Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Americans should have healthcare as affordable as what she gets as a Congresswoman

[southernhybrid]

We're taxed enough. What needs to happen is to stop allowing the Pentagon from getting such a large portion of the tax money, stop corporate welfare and stop being the police force for the rest of the world. We had that "progressive" Obama in the WH for eight years, and defense went up, not down. That is not "progressive" or "liberal" values. Instead him and Nance just demanded and required everyone to pay out to insurance companies to get health care. That is not progressive or liberal.

I'm not against UHC, but I've read enough detailed articles about the cost to know that it can't be done without raising taxes on most everybody. Do some reading on what's going on in France right now. France gives its residents lots of goodies, including health care. Recently Macron was going to raise fuel taxes because apparently France needed to generate more money to pay for all the public programs it provides. People started to protest and riot, and Macron backed down. France has a tax rate much higher than our own, in addition to a consumer tax of, I think 20% on many of not most goods. ( Not sure of all the details ) It's great to have all those public programs to help all citizens, but you have to accept that higher taxes must be paid by all.

I've read that even if the wealthy in the US paid most of their income in taxes and corporate rates were raised back to where they were, without any deductions and military spending was decreased, we'd still have to raise everyone's taxes or have some type of consumer tax on most goods etc. It's pie in the sky to think that democratic socialism doesn't come without a big price tag. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. It could be that most citizens would like it, but all must contribute to make it happen.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

From your link:

They say the cuts, many made as part of the funny-sounding word "sequestration," put the United States at risk in the fight against terrorism But the White House argues that it has been working to increase spending on the military, with some results.

The facts are sometimes murky, which makes it hard to know the truth.

That article is about national security, not just military Pentagon spending.

You should probably check the Wiki page I referred to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Military spending didn't increase much at all under Obama. You can feel free to provide numbers showing otherwise.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

We're taxed enough. What needs to happen is to stop allowing the Pentagon from getting such a large portion of the tax money, stop corporate welfare and stop being the police force for the rest of the world. We had that "progressive" Obama in the WH for eight years, and defense went up, not down. That is not "progressive" or "liberal" values. Instead him and Nance just demanded and required everyone to pay out to insurance companies to get health care. That is not progressive or liberal.

I'm not against UHC, but I've read enough detailed articles about the cost to know that it can't be done without raising taxes on most everybody. Do some reading on what's going on in France right now. France gives its residents lots of goodies, including health care. Recently Macron was going to raise fuel taxes because apparently France needed to generate more money to pay for all the public programs it provides. People started to protest and riot, and Macron backed down. France has a tax rate much higher than our own, in addition to a consumer tax of, I think 20% on many of not most goods. ( Not sure of all the details ) It's great to have all those public programs to help all citizens, but you have to accept that higher taxes must be paid by all.

I've read that even if the wealthy in the US paid most of their income in taxes and corporate rates were raised back to where they were, without any deductions and military spending was decreased, we'd still have to raise everyone's taxes or have some type of consumer tax on most goods etc. It's pie in the sky to think that democratic socialism doesn't come without a big price tag. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. It could be that most citizens would like it, but all must contribute to make it happen.

But those tax payments wouldn't really be an additional set of payments, but rather a reallocation of existing payments. If you're already paying monthly health insurance premiums, you'd stop paying that and start paying more in taxes. It wouldn't be a one-to-one change, since poor people would start paying less and rich people would start paying more, but you are cutting out payments in one area in order to have them paid in another area.

 

[Elixir]

We're taxed enough. What needs to happen is to stop allowing the Pentagon from getting such a large portion of the tax money, stop corporate welfare and stop being the police force for the rest of the world. We had that "progressive" Obama in the WH for eight years, and defense went up, not down. That is not "progressive" or "liberal" values. Instead him and Nance just demanded and required everyone to pay out to insurance companies to get health care. That is not progressive or liberal.

I'm not against UHC, but I've read enough detailed articles about the cost to know that it can't be done without raising taxes on most everybody. Do some reading on what's going on in France right now. France gives its residents lots of goodies, including health care. Recently Macron was going to raise fuel taxes because apparently France needed to generate more money to pay for all the public programs it provides. People started to protest and riot, and Macron backed down. France has a tax rate much higher than our own, in addition to a consumer tax of, I think 20% on many of not most goods. ( Not sure of all the details ) It's great to have all those public programs to help all citizens, but you have to accept that higher taxes must be paid by all.

I've read that even if the wealthy in the US paid most of their income in taxes and corporate rates were raised back to where they were, without any deductions and military spending was decreased, we'd still have to raise everyone's taxes or have some type of consumer tax on most goods etc. It's pie in the sky to think that democratic socialism doesn't come without a big price tag. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. It could be that most citizens would like it, but all must contribute to make it happen.

But those tax payments wouldn't really be an additional set of payments, but rather a reallocation of existing payments. If you're already paying monthly health insurance premiums, you'd stop paying that and start paying more in taxes. It wouldn't be a one-to-one change, since poor people would start paying less and rich people would start paying more, but you are cutting out payments in one area in order to have them paid in another area.

Zackly. But remember: FEAR (The currency of current so-called conservatism)
You can't generate a lot of fear from "reallocation of existing payments", but "tax increase!" sends people - especially the already sensitized right - into a tizzy. That, even if it means a net decrease in the total cost to every individual.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We're taxed enough. What needs to happen is to stop allowing the Pentagon from getting such a large portion of the tax money, stop corporate welfare and stop being the police force for the rest of the world. We had that "progressive" Obama in the WH for eight years, and defense went up, not down. That is not "progressive" or "liberal" values. Instead him and Nance just demanded and required everyone to pay out to insurance companies to get health care. That is not progressive or liberal.

I'm not against UHC, but I've read enough detailed articles about the cost to know that it can't be done without raising taxes on most everybody. Do some reading on what's going on in France right now. France gives its residents lots of goodies, including health care. Recently Macron was going to raise fuel taxes because apparently France needed to generate more money to pay for all the public programs it provides. People started to protest and riot, and Macron backed down. France has a tax rate much higher than our own, in addition to a consumer tax of, I think 20% on many of not most goods. ( Not sure of all the details ) It's great to have all those public programs to help all citizens, but you have to accept that higher taxes must be paid by all.

I've read that even if the wealthy in the US paid most of their income in taxes and corporate rates were raised back to where they were, without any deductions and military spending was decreased, we'd still have to raise everyone's taxes or have some type of consumer tax on most goods etc. It's pie in the sky to think that democratic socialism doesn't come without a big price tag. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. It could be that most citizens would like it, but all must contribute to make it happen.

But those tax payments wouldn't really be an additional set of payments, but rather a reallocation of existing payments. If you're already paying monthly health insurance premiums, you'd stop paying that and start paying more in taxes. It wouldn't be a one-to-one change, since poor people would start paying less and rich people would start paying more, but you are cutting out payments in one area in order to have them paid in another area.

The price will likely go up, but it wouldn't be as if our taxes go up 10 to 15%... and we are paying our insurance premiums (and health care expenditures). The tax would include the two later things.

 

[Elixir]

The price will likely go up, but it wouldn't be as if our taxes go up 10 to 15%...

How would the price go up if insurance Companies' profits were reduced or eliminated while administrative functions were consolidated? That doesn't make sense.

 

[skepticalbip]

The price will likely go up, but it wouldn't be as if our taxes go up 10 to 15%...

How would the price go up if insurance Companies' profits were reduced or eliminated while administrative functions were consolidated? That doesn't make sense.

You haven't dealt with government apparently. Any program administered by the government adds several layers of well paid bureaucrats and expensive regulations. Only a government agency could have possibly increased the price paid for toilet seats to $640 or $435 for a regular old hammer.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The price will likely go up, but it wouldn't be as if our taxes go up 10 to 15%...

How would the price go up if insurance Companies' profits were reduced or eliminated while administrative functions were consolidated? That doesn't make sense.

You haven't dealt with government apparently. Any program administered by the government adds several layers of well paid bureaucrats and expensive regulations. Only a government agency could have possibly increased the price paid for toilet seats to $640 or $435 for a regular old hammer.

Another urban legend that just won't die.

 

[skepticalbip]

You haven't dealt with government apparently. Any program administered by the government adds several layers of well paid bureaucrats and expensive regulations. Only a government agency could have possibly increased the price paid for toilet seats to $640 or $435 for a regular old hammer.

Another urban legend that just won't die.

Those particular items are the cost listed in the agency's records. Granted it was shady book keeping to hide the cost overruns in other areas of the programs that their regulations made overly expensive. But I do have personal experience of government purchasing specifications that made the cost absurdly high (close to $5,ooo for a microwave switch that cost civilian users less than $200)- but they paid it anyway even though meeting their specifications made the switch less efficient and less reliable.

 

[Toni]

The only thing I find a little strange about what the Congresswoman has said, is that her excellent health care is coming from an insurance company. Employees in government or in medium sized and large corporations almost always get the similar insurance offerings. While I agree we should be able to give affordable health care to all citizens, it would make more sense if somebody on Medicaid or Medicare was making a statement about how wonderful their coverage is. Very few doctors will even take Medicaid patients if that's their primary coverage, and in some large cities, there are a lot of doctors who won't even take Medicare. So, I don't think it's fair to compare a good quality insurance plan with our current public plans. But hell yeah, it would be wonderful if all Americans had the same coverage as Congress critters do.

A whopping 93 percent of primary care physicians accept Medicare – just as many who take private insurance. As a Medicare beneficiary, your only concern with accessing care will be finding doctors that are open to new patients.

https://www.healthcare.com/info/medicare/do-all-doctors-accept-medicare

93% is not 100%.

I’ve worked in the medical field in a variety of capacities. Providers are increasingly reluctant to take on NEW Medicare patients because they lose money treating Medicare patients. Our current Medicare model is unsustainable.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I remember when this was suggested back in W's time as President and he chuckled and said, 'we couldn't afford that'. And now I think he said that in one of the 2000 Election debates, and I thought at the time, it was the moment he lost the election. I was young and stupid at the time... now I'm older and less dumb but still stupid.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Kinda weird how the wealthiest, most powerful country on the planet (for now) can't figure this out.

America has figured it out. It isn't a matter of know knowing how to or being able to pay for it. Its a matter of not wanting to. Its a matter of a powerful medical insurance and pharma industry holding your elected officials by the moneyballs

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Kinda weird how the wealthiest, most powerful country on the planet (for now) can't figure this out.

America has figured it out. It isn't a matter of know knowing how to or being able to pay for it. Its a matter of not wanting to. Its a matter of a powerful medical insurance and pharma industry holding your elected officials by the moneyballs

It's not only that. Uninformed voters have more to do with it. If everyone's healthcare worked like a member of congress there wouldn't be anyone without healthcare in this country. But people still vote against their own best interests by electing to pay more for their healthcare while subsidizing the people they vote for. It doesn't make sense to me but apparently it does to lots of voters.