Bernie admits taxing the rich won't be enough to fund Medica

[_Some Schmo]

Yes because only the wealthy pay taxes to support these programs. At least so goes the left's talking points.

I'm just curious: do you care about being taken seriously? You are so damned brainwashed, you have no idea how damned stupid you sound (that's giving you the benefit of the doubt).

How's your socialist wall coming, comrade? Your asshole is all clenched up over people getting healthcare but you want to spend my tax dollars on an idiotic, ineffective wall. Everyone wants healthcare. Only morons want a wall. How come you haven't gone down and started building it yourself? Why do I have to pay for your wall? What are you, a hypocrite or something?

[_Gunnar]

Trump and the Republican party have already announced their desire to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Public Education. Doing so could help eliminate the tax burden for the wealthy even further.

Yes because only the wealthy pay taxes to support these programs. At least so goes the left's talking points.

I find it hard to believe that even you are stupid enough to believe that lie. I can only conclude that you are, for some reason, deliberately trying to deceive others into believing it. Why? What do you hope to gain by such deliberate deception?

[_Gunnar]

kevin Graham, that is a good summary.Thanks for putting it together.

Yes it is! Unfortunately, Ajax and most other diehard conservatives are so brainwashed that they are highly unlikely to take the time and effort to read it, much less understand it.

[_EAllusion]

Trump and the Republican party have already announced their desire to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Public Education. Doing so could help eliminate the tax burden for the wealthy even further.

Yes because only the wealthy pay taxes to support these programs. At least so goes the left's talking points.

Those are right-wing talking points about left-wing talking points.

More accurately, most Democrats are vague about the funding mechanisms for universal health care proposals because they know the public doesn't want increased taxes even though the public wants universal health care. The public wants a free lunch. This isn't true of liberal and left-wing think tanks, nor is it true of candidates like Warren. It is true of Bernie Sanders. He's notorious for being vague about policy details to avoid in depth discussion of the very large tax increases that would pay for those sketched out policies. Those tax increases come with significant offsets in no longer having to pay health care costs, but the ripple effects of that are complicated and something people who think they are currently doing Ok are skiddish about.

The other thing Sanders doesn't talk a lot about is the devastation to health care industry jobs that universal health care would cause. It's efficient because it puts all sorts of people out of work. This ultimately makes things cheaper for everyone else, but obviously is bad for the people making a living off of current inefficiencies.

But Bernie didn't "admit" that taxes would increase to sink people's standard of health care. That's absurd. Bernie believes, almost certainly accurately, that a universal health care system would provide superior health care at a cheaper per capita cost than the current system because that is the case in every single industrialized nation that has such a system.

There are reasons to oppose universal health care. This isn't one of them, and if you make your stand on that, you are just making your stand on being empirically wrong.

[_Doctor Steuss]

I imagine if there were an increased tax for my middle class family to have universal healthcare, my employer and I wouldn't have to simultaneously pay the ~$16K a year we do right now for a high-deductible plan.

[_EAllusion]

I imagine if there were an increased tax for my middle class family to have universal healthcare, my employer and I wouldn't have to simultaneously pay the ~$16K a year we do right now for a high-deductible plan.

There are analyses that try to figure out if people will end up paying more or less for various universal health care plans when you take into account all the changes in taxes and costs. Having read those, the big takeaways I have are that it's complicated, most people beneath upper-middle class will pay less, and sometimes who pays more or less is surprising based on their unique situations. Tax increases will be substantial, though.

The trickiest thing to figure out is how much salaries will rise once employers are no longer paying for tax-subsidized health care plans.

[_Some Schmo]

I imagine if there were an increased tax for my middle class family to have universal healthcare, my employer and I wouldn't have to simultaneously pay the ~$16K a year we do right now for a high-deductible plan.

And this is why universal healthcare coverage is a conservative position in most first world countries.

Which is why most Americans who call themselves "conservative" can be laughed at for their ignorance.

I'm still annoyed by people conflating health care with health care coverage. Americans have great health care. It's the coverage that sucks ass.

[_ajax18]

There are reasons to oppose universal health care. This isn't one of them, and if you make your stand on that, you are just making your stand on being empirically wrong.

Then what is a good reason to oppose universal healthcare in your opinion?

I think there would be a lot of unintended consequences to tax and spend policies put in place that would make the numbers turn out differently in reality.

The trickiest thing to figure out is how much salaries will rise once employers are no longer paying for tax-subsidized health care plans.

What makes you think salaries would rise once employers no longer pay for tax subsidized health plans?

[_canpakes]

Trump and the Republican party have already announced their desire to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Public Education. Doing so could help eliminate the tax burden for the wealthy even further.

Yes because only the wealthy pay taxes to support these programs. At least so goes the left's talking points.

ajax, your statement doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve never heard of this as a talking point from anyone.

What are you actually trying to say?

[_Themis]

“What we’re talking about is stripping people of their private health insurance, forcing them into a government-run program,” Verma said.

That's exactly what you should want Ajax. It's one of the reasons all these other countries can run a better and cheaper health care system then what we see in the US. No more money going to pay an insurance industry which uses a good amount of that money to provide no medical service. Cost of what is covered also goes down as you would also want an independent group who determine a fair price. The system can also be free market run as those who provide medical services don't have to work for the government. My Doctor works for his clinic which is privately owned and if he pisses me off I can go find another Doctor. You might consider asking different kind of questions about these issues and look for better sources of information.