranges.

If we “move” payments to private insurance that means it people’s taxes go up

There's no mixing apples and oranges--it's the same money; it's the same health care.

Either we pay private insurance or we pay directly into Medicare.

If we pay into Medicare, we do it in the form of increased taxes.

Yes, taxes will go up but the overall amount we pay into healthcare will go down

[quote] If we pay into Medicare, we do it in the form of increased taxes.

That IS the point. And only Bernie is honest about it

[quote]The money your employer is using to provide you health insurance is money that would have been part of your salary.

No, this is a benefit separate and apart from your salary and there is absolutely no evidence that an employer will give this money to you as salary should employer sponsored health insurance goes away.

R58, no the point is your overall payments for healthcare will be less than you're paying now.

The increased taxes BS is the canard played by the right to make you think you're paying increased taxes AND paying what you do for healthcare now

[quote] No, this is a benefit separate and apart from your salary and there is absolutely no evidence that an employer will give this money to you as salary should employer sponsored health insurance goes away.

This is actually part of your salary that the employer is redirecting to your health insurance.

You really think employers are using their own money? It's called a benefit, but you're paying for it,

In fact, in recognition of that, whenever Congress has put forward any bill to de-link health insurance from the workplace (and it has), the bill mentions that the money must be returned to workers as salary

Many companies, including mine, list the various benefits as part of your overall salary

One of the issues that was put forth in one of the republican healthcare bills is to tax healthcare benefits.

It's a portion of your salary that is not taxed, which incentives companies to offer Cadillac plans to attract workers

R60 only stupid people think that.

And again none of that is relevant to the article OP posted.

And Warren still obfuscates you’re point while Bernie admits it. And says “net net it will be less”.

Tax the Rich. Medicare for All.

[quote]In fact, in Denmark, for example, they pay about the same tax rate as in NYC. The Danes get a whole lot more than NYers get

First, the Danes pay a 25% VAT tax. If you don't know what this is or why it's important then you need to look it up.

Second, Denmark has a flatter tax structure where almost everyone contributes.

And, third, Denmark is a homogenous society where social loafing is frowned upon and income inequality isn't a great (although the Panama papers showed a high degree of Danish tax dodging). While the taxes may be similar to NY, you're not taking into consideration the whole of the United States where taxes are much lower in much of the country. I also don't think you're taking into consideration what higher taxes would mean to someone in NY...unless you are saying that property taxes will decrease because of MFA?

The federal government spends $1.1tn on healthcare per year. That's the equivalent of $3361 per person, but only covers specific groups of people for specific things, and doesn't include state spending counties, or municipalities.

The UK NHS spends $3215 (£2473) per person, covers everyone for everything, and has no further state, county or municipal spending.

So it'd be possible to do it in the US with no new taxes, and without siphoning money away from other budgets.

[quote]Relying on private insurance collapsed after 7 years and then Germany went to single payer. Private insurance still exists but for extras like private hospital room or seeing the health doctor.

This might be news to the Germans. Germany has a dual system where you can opt out of government insurance altogether in favor of private insurance.

Taxes for 1%. Medicare for 100%.

[quote]This is actually part of your salary that the employer is redirecting to your health insurance.

There are two parts to employer sponsored health insurance. There's the part that the employer pays and there's the part that the employee pays (and some people are lucky enough where the employer picks up the whole tab.) The employee won't have their portion taken out of their paycheck, but the part that is paid by the employer will not be given back as compensation.

[quote]Many companies, including mine, list the various benefits as part of your overall salary

You're conflating compensation package with salary.

Switzerland is still a balance of corporate power and socialism. It has 100% private health system and 100% coverage. The government creates the list of all medicine that must be covered by basic insurance and also negotiates the price with Pharma corps. The government sets the basic price of all the time and services of all health care professionals and institutions. Every citizen must purchase the basic plan which covers all of this for the monthly premium of the "basic plan". Each company can propose the basic plan at the price they can manage, and offer differing deductibles but there are caps on yearly out of pocket for everyone. Plans then go up in price for middle class and rich consumers who tack on extras beyond the basic normal health care that is necessary. Hillary Clinton studied this one, when the was First Lady, and it was her proposal. Remember, when she was laughed off the Hill? It's the plan that ObamaCare should expand into. Poor people get subsidies to afford the basic monthly premium. The lowest price premium by the most cost effective company is still a few hundred a month. The list of drugs and services it covers is VERY comprehensive. Not a nickel and diming situation. Healthy people take it with higher deductibles and gamble they won't need health services. If they do get sick, their out of pocket expensives will not bankrupt them, anyway.

R35, My concern is the large number of Americans who continue to have huge families that they cannot possibly afford to support often even after they are too old to be getting pregnant and/or have diagnosed serious medical issues. Compare it to the tremendous burden severely disabled babies from cousin marriages have had on the British health care system.

Then there's the increasingly number of very obese, drug addicted, and/or alcoholic Americans who refuse to exercise or eat a reasonably healthy diet and their extreme burden on public health care.

Now we're supposed to be paying for not only emergency health care for undocumented workers but pre-natal and regular medical as well? Have you seen the wait times to see a doctor in many ER? Some places it's over 20 hours if you're not brought in by an ambulance.

Point being, I'd love to see the option of MFA but don't think those more Socialist countries like Denmark and Israel have to deal with all of the problems I just described. Their social controls on citizens' behavior are much more evident.

R73 you have a point about ER times being slow. But I think you are being unfair towards undocumented immigrants. They do the work that Americans don't want to do at very low wages while still paying taxes. Healthcare is a necessity and they are human beings Who are still paying taxes and contributing to our society, regardless of whether they have the legal documentation to be here. Being undocumented does not mean you shouldn't have access to a necessarily such as healthcare, particularly if you are a contributing member of society,which the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are. Otherwise they wouldn't be here because undocumented immigrants are not entitled to most government assistance programs.

R74 then they Pay lay for insurance like the eat of us working people do

^^ then they cannot for insurance like the rest of us working people do

[quote] I also don't think you're taking into consideration what higher taxes would mean to someone in NY.

Again, a New Yorker would pay higher taxes for healthcare but would contribute much less of their salary towards healthcare.

[quote] You're conflating compensation package with salary

Yes, they are all forms of compensation. Same difference

R73 creepily reminds me of HATEFUL CUNTS who whined about the expense of gay "immoral sluts and whores" DYING OF AIDS in the 80s and 90s. The FUCKING nerve of subhuman homo "sluts" to get sick and become expensive, on the public dime!

Everyone is talking about how taxes will go up even though contributions to private insrance will go down but that is not what the OP article is talking about

[quote] here are two parts to employer sponsored health insurance. There's the part that the employer pays and there's the part that the employee pays (and some people are lucky enough where the employer picks up the whole tab.) The employee won't have their portion taken out of their paycheck, but the part that is paid by the employer will not be given back as compensation.

All of it is considered part of employee compensation by health policy experts. Another way of looking at it is, if you didn't get any health insurance from your work, would you accept the salary you get, knowing that you would have to buy your own health insurance?

Hell no.

[quote] Now we're supposed to be paying for not only emergency health care for undocumented workers but pre-natal and regular medical as well? Have you seen the wait times to see a doctor in many ER? Some places it's over 20 hours if you're not brought in by an ambulance.

People with regular healthcare don't have to go to the ER because they have their own doctor who has been seeing them regularly.

The undocumented make up 3% of those in the US. They are hardly the problem. As a whole they are younger and healthier than Americans.

[quote] Denmark is a homogenous society

When was the last time you went to Denmark or any other country that this "homogenous society" nonsense is trotted out about?

First almost no country is homogeneous anymore. Second, we all get the same diseases

[quote] This might be news to the Germans. Germany has a dual system where you can opt out of government insurance altogether in favor of private insurance.

Yes, but when you opt out, it is difficult to get back into the gov insurance. The opt out to private insurance gets you extras like a solo hospital room, faster appt, an appt with the chief doctor, etc, but, in all the studies, there is no difference in quality.

[quote] People with regular healthcare don't have to go to the ER because they have their own doctor who has been seeing them regularly.

You’re very much deluded.

[quote] This might be news to the Germans. Germany has a dual system where you can opt out of government insurance altogether in favor of private insurance.

Far far more in the government insurance system than in the private insurance system. Private insurance cannot make a profit on primary care so offers those extras to entice the wealthy

[quote] I also don't think you're taking into consideration what higher taxes would mean to someone in NY...unless you are saying that property taxes will decrease because of MFA?

Property taxes in NYC are actually low because it has a strong commercial base

[quote]Yes, they are all forms of compensation. Same difference

Not in the way r62 meant it.

[quote]All of it is considered part of employee compensation by health policy experts.

Key words there are: health policy experts. Employers look at it differently and iypt was addressed in 2016. The argument was instead of paying part of an employee's insurance to the insurance company it would be paid to the government instead and therefore wouldn't be returned to the employee in the form of compensation.

[quote]Another way of looking at it is, if you didn't get any health insurance from your work, would you accept the salary you get, knowing that you would have to buy your own health insurance?

Yet, many people do now.

[quote] here are two parts to employer sponsored health insurance. There's the part that the employer pays and there's the part that the employee pays (and some people are lucky enough where the employer picks up the whole tab.) The employee won't have their portion taken out of their paycheck, but the part that is paid by the employer will not be given back as compensation.

You will get back what the market demands. If some companies start giving back alot, others will have to follow to keep good employees.

That's besides the point in Medicare for all, because those payments would remain, but in the form of taxes.

Only if health insurance is delinked from employment altogether and you have to buy private insurance (like in Switzerland), will the discussion come into play

R88, actually, people don't do it now. Only those who are lower on the pay ladder are willing to accept no health insurance. Anyone in the middle class and higher will not accept a job with no health insurance AND a low salary

[quote]Property taxes in NYC are actually low because it has a strong commercial base

As someone who owns homes in NYC and Pennsylvania, NYC has a high tax rate. It's only low compared to the rest of New York but is high when compared to the country as a whole.

[quote] My concern is the large number of Americans who continue to have huge families that they cannot possibly afford to support often even after they are too old to be getting pregnant and/or have diagnosed serious medical issues.

the birth rate in the US is approaching zero. Not alot of people having huge families

R84 and R86, the comment you are quoting was addressing someone whom said Germany doesn't offer private insurance other than as a supplement for private rooms etc. This isn't true.

R89, when 90% of your country is Danish (with a portion of immigrants from other Scandinavian countries or the EU) then you are a homogeneous country.

[quote]You will get back what the market demands. If some companies start giving back alot, others will have to follow to keep good employees.

And if this was true then we wouldn't have the younger generation complaining about how salary is lower and benefits are worse today than when boomers started out.

R90, you never made a class distinction in your initial comment.

Neither Warren nor Bernie can or will explain how they intend to pay for MFA. And the more it floats out there without any clear answers, the more people are going to draw their own conclusions. Personally, I don't think you should debut a plan that you can't explain or defend.

And I get a little tired of people asking why there is universal healthcare in Europe and Canada, but we can't have it here. We are a vast country with 327 million people. Canada has 37 million people. The UK has 66 million. France is 66 million. Denmark has 5 million. We are too diverse and too independent, and are too resistant to quick change.

And I don't get the argument that only a smaller country can have universal coverage. It makes no sense. Yes there are fewer people needing coverage, but also fewer paying into it. In fact, for insurance, the larger the pool the better. The many healthy paying for the relatively few unhealthy at any one time.

It's like arguing that only small countries with small borders can have armies. How can a large country defend all those people? Maybe by having the resources to pay for a much larger, more powerful military?

The homogeneity argument is interesting though, cause at least it acknowledges the underlying racism of a lot of white people's resistance to covering, ya know, THOSE people. Is that what you're saying r94?

And our "independence" is actually more a slavish devotion to the ideology that only the rich deserve anything in this country, and everyone else should just accept that they suck and be content with the few scraps the rich condescend to toss them.

[quote]The homogeneity argument is interesting though, cause at least it acknowledges the underlying racism of a lot of white people's resistance to covering, ya know, THOSE people. Is that what you're saying [R94]?

That is huge part of it. Do you know how many white people thought Obamacare was some kind of free healthcare for black people. That's why poor white people vote republican, because they think democrats only reason for existing is to provide freebies to black and brown people.

The homogeneity "argument" isn't necessarily one of race, although in this country it's a factor, the issue with a lack of homogeneity is more due to difficulty in generating political cohesion among diverse groups.

True, r97, but a lot of what we look at as "homogeneity" isn't all that homogeneous from the perspective of the people themselves. We see a bunch of Italians, assume they are all white and basically similar (hey, there's a whole DL thread about the whiteness of Italians) but a lot of that is after the fact. From their own perspective they're a fragmented group of Romans, Venetians, Florentines, and then a bunch of Southern Neapolitans and Sicilians, with about 100 political parties ranging from Communist to Fascist. And yet they are able to pull it together enough to actually have an intelligent healthcare policy.

Maybe our biggest problem is that we're too homogeneous, boiling everything down to whether it's good for the whites, or good for the blacks, and assuming these two things are always opposites.

Well that and the fact that we have pretty much allowed rich assholes to train us to believe that only rich assholes deserve anything. There's that.

[quote]Personally, I don't think you should debut a plan that you can't explain or defend.

Since both of them have both explained and defended their plans, I'm afraid your point is moot.

[quote]And I get a little tired of people asking why there is universal healthcare in Europe and Canada, but we can't have it here. We are a vast country with 327 million people. Canada has 37 million people. The UK has 66 million. France is 66 million. Denmark has 5 million. We are too diverse and too independent, and are too resistant to quick change.

Wow.... that's just a stunningly bad argument. Actually, it's not even an argument. As others have noted, population size above a certain level just doesn't make a difference. If anything, a larger population is easier to insure. As for diversity, that's completely irrelevant when it comes to a discussion of health insurance.

Maybe you should read a bit before you post again?

I think it's unfair to ask candidates to formulate plans on the campaign trail. They can sort that all out when they become POTUS.

Just elect a smart person.

R101 It's unfair?

Only to the majority of voters who should be allowed to pick the best plan that THEY want.

That's what the campaign trail is all about.

Meh, who is actually reading anybody's actual plans on the campaign trail, r102? It's all instinct and hope and visceral reactions to this or that.

A POTUS socialist or not, will have little power without a Democratic Congress.

[quote] Maybe you should read a bit before you post again?

And maybe you should fuck off or wake the fuck up about the country you're living in before you post again, asshole.

Lay it all out on the table, so we get to compare...

[quote]NEWS: @ewarren announces here in Indianola that in the next few weeks, she’ll release a plan specifically laying out how she’ll pay for her Medicare for All plan

You just do it gradually.

One facet is to allow anyone to “buy into” Medicare at full cost at any age. This means it might be $700 a month for a 30 year-old, perhaps. But it’s a foot in the door. This would cost the taxpayer nothing. I’m on Medicare, and because I have retirement income, I pay $250 a month for it. So, this isn’t a revolutionary Idea.

The next facet is to gradually lower the eligibility age for federally funded Medicare, but including the premium if the person has high income, as we have today. Drop it to 55. Fund it with a tax on companies with over 50 employees who don’t offer affordable healthcare to their employees. Pass some kind of law that discourages businesses from dropping healthcare coverage or offering crappy plans, or tax them to fund expanded Medicare.

In ten years, drop the age to 40. in ten more years, make it universal.

We can do it.