are not so sure about Medicare for All so details have to be released.

Taxes go up less than the amount health care expenses go down ………...Most people come out a winner ……...MFA is not a Utopian Fantasy ……………..It has been a success in Canada and across Europe ...We don't have to go to the extreme of establishing a National Health Service - as they have done in the UK …..

...(not referring to you, but Sanders)

I'll beat that drum every day. We have trillions of dollars of untaxed income. A sales tax will finally tax that money as well as making the rich pay far more.

European social welfare benefits are very expensive.

left after taxes.

They are regressive.

Poorer people pay on a higher proportion of their income.

Somebody who has to live paycheck to paycheck spends all of their income, so they are essentially taxed on 100% of income. a CEO might only spend 5% of their income yearly, so they would be taxed on 5%.

I'd rather see 0 sales tax.

But it seems pretty foolish to levy that tax disproportionately against the people who need the benefit most.

All the countries mentioned by others always rate happier than the US. Its the same old story every time; we all want "X" but only propose funding plans that wont raise whats needed. Meanwhile, trillions of dollars go untaxed.
The rich WOULD pay more. They SPEND a lot of money living their lifestyle. And no more hidden income. How is that not obvious? Do you know how many people file "stated income" returns? How easy it is to avoid income taxes?

The working class ends up paying a higher percentage in taxes than the upper class.

Every other country realizes this except the US

Talking point. They have been begging for a sales tax for years because they know it would help the richest people most. I dont want benefits if it means taxing the poor into oblivion.

Also, consumer spending is the driving force of the US economy. Increasing sales tax will hurt that and then you end up with a recession under your watch.

You want to exempt the "poor", fine. Give them a rebate monthly that would equal what they'd spend up to a certain income level.
Local governments use SPLOSTs all the time to fund big ticket projects. And they WORK.

The Heritage Foundation has been calling for a national sales tax and a flat tax for over 20 years. Are they right wing enough for you?

It works in EVERY county across the country that tries it. And its voted on.
If its SO right wing, then why has it not been put to a vote when the GOP has been in control of all 3 branches of govt? Because THEY also know they'd pay more tax.
Why is it used in the far more liberal EU countries, among others, if its such a RW thing?

The fact is, we cannot get enough money from the "rich" no matter what rate you make them pay. The numbers are there for anyone who wants to see them

Have to resort to regressive taxes...maybe you should look to cut spending first. That's better then asking somebody to choose between groceries or bills.

Thats what's Ramen is for I guess.

And you cant cut enough spending to come up with another trillion dollars. And a trillion is just a START.
A VAT isnt the total solution, but it would a good part of one. It will take many different things, some of them not popular. You must increase revenue as well as reduce spending. But on what? The military is alwys the favorite to hit. But even cutting them by 1/2 (which would be impossible in todays world) wouldnt be NEARLY enough.
Its kinda like windmills; everyone thinks they're a great idea but nobody wants them near THEIR neighborhood.

other countries also has a functioning social safety net. I know because I reside in one.

The USA does not.

So start looking at their costs realistically and ways to realistically fund them

the VAT was instituted AFTER there were functioning social safety nets in those countries, not before. In 1993, in fact.

It's not as simple as you are trying to make it. And it is STILL criticized - and rightly so - as regressive, which is a very valid criticism anywhere poverty is currently a major issue, as is the case in the US.

******************

For a read-through, see: https://www.bkd.com/sites/default/files/2018-10/european-value-added-tax.pdf

From the link:

And unless you are willing to let the Government become SO intrusive into every aspect of our lives, more so than they already are, this money will continue to be untaxed. A VAT taxes that money, and its likely a trillion dollars or more. NO proposal put forth by any Dem candidates will ever tax that money. "Stated income" earners are a big segment of the workforce. These folks can put ANY number down that they want. And its not just criminals & laborers. Its many well paying technical jobs, private businesses, professionals, etc. Its a TON of money out there not getting taxed. I'm looking at the big puzzle. This is a part of putting it together. Fantasy projections will make todays debt look like pocket change. I think its obvious to everyone who really looks at real numbers. Its just that they dont WANT to see the reality. Sure, a sales tax hits poorer people harder. I dont care. I've already shown how to take away that extra hit from those people. But it seems as though "getting the rich" is more important to many people (i'm not saying you) than realistically trying to get real funding and push bills that may actually have a chance at passing in Congress. MFA does NOT.

a value-added tax (VAT): https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/valueaddedtax.asp

they're not complaining about their VATs.
And pretty much every EU country that has tried a "wealth tax" has scrapped it because it doesnt raise nearly what they expected. Which is exactly what would happen here

need to read up more on the VAT and also on EU safety nets. Please see my other response.

In too many ways, you are putting the cart before the horse.

Seems simple.

Some folks would prefer to see what they’ll likely pay. If he can’t/won’t do it, I think most would prefer a Public Option that they can compare to other options.

How he pays for it? And how he plans to pass it? Ya know, the common questions moderates never have to answer...

Also, those enrolled in an Obamacare plan would have to pay no more than 8.5% of their income -- instead of the current 9.86% -- in premiums. A family of four earning $110,000 annually would save about $750 a month in premiums, the campaign said.
And he would base those subsidies on the cost of "gold plans," which have higher premiums but lower deductibles, rather than less generous "silver plans." That means people could spend less money out of pocket -- or could use the larger subsidies to buy less expensive silver or bronze plans. This move would help address a major criticism of Obamacare -- that its deductibles are too high. The average deductible for an enrollee under Obamacare in a "gold plan" is just under $1,600 in 2019, while for a "silver plan," it's just over $4,000, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
More at the link


https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/joe-biden-health-care-plan-obamacare-public-option/index.html

Biden’s plan is more plausible. It would extend coverage to as many as 26 million people but only require $122 billion in new government spending. That’s a lot of money, but still just 4% of the cost of Medicare for All. Undocumented immigrants wouldn’t get “free” coverage, but they’d be able to pay the going rate to join a public option, essentially covering their own costs.
More at the link

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/joe-biden-health-plan-medicare-for-all-040109177.html

CBO came out 2-3 weeks ago with a study showing mfa would cost 32 trillion over 10 years

Health plan.

Biden’s plan to strengthen the ACA is gaining popularity as it becomes clear just how much mfa would cost.

Too, lots and lots of employees do not want to give up their health insurance...

Go Joe!!

....has been talking about for years, and now at this late date he can't even tell us how he's going to fund it.

Biden hasn't made the cornerstone of his campaign "Medicare for All" (a term that Sanders didn't even originate!).

Biden's thing is a proven quantity, the Affordable Care Act, and building on it. He's not proposing that we scrap an existing program, ACA, or indeed, Medicare as we know it which has been successful since the Johnson Administration. He's not proposing throwing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people out of their jobs in the private insurance segment.

With Sanders it's basically a situation of "trust me, give me the nomination and THEN we'll tell you how we'll pay for it." Doesn't work that way. After all these years, he should at least have some idea how he's going to fund it, and NOT with "several options".

Link to tweet

Own ideas and plans and gone with those.

Too late to do that now

a ball-park estimate. Most understand M4All will be very costly. Naturally, they want to know if they are in for a modest or fairly high tax increase. I mean how impertinent!

What about the PLEDGE?!?!

Thanks so much for the support, I truly appreciate it!

Do we have to go through message board 101 again? Okay.



See, on a message board people post stuff and then other people respond.


And that's how that works. The end.

....There's more to it than that, I'm sure you know.

And THAT is how that works. The end?

He's pretty obviously just being quiet about it so parties financed by private insurance and pharmaceutical giants (Biden, Pete, Comcast/MSNBC, Fox et al) don't have a soundbite. Not that they're not trying to sabotage the US finally receiving the same medical treatment the rest of the OECD and first world enjoys.

Taxes are going to be raised to pay for M4All, but the increase will be laughably small to criticize - even if it was paid for strictly with income tax. Even if you had a FLAT tax increase of 6%, not scaling it with incomes like the system does now, you would cover the cost completely. The majority of Americans pay 20%(!!) of their income on health insurance. Even if Bernie really went to the GE saying voting for him increased taxes by 6% but gave a FIFTH of most Americans income back to pay for it, that's awesome and easily marketable policy.

In any case, Americans are paying twice as much for healthcare as the rest of the (developed) world. Even if they didn't tinker and outright intended to raise taxes by the logical conclusion of the equivalent cost: 10%(!), it would still ultimately be half what Americans fork out not to die in front of a hospital. While also ending epidemics like undiagnosed sight issues in children trying to learn and working poor folks needing to be hospitalized because they couldn't get a tooth infection checked out.

I strongly doubt it not yet being costed. This is just to keep the healthcare of Americans out of the mouth of people running interference for insurance cos - they have already proven they'll make the argument that we simply can't afford to pay half as much as we do now.

Longer, even. Bernie's been vocal about the US not moving with the rest of the world with our healthcare system for decades.

Even if we are just talking about this and last election cycle, he's had ample time to formulate ways to cost it. That's why I think it's clear this is strategy, more than an accounting. He's already stated he'll raise taxes to pay for it, and that blunt answer got pretty expected blunt responses from people paid to complain about such things. If he gets into the specifics about it this early, talking heads will have a target with enough complexity to agree with each other that poor Americans don't deserve healthcare over 20 minute segments.

Just look at how everybody fighting for the insurance companies tried to jump on Warren without specific targets to misconstrue. Every point of nuance is another talking point.

I'd expect details from him, and maybe Warren, when candidates prioritizing profit models for insurance companies are a little further faded.

And Ted Kennedy and HRC actually got affordable healthcare for millions of low income children who didn't have it via CHIP.

"Being vocal" doesn't get the job done.

Can you name anyone that Senator Sanders has gotten affordable health care for other than Jane or the staff he has hired as government employees?

And welcome to DU.

says he doesn't have to talk about it.

Quit trying to Bash excellent Dems running for President by trying to smear them with..

Biden and Buttigieg have each received just shy of $100 thousand dollars from the private insurance/pharmaceutical industry as of mid July

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/07/20dems-are-taking-money-healthcare/

Similarly, Bernie had received $36,000 - including nearly half of all donations from nurses/secondary health professionals, 27% of Doctors/first party donors, and 40% of all donations from personal carers. It is safe to assume through this that the vast majority if not all of money from the healthcare industry is from healthcare professionals who will still have their jobs with M4All- not executives who may not, and any healthcare racketeer donors would be outliers.

Biden and Buttigieg, however had only 15% and 9%, 11% and 6%, and 8% and 6%. That means of the two, the highest number we can see negating policy being dictated by the same executives who grow rich on denying Americans healthcare doesn't even hit 20%. That was before Biden gave up on the pantomime of not being in the pocket of big business. Now he's got a SuperPAC set up for those executives to pour money into, that disparity is going to explode. He might as well be John Delaney (who owns his own private healthcare company) in a blonde toupe, then at least we'd have a theme for the debates post-primary.

The fact the two people complaining about Medicare For All the loudest are the two receiving the most money from private insurance executives is no coincidence.

Oh, also - concern trolling would be if someone stated publicly the fact that 50,000 Americans needlessly die because they lack insurance and we can save their lives while cutting costs by implementing a new system BUT someone else, let's say someone hypothetically sharing finances with people profiting off the current infrastructure went out of their way to raise concern where it isn't warranted. "How are we going to pay for it?", even though it would be difficult to implement such a system without halving the price anyway.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll

Biden and Buttigieg have each received just shy of $100 thousand dollars from the private insurance/pharmaceutical industry as of mid July

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/07/20dems-are-taking-money-healthcare/

What this means is that people who work for the "private insurance/pharmaceutical industry" (they're separate industries, by the way!) contributed to them. That could be a cashier at CVS, a janitor at a drug manufacturing plant, a bookeeper for an insurance company, etc. It is NOT from the companies themselves.

Over the years my father, myself, two brothers and one sister worked at banks - father and I in the IT departments ("data processing" at the time), brothers worked as clerks in the backroom, and sister was a teller.

When they contributed they said what their occupations and employers were at the time. Opensecrets lumped all of them in the "financial" or "banking" industry, but they're far from the scourge of political influence. NONE of us were "executives".

Your accusations are way off base.

numbers of how much.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

from a high-altitude nuclear weapon taking out our power grid(s)?

I DO hope that's included since it's the only issue for some here. Also that MfA has the ability to repeal fascism and protect the constitution. It's going to really need it.

And btw, those thousands of terrorized and traumatized kidnapped children are going to need psychiatric care, some for years. Can we hope MfA at least thinks of them, maybe for another decade if not this one?

Smart move by the Biden campaign. BS has come come up with roast beef to match Warren's magic pudding. It is a cattle prod to get him to criticize Elizabeth's numbers. He can hardly say, under my plan you'll be paying $500 a month, but under Senator Warren's nada.