Will Sanders' Supporters Ultimately Back Trump?

[_DoubtingThomas]

Also, don't tell the 1960s that space travel doesn't happen due to competition. They'd wonder what you were smoking.

I meant no competition in the private sector.

A capitalist economy would work by the market establishing the price of goods manufactured by robots based on demand. Part of that equation is how many people are actually able to have the purchasing power to buy those goods so there is that aspect of it. But that is the wrong question to ask.

I understand. Some reports predict income inequality will increase in the near future. What is the solution?

As a result of robotization, tens of millions of jobs will be lost, especially in poorer local economies that rely on lower-skilled workers. This will therefore translate to an increase in income inequality

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/26/robots- ... laims.html

What's your objective here, DT? What do you really hope to see happen? Money for buying stuff without any need to work for it? .

That is what some are predicting. "One rapidly emerging picture is that of an economy where far fewer people work because work is unnecessary" - Stuart Russell, a computer scientist at UC Berkeley.

[_DoubtingThomas]

People of all age demographics struggle in life DT. The difference is older generations understand that nothing in life is free.

I don't think Bernie supporters are asking for free stuff. They know our tax dollars will pay for it.

[_Res Ipsa]

People of all age demographics struggle in life DT. The difference is older generations understand that nothing in life is free.

I don't think Bernie supporters are asking for free stuff. They know our tax dollars will pay for it.

I don’t think they do. Example: if I buy insurance on the private market, it costs my family about 3k per month in premiums. Right now, we get health insurance through my wife’s employer. We pay about $300 per month. The deductibles and out of pocket maximums are very low. Will I pay more or less if we switch right now to MFA?

[_DoubtingThomas]

I don’t think they do. Example: if I buy insurance on the private market, it costs my family about 3k per month in premiums. Right now, we get health insurance through my wife’s employer. We pay about $300 per month. The deductibles and out of pocket maximums are very low. Will I pay more or less if we switch right now to MFA?

I don't know, but 300 a month is a lot of money for many American families. I understand 300 a month is nothing for you.

[_Res Ipsa]

I don’t think they do. Example: if I buy insurance on the private market, it costs my family about 3k per month in premiums. Right now, we get health insurance through my wife’s employer. We pay about $300 per month. The deductibles and out of pocket maximums are very low. Will I pay more or less if we switch right now to MFA?

I don't know, but 300 a month is a lot of money for many American families. I understand 300 a month is nothing for you.

I will pay more. I won’t have to pay the $300 and the small deductible. But I’ll have to pay for that in increased taxes, plus the $2000 or so a month that my employer used to be paying for me. If you have decent employer provided health insurance now, you will almost certainly be worse off under MfA. Employer provided health insurance is the biggest impediment to adopting MfA. That’s why Sanders will not provide specifics about how he would finance MfA. To make it work, Warren has to talk about a wealth tax.

[_DoubtingThomas]

I will pay more. I won’t have to pay the $300 and the small deductible. But I’ll have to pay for that in increased taxes, plus the $2000 or so a month that my employer used to be paying for me. If you have decent employer provided health insurance now, you will almost certainly be worse off under MfA. Employer provided health insurance is the biggest impediment to adopting MfA. That’s why Sanders will not provide specifics about how he would finance MfA. To make it work, Warren has to talk about a wealth tax.

Maybe, but it is all opinion. You told me, "I know if you ask five economists a question on a complicated subject like the causes of the 2008 crash, you’ll get six different opinions."

According to the Hill article, "22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money"
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog ... aves-money

[_EAllusion]

I will pay more. I won’t have to pay the $300 and the small deductible. But I’ll have to pay for that in increased taxes, plus the $2000 or so a month that my employer used to be paying for me. If you have decent employer provided health insurance now, you will almost certainly be worse off under MfA. Employer provided health insurance is the biggest impediment to adopting MfA. That’s why Sanders will not provide specifics about how he would finance MfA. To make it work, Warren has to talk about a wealth tax.

That employer subsidy is funded by the government via a byzantine tax system that goes away under MfA. Whether you'll pay more or less under various MfA plans depends mostly on what your income is. Given that you're an atty, my guess would be you'll pay more.

Although, it is worth noting that some in the Sanders' camp think something like "Screw it. We'll finance it with debt" at which point you are "paying" for it in the cost of monetizing debt, which right now is so cheap that you'd almost certainly pay less. That is, until you wouldn't be.

Sanders not discussing funding mechanisms is less about the bulk of the population finding out they have to pay more than it is that people *hate* sizeable tax increases and it's hard to get people to conceptualize the trade-offs between changes in health insurance and medical expense costs and those taxes. All the proposals floating out there seem to be premised on a highly progressive tax scheme, though. A lot of people will pay less or about the same and still be spooked by the difference, so Sanders borrows a page from standard Republican politics and just refuses to discuss it while making grand promises.

[_Res Ipsa]

I should also point out that I favor single payor health insurance, regardless of how it affects me financially.

[_EAllusion]

The thing that bothers me the most about Sanders handwaving over the systemic changes needed for Medicare for all is the shock to current system. Sanders boasts about how medical care will be, in aggregate, cheaper. That's almost certainly true. The US pays drastically more for medical care as a % of GDP than other industrialized nations that will almost certainly go significantly down in a Medicare for all system. This wealth eventually will be freed up to drive other economic activity and probably on balance is better for the economy as a whole than the current public/private nightmare system we currently are working with.

But the reason this costs more is because people in the medical system are making that money. The efficiencies you get with Medicare for all involve stopping people from making that money. If you transition to Medicare for all, lots of people are either going to lose their jobs or face a wage crunch. Sanders is aware of this and tends to offer very *mumble over that part* responses when confronted about it. It's a big deal though.

I don't like Obamacare, but it passed by the skin of its teeth because Obama's plan was able to generate some buy in or cautious opposition from the health care industry. A Sanders plan will be seen as a catastrophic threat by them, which is why it's difficult to imagine a scenario where it passes unless the Democrats have a FDR level landslide to take the Senate.

[_DoubtingThomas]

The efficiencies you get with Medicare for all involve stopping people from making that money. If you transition to Medicare for all, lots of people are either going to lose their jobs or face a wage crunch. .

Automation will also end a lot of jobs. That is life. I do have some doubts on Medicare for all, but I do not see the need for private insurance, unless you want a private insurance to get you in front of the line.