Liz grabs the bull by the horns - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15045928
It is quite unusual for a candidate to get this specific about a big plan. There are risks. But Warren has guts, you have to give her that much.

You can read the article for all the details. As I stated earlier today, in another thread, every major programs faces a gauntlet of compromise before it gets passed, and tweaking to get it to work properly after it gets passed. But as a bunch of countries proved ages ago, this can work, and improve national health care stats.

"Add all this up and Warren’s team projects national health expenditures of $52 trillion over 10 years — exactly what’s projected in the absence of single-payer. Therefore, Berwick and Johnson conclude, Warren’s proposal would “cover every single resident of the U.S. with much more generous coverage and virtually no cost-sharing at a total cost just under the amount the U.S. is currently set to spend on health care under our existing system.”


https://www.vox.com/2019/11/1/20942587/ ... -explained
#15046093
With Medicare For All, workers will no longer be slaves to their companies healthcare insurance plans.

Employees will finally be free to move around the country without fear of 'no health insurance'.

This will spur entrepreneurship, creativity and free enterprise as former employees no longer need to stick around their employers 'just for health insurance'.

Medicare For All would also be cheaper than our current rip-off system that is larded up with corporate profit, useless insurance 'companies', CEO salaries and good old-fashioned all-America corporate medical extortion.
#15046097
Before anyone on the right can begin to criticize Warren's health care plan, they need to ask themselves: where's Trump's? Why hasn't he produced a cohesive and comprehensive plan in the almost three years he's been in office? Why do we require detailed analysis from the left but let the GOP skate by with their promises of a "great," "tremendous," and "affordable" plan?
#15046099
jimjam wrote:Before anyone on the right can begin to criticize Warren's health care plan, they need to ask themselves: where's Trump's? Why hasn't he produced a cohesive and comprehensive plan in the almost three years he's been in office? Why do we require detailed analysis from the left but let the GOP skate by with their promises of a "great," "tremendous," and "affordable" plan?


So, Warren presents her plan but doesn't have to say how it'll be paid for because Trump hasn't presented a plan?

That's funny. You think she'd want to one-up the President on this. She's stupid, though, so she's failing to take advantage of this wonderful opportunity to get in front of the President on this...
#15046106
I don't find this smart.

We should focus on lowering the costs in healthcare. If the government is going to spend money, then it should be spent on investing in machinery and autonomous robots. The point is we should find a way to increase supply to meet demand.

"Free market does not work in healthcare" is a myth. Free market can perfetcly work and make it affordable for everyone.
#15046127
Finfinder wrote:
It's unusual for a candidate to pretend to be an Indian to advance their lives and careers. She lied about being fired for her pregnancy and she even lies about drinking beer. Warren has guts because she is pathological.



Project much?

She's competent and interested in helping regular people.

Trump is utterly incompetent and cares about nothing but himself.

Do I even need to mention which one has a work ethic??

Btw, she got the Indian bit from her family, they were wrong, but compared to selling your country out to the Russians, it's not worth the time it took you to type it.
#15046128
jimjam wrote:Before anyone on the right can begin to criticize Warren's health care plan, they need to ask themselves: where's Trump's? Why hasn't he produced a cohesive and comprehensive plan in the almost three years he's been in office? Why do we require detailed analysis from the left but let the GOP skate by with their promises of a "great," "tremendous," and "affordable" plan?

We don't need ObamaCare or health plans from either party. We need tort reform, and probably wage, price and billing controls on the medical system.

late wrote:She's competent and interested in helping regular people.

I'm gonna get me a beer!

late wrote:Btw, she got the Indian bit from her family, they were wrong, but compared to selling your country out to the Russians, it's not worth the time it took you to type it.

What's your problem with the Russians? I thought it was totally cool for Hillary to sell control of US uranium mines to Russia.
#15046131
blackjack21 wrote:
We need tort reform, and probably wage, price and billing controls on the medical system.


What's your problem with the Russians? I thought it was totally cool for Hillary to sell control of US uranium mines to Russia.



We did tort reform. Wage and price controls are only appropriate in a dire emergency. Nixon tried to use them and the results were bad. If you had lived through that mess you would never have said that. We have problems with hospitals, and wage or price or billing controls won't fix a single one of them. But it would drive more hospitals out of business.

Uranium One was possibly the most idiotic attempt at propaganda the Republicans have ever done. Not one piece of the propaganda was connected to any other piece. IOW, that literally made no sense at all.
#15046133
late wrote:Wage and price controls are only appropriate in a dire emergency. Nixon tried to use them and the results were bad.

He tried them on the economy in general. Doing it to the medical care system would be fun. If you haven't noticed yet, I'm not all that interested in the well being of politically connected rackets.

late wrote:If you had lived through that mess you would never have said that.

I did live through it. It's why I said it.

late wrote:We have problems with hospitals, and wage or price or billing controls won't fix a single one of them.

If you have billing transparency through the entire system, they won't be able to bill patient A for patient B when patient B doesn't pay.

late wrote:But it would drive more hospitals out of business.

:roll: Oh no! Hospitals going out of business! It just bankrupts bond holders and shareholders and then they start again. I think it's important for health care providers to know which patients aren't going to pay them. If they are required to lose money, they can provide the cheapest cost of care allowed instead of the most expensive.

late wrote:Uranium One was possibly the most idiotic attempt at propaganda the Republicans have ever done. Not one piece of the propaganda was connected to any other piece. IOW, that literally made no sense at all.

So you have no problem with Russian interests connected to the Kremlin owning US uranium mines. At least we've got that cleared up.
#15046136
blackjack21 wrote:
1) He tried them on the economy in general. Doing it to the medical care system would be fun.


2) I did live through it. It's why I said it.


3) If you have billing transparency through the entire system, they won't be able to bill patient A for patient B when patient B doesn't pay.


4) Oh no! Hospitals going out of business!




1) That would create several new problems without fixing the cost problem.

2) Slow learner.

3) Hospitals have to cost shift.

4) Hospitals have been going under since the 1980s. In a lot of rural areas, it's a life and death problem. It's also a problem keeping them open in poor areas. Please note I did NOT say the closing had stopped, we have a steady drain of one of the things that keeps us alive. That's crazy.
#15046170
Istanbuller wrote:"Free market does not work in healthcare" is a myth. Free market can perfetcly work and make it affordable for everyone.


Right, that's why there's not a single functional free market healthcare system on this planet.

late wrote:Wage and price controls are only appropriate in a dire emergency.


Health care providers will be paid at Medicare rates, hence Medicare for all effectively introduces price controls (of course you can still buy medical services outside Medicare, but that market will be tiny in comparison).
#15046191
BigSteve wrote:So, Warren presents her plan but doesn't have to say how it'll be paid for ...?


    How Warren pays for Medicare-for-all

    Between federal, state, and local governments, most US health spending is already publicly financed. Warren shunts all that money toward Medicare-for-all, leaving a $20.5 trillion hole over 10 years.

    Warren does the same with employer spending. Under the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate, all workplaces with more than 50 employees have to purchase health care or pay a fee. Warren simply takes the money they’re spending now and redirects it to Medicare-for-all. To sweeten the deal for employers, she shaves their contribution by 2 percent — so whatever they’re spending on private health insurance, they send 98 percent of that to the government.

    There’s wide variation in the quality of insurance employers purchase, and this plan has the consequence, at the outset, of punishing employers who purchased better insurance for their employees — now they’re paying more than stingier competitors, but without any recruiting benefit. Over time, Warren says she’ll adjust all employers to the same level, though the details of how that will work are sparse.

    There’s an even worse inequity for employers with fewer than 50 employees. They’re not required under law to provide health insurance, but a bit over half do. Warren’s plan says that small businesses “would be exempt from the Employer Medicare Contribution unless they are already paying for employee health care today.” That’s a fairly direct penalty to small businesses that offer health insurance today: They have to keep paying a cost their competitors have dodged, but paying that cost no longer gives them an advantage in hiring.

    Altogether, holding the employer contribution constant gets Warren almost $9 trillion. What comes next reads like a grab-bag of tax hikes and policy changes, but taken together, it’s an ambitious tax and immigration agenda even if it weren’t connected to Medicare-for-all:

    Americans currently spend $3.7 trillion paying their share of employer-provided health insurance premiums. That money, left in their wallets, becomes taxable, adding $1.4 trillion.
    Warren proposes a financial transactions tax of 0.1 percent of the value of every stock, bond, or derivatives transaction. That raises $800 billion. Then she adds a “systemic risk fee” on financial institutions with more than $50 billion in assets. That’s another $100 billion.
    Warren adds another $2.9 trillion in corporate taxes by ending accelerated cost recovery and imposing a 35 percent minimum tax on foreign earnings.
    Prior to this plan, Warren’s wealth tax was 2 percent on assets over $50 million and 3 percent on assets over $1 billion. Sorry billionaires — now it’s 6 percent, which raises another $1 trillion. Warren also proposes taxing capital gains for the top 1 percent at the same rate as normal income, and doing so on an annual basis, rather than just when the sale is made. That raises $2 trillion.
    Warren proposes a massive increase in IRS enforcement aimed at reducing the tax avoidance rate from 15 percent to 10 percent. If successful, this could raise $2.3 trillion.
    In literally two sentences, Warren proposes passing comprehensive immigration reform, which would lead to $400 billion in new taxable income over 10 years. I guess, technically, this would be a middle-class tax increase but not in the way anyone means.
    She also gets rid of the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund, which is basically a temporary increase in defense spending that’s become permanent. You can read more about OCO funds here, but the bottom line is it saves $800 billion.
    Together, those changes would raise $20.5 trillion over 10 years, financing the rest of Warren’s projected Medicare costs.

From the link in the OP.
#15046204
Rugoz wrote:

Health care providers will be paid at Medicare rates, hence Medicare for all effectively introduces price controls (of course you can still buy medical services outside Medicare, but that market will be tiny in comparison).



Medicare already uses price controls, and it's a problem.

We are moving towards Single Payer a step at a time. Which is a commendable goal, but those price controls put hospitals out of business, and warps health care services.

If Medicare gets expanded, those problems get exacerbated. Which means the next step will be to fix that situation, but who knows how long it will take, or how many hospitals will close before the next reform gets enacted.
#15046206
Price controls in medical care are dealt with in the following way:

Price controls cause shortages due to increased demand. In medical terms, this means that people go and get the treatment they need because they no linger have to pay out of pocket.

This causes a relative shortage of services, which then causes waiting lists. But because this is medical care, the waiting lists are decided not only by who came first, but also by need.

So, people end up on long waiting lists for elective treatments.

While this is not an ideal solution, it does beat the alternative of not having waiting lists because the poor people are simply not allowed to access medical treatment.
#15046207
Pants-of-dog wrote:
    How Warren pays for Medicare-for-all

    Between federal, state, and local governments, most US health spending is already publicly financed. Warren shunts all that money toward Medicare-for-all, leaving a $20.5 trillion hole over 10 years.

    Warren does the same with employer spending. Under the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate, all workplaces with more than 50 employees have to purchase health care or pay a fee. Warren simply takes the money they’re spending now and redirects it to Medicare-for-all. To sweeten the deal for employers, she shaves their contribution by 2 percent — so whatever they’re spending on private health insurance, they send 98 percent of that to the government.

    There’s wide variation in the quality of insurance employers purchase, and this plan has the consequence, at the outset, of punishing employers who purchased better insurance for their employees — now they’re paying more than stingier competitors, but without any recruiting benefit. Over time, Warren says she’ll adjust all employers to the same level, though the details of how that will work are sparse.

    There’s an even worse inequity for employers with fewer than 50 employees. They’re not required under law to provide health insurance, but a bit over half do. Warren’s plan says that small businesses “would be exempt from the Employer Medicare Contribution unless they are already paying for employee health care today.” That’s a fairly direct penalty to small businesses that offer health insurance today: They have to keep paying a cost their competitors have dodged, but paying that cost no longer gives them an advantage in hiring.

    Altogether, holding the employer contribution constant gets Warren almost $9 trillion. What comes next reads like a grab-bag of tax hikes and policy changes, but taken together, it’s an ambitious tax and immigration agenda even if it weren’t connected to Medicare-for-all:

    Americans currently spend $3.7 trillion paying their share of employer-provided health insurance premiums. That money, left in their wallets, becomes taxable, adding $1.4 trillion.
    Warren proposes a financial transactions tax of 0.1 percent of the value of every stock, bond, or derivatives transaction. That raises $800 billion. Then she adds a “systemic risk fee” on financial institutions with more than $50 billion in assets. That’s another $100 billion.
    Warren adds another $2.9 trillion in corporate taxes by ending accelerated cost recovery and imposing a 35 percent minimum tax on foreign earnings.
    Prior to this plan, Warren’s wealth tax was 2 percent on assets over $50 million and 3 percent on assets over $1 billion. Sorry billionaires — now it’s 6 percent, which raises another $1 trillion. Warren also proposes taxing capital gains for the top 1 percent at the same rate as normal income, and doing so on an annual basis, rather than just when the sale is made. That raises $2 trillion.
    Warren proposes a massive increase in IRS enforcement aimed at reducing the tax avoidance rate from 15 percent to 10 percent. If successful, this could raise $2.3 trillion.
    In literally two sentences, Warren proposes passing comprehensive immigration reform, which would lead to $400 billion in new taxable income over 10 years. I guess, technically, this would be a middle-class tax increase but not in the way anyone means.
    She also gets rid of the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund, which is basically a temporary increase in defense spending that’s become permanent. You can read more about OCO funds here, but the bottom line is it saves $800 billion.
    Together, those changes would raise $20.5 trillion over 10 years, financing the rest of Warren’s projected Medicare costs.

From the link in the OP.


Yep, raise them taxes. That's what libs are good at.

Americans don't like their taxes being raised, and the likelihood of a her being elected President when one of her campaign promises is to raise taxes, well, that's just a non-starter...
#15046210
Pants-of-dog wrote:@BigSteve

Quote the text where it says taxes will be raised.


Right here:
Americans currently spend $3.7 trillion paying their share of employer-provided health insurance premiums. That money, left in their wallets, becomes taxable, adding $1.4 trillion.
#15046212
And this would be significantly less than what they pay in insurance, so the average US resident will pay far less.

$2.3 trillion divided by the number of US residents who pay insurance costs, to be exact.

Thanks for providing clear evidence that the free market is more expensive.

Or he can retire now, give Gantz the Prime Minist[…]

independent support

I am completely agree with you, I am an amazing fa[…]

Syrian war thread

Was this just news to you? Israel has bombed Syr[…]

Israelis nervous about BDS

Why do you think it's fantastic that Israel's the[…]