Broke Wave
The GOAT
Can you address my specifics before quoting me? I explained the deficit and debt portions of UHC
Bernie Sanders Unveils his Medicare for All Plan
- Thread starter Dr. Acula
- Start date
You honestly didn't say much.
You vaguely said a modest increase and said removing the cap.
You didn't distinguish between the witholdings or PAYE taxes for the employee or employer payroll taxes.
I'm not sure you gave enough information for any more response that I gave you.
Also, Americans hate tax increases that affect them.
Small businesses hate payroll taxes.
Who's taxes are you going to raise? Is it across the board? Is it for specific income. Ranges? If so what range?
No one has even mentioned the cost of healthcare Services in general or the overcharging of insurance.
I'm just sitting here waiting for people who say, just raise the taxes to say where they think it should be raised and how you're going to convince Americans this is in their best interest.
People seem to disregard the anti socialism sentiment that exists for the majority of Americans.
I'm just sitting here waiting for people who say, just raise the taxes to say where they think it should be raised and how you're going to convince Americans this is in their best interest.
People seem to disregard the anti socialism sentiment that exists for the majority of Americans.
I_Got_Da_Burna
Superstar
With a single payer system, the government sets service rates and negotiates on behalf of the taxpayers. This drives costs down significantly. Right now, the American people have no bargaining power with insurance companies, therefore overcharging exists b/c there's no checks and balances.
Just look at the Canadian healthcare system, dude. This is not some experimental idea that can't survive in a first world economy.
If you look at other countries around the world with single payer, you will see that ppl on average are paying LESS overall for health care, even though "taxes" are higher. Ppl just look at the word tax and consider it evil and unnecessary and unfair, or even theft (for you libertarians out there haha).
On average, insurance rates are HIGHER than what taxes actually end up increasing by. As soon as ppl get over the tax bogeyman, and start looking at the bottom line, the better they will be.
Ppl are afraid of change, because there has been a huge disinformation campaign to keep ppl scared of change.
Your posts in this thread kinda show that.
Also, the various tax rates improving (looking at the plan), based on income seems fair to me
JoogJoint
In my own league.
Bingo!
Everytime I get into a debate with a republican or any White person, this is their go to argument and I don't understand why are you worried about the consequences for somebody who doesn't give a f_ck about you. Tax hikes on the wealthy is hardly going to put a dent in their pockets. Oh boohoo that rich person can't afford their 3rd vacation meanwhile you're working at Walmart.
Broke Wave
The GOAT
Sigh... Obama tackled this with the tax increases in the ACA and wr are literally posting in a Bernie Sanders thread where he has explained the specifics in his own plan. You just keep repeating the same tired talking points about what you think Americans "hate".
How could you invalidate my argument because I didn't distinguish between such minor details? This is just very dishonest posting from you.
It's really not. If you want medicare for all you have to pay for it.
Bernie's proposal showed where he'd like to pay for it.
It runs counter to current administrations proposal for changes to the tax code. I personally don't like it, but it's still 63% popular. On the bright side most Americans don't think wealthy pay enough taxes. Something I also agree with, but it's not because the rate isn't high enough, but because of the deductions and loopholes.
That aside all I've said is you will need to convince Americans with real numbers why their taxes need to increase, why losing their employer provided insurance is a good thing for those who have it and are satisfied, and more importantly what will the coverage actually look like.
Not everyone is just concerned with having coverage. They need to have adequate and affordable coverage.
My view is the proposal is a good jumping off point to move the conversation. But those things you say are disingenuous questions, it doesn't matter if they are to be honest, have to be addressed because that's how these things go in our political landscape.
These aren't wholly my positions, but they are the types of responses you'll see.
I_Got_Da_Burna
Superstar
It's really not. If you want medicare for all you have to pay for it.
Bernie's proposal showed where he'd like to pay for it.
It runs counter to current administrations proposal for changes to the tax code. I personally don't like it, but it's still 63% popular. On the bright side most Americans don't think wealthy pay enough taxes. Something I also agree with, but it's not because the rate isn't high enough, but because of the deductions and loopholes.
That aside all I've said is you will need to convince Americans with real numbers why their taxes need to increase, why losing their employer provided insurance is a good thing for those who have it and are satisfied, and more importantly what will the coverage actually look like.
Not everyone is just concerned with having coverage. They need to have adequate and affordable coverage.
My view is the proposal is a good jumping off point to move the conversation. But those things you say are disingenuous questions, it doesn't matter if they are to be honest, have to be addressed because that's how these things go in our political landscape.
These aren't wholly my positions, but they are the types of responses you'll see.
If you took more than 2 minutes to do research, you'd know that a medicare-for-all system is less costly than the screwed up system we have now.
In our system vs. Canada (from wiki): "The United States spends much more money on healthcare than Canada, on both a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP.[6] In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on healthcare in that year; Canada spent 10.0%."
As a matter of fact, watch this. Ro Kana explains the plan perfectly (all the while making this fox news shill look bad). BTW, you're parroting the fox news talking points:
Broke Wave
The GOAT
It's really not. If you want medicare for all you have to pay for it.
Bernie's proposal showed where he'd like to pay for it.
It runs counter to current administrations proposal for changes to the tax code. I personally don't like it, but it's still 63% popular. On the bright side most Americans don't think wealthy pay enough taxes. Something I also agree with, but it's not because the rate isn't high enough, but because of the deductions and loopholes.
That aside all I've said is you will need to convince Americans with real numbers why their taxes need to increase, why losing their employer provided insurance is a good thing for those who have it and are satisfied, and more importantly what will the coverage actually look like.
Not everyone is just concerned with having coverage. They need to have adequate and affordable coverage.
My view is the proposal is a good jumping off point to move the conversation. But those things you say are disingenuous questions, it doesn't matter if they are to be honest, have to be addressed because that's how these things go in our political landscape.
These aren't wholly my positions, but they are the types of responses you'll see.
Why are you quoting me and telling me about positions that aren't wholly yours? Am I Bernie Sanders? Why would I need to answer these questions to a hypothetical idiot? Americans are already largely convinced of UHC and even still, a giant wall on the Mexican border was considered a reasonable policy proposal by millions of Americans.
If you took more than 2 minutes to do research, you'd know that a medicare-for-all system is less costly than the screwed up system we have now.
In our system vs. Canada (from wiki): "The United States spends much more money on healthcare than Canada, on both a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP.[6] In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on healthcare in that year; Canada spent 10.0%."
As a matter of fact, watch this. Ro Kana explains the plan perfectly (all the while making this fox news shill look bad). BTW, you're parroting the fox news talking points:
This is where this conversation began.
Don't be mad at me for bringing up the criticisms that people throw out regarding Medicare for all. I stated from jump what I was going to bring up. The popularity for single payer or a "Medicare for All" type of health program's popularity has always been high among dems and opposed among conservatives and from most of the Data I've seen those splits haven't changed too much. Yes, democrats support singlepayer more than than they did during the Obamacare Debates, but democrats also don't have control of government. What people don't want to talk about is that Single payer was on the table originally and failed.
Unless you can convince conservatives and in line their representatives to change their opinion on government run healthcare it doesn't take off no matter how much liberals agree with it.
By the Numbers:
@Broke Wave in regards to Taxes and Deficit:
Analysis | How do Americans feel about single-payer health care? It’s complicated.
Analysis | How do Americans feel about single-payer health care? It’s complicated.
Broke Wave
The GOAT
@Broke Wave in regards to Taxes and Deficit:
Analysis | How do Americans feel about single-payer health care? It’s complicated.
Do you understand the concept of framing? "Large increases in government spending" fukk outta here with that misleading ass shyt. Secondly, what are you even arguing here? Do you even have a position here? Lets simplify
Single Payer is a superior form of healthcare in terms of outcomes and costs, according to countless studies and examples around the world.
Agree or Disagree? If you agree, stop bloviating. If you disagree, why?
I've already stated numerous times through the various Higher Learning threads that I agree with Single Payer. But just because I agree with something in principle doesn't mean I shouldn't be willing to discuss the obvious shortcomings in how it's presented or where actually passing the legislation will undoubtedly hit road blocks. That isn't bloviating. This thread is about a proposal. Not whether I think single payer is the way to go or not.
Americans vote against their best interest everyday. Framing is always important in politics.
