Elizabeth Warrens - Tax and Spend Plan for Medicare for all

[zorq]

You mean the previous Congress that cut taxes?

Yeah, exactly ! And I' m not bing sarcastic. I'm sick of the tax cut that will come out of the roads, infrastructure and social security that I plan on using in 30 years going instead to old farts who don't think they will be alive in 30 years. I know that gives Trumpsuckers a hard on but it makes me sick.

Republicans are so generous with the money grifted from the young and unenfranchised. Stealing candy from babies.

Is it your view that the republicans are cutting spending?

No. Trausti thinks that tax cuts with trillion dollar deficits isn't being generous with other people's money. I disagree. I think that taxcuts ARE taking money from other people. Namely, Future Me, and anyone else who plans to live more than 30 more years. The babies in the idiom I used above are literal babies.

 

[Toni]

You mean the previous Congress that cut taxes?

Yeah, exactly ! And I' m not bing sarcastic. I'm sick of the tax cut that will come out of the roads, infrastructure and social security that I plan on using in 30 years going instead to old farts who don't think they will be alive in 30 years. I know that gives Trumpsuckers a hard on but it makes me sick.

Republicans are so generous with the money grifted from the young and unenfranchised. Stealing candy from babies.

I'm not sure what you mean about money grifted from the young and unenfranchised or stealing candy from babies.

Here's a link that breaks down how much different age groups pay in taxes:

https://taxfoundation.org/which-age-groups-bear-largest-share-tax-burden/

able 1 below shows the distribution of tax filers by age and how much of the nation's adjusted gross income they account for. Out of the roughly 142 million filers, people under the age of 35 account for 35 percent of all returns but just 17 percent of total AGI. By far, the largest number of filers are between the ages of 35 and 55, and they account for nearly half of total AGI. Meanwhile, only 14 percent of filers are between the ages of 55 and 65 yet they account for 20 percent of AGI. Seniors comprise 14 percent of filers and account for 15 percent of AGI.

Actually, older folks tend to pay more in taxes, as one would expect as for most people, they are earning considerably more in their 50's than they were in their 20's and 30's. Not only that but they have been paying for much longer simply because they've been alive longer.

I'm older myself, although not yet Medicare eligible. I don't expect to necessarily still be here 30 years from now but I do expect that my savings plus the small pension and small amount I'll get from SS will take care of me in my old age. Rather than robbing from younger people, I'm pretty certain that I'm paying a lot more in taxes than most of the Gen Xers, Gen Yers or Millennials.

If you're complaining that the younger generations are not being handed over a new planet in pristine shape with all the infrastructure you could ask for: welcome to the club. Should my generation have done better? Of course. We all should. If you are complaining that the cost of higher education is far too much and is an unfair burden on your generation, you'll find a lot of support among us boomers, bunches of us who were stunned at how much it cost us to send our own kids to college. It's a travesty. One huge part of this issue is that states are no longer paying as large a portion of the funding for higher education as they used to do. A whole lot of people my age fought really hard against this with people your grandparents' ages who were desperate to save more money for their golden years.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Is it your view that the republicans are cutting spending?

No. Trausti thinks that tax cuts with trillion dollar deficits isn't being generous with other people's money. I disagree. I think that taxcuts ARE taking money from other people. Namely, Future Me, and anyone else who plans to live more than 30 more years. The babies in the idiom I used above are literal babies.

I'm sorry, but I'm not getting it. Clearly reducing taxes will lead to higher deficits if spending isn't reduced. But how are tax cuts taking money from someone else?

 

[zorq]

Debt will eventually need to be paid. Borrowing from future generations to give out extra wads of cash to old folks today is taking money from those future generations. What is there not to understand? Future generations will be forced to pay this debt, perhaps through some austerity by cutting back on benefits and infrastructure that present humans are enjoying right now.

 

[Toni]

Is it your view that the republicans are cutting spending?

No. Trausti thinks that tax cuts with trillion dollar deficits isn't being generous with other people's money. I disagree. I think that taxcuts ARE taking money from other people. Namely, Future Me, and anyone else who plans to live more than 30 more years. The babies in the idiom I used above are literal babies.

Ah, I get you. I posted as you wrote this before.

I agree that taxes should be levied and utilized to provide infrastructure, increase energy efficiency, protect and restore the environment and other needed services (especially education and health care) for future generations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Stinks.

It's the usual garbage of tax the rich.

In addition there's the problem that it provides a huge incentive to outsourcing.

Costs me 15k to Anthem to cover a $35k/yr employee with family coverage. Warren type reform reduces that cost if it is done right.

Which is in no way a rebuttal to what I said.

I was talking specifically about how she wants to fund it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Imo, the most sensible thing to do at first, would be to work at bringing down the cost of drugs. Sure, there are many affordable generics, but some life saving drugs like Insulin, pulmonary inhalers, and cancer drugs, to name a few, are insanely priced. If that can't be fixed, why would anyone be gullible enough to believe that we can change the entire mess that we currently have into the type of coverage that Warren or Sanders support. If you think Warren would make a good president, but don't like her idealistic goals, don't worry. She can't get anything done without the cooperation of Congress, and more than half of the Democrats are moderates, plus Republicans aren't going away.

We always talk about negotiating drug prices but that's an exercise in cost-shifting that has lead to a decent part of the problem. instead, lets ban all forms of drug price negotiation--instead, drug companies are required to sell at the same price to all customers. This will end most abuse. Since I first proposed this we have seen the new problem of sole-source suppliers jacking the price through the roof, knowing the cost of entry will allow them to rake it in. I'm not as sure what to do about this one but I think the drug price negotiation plays a role here--prices were driven too low, resulting in all but one player leaving the field. I'm not sure how practical it would be but I'm inclined to think that requiring all large entities to purchase no more than 50% of their supply from one company unless there was only one player would go a long way towards preventing this--it would pretty much ensure there would be at least two players.

And, something that nobody has even mentioned, is the enormous amount of waste, fraud and abuse in the current Medicare system. It would take an enormous amount of effort to drastically limit that problem. It can be very easy to order unnecessary tests, procedures, and over utilize care in the current system. That's just abuse, but outright fraud has also been a big problem. Quite a few doctors have been caught this year bilking Medicare for millions. Think about all the ones who haven't been caught, not to mention hospitals, and other types of providers of care. How do you change that? I'd like to see realistic plans for these problems before we pretend that we can radically overhaul our entire health care system. Just stating some of my concerns.

The left loves to pretend the fraud and abuse level is very low when in practice all that's low is the enforcement. There's a reason the medicare advantage programs can offer lots of perks above standard medicare for the same cost--they're better at controlling the nonsense.

 

[PyramidHead]

Mental health isn't covered.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Stinks.

It's the usual garbage of tax the rich.

In addition there's the problem that it provides a huge incentive to outsourcing.

Ummm... outsourcing / temping became very popular about 10 years ago.

 

[PyramidHead]

Stinks.

It's the usual garbage of tax the rich.

In addition there's the problem that it provides a huge incentive to outsourcing.

Ummm... outsourcing / temping became very popular about 10 years ago.

What's the point of a universal system if it provides an easy way for employers to avoid funding it? If health care is a human right, and contractors are human beings, then they should get the same health care as everyone else. Why is this so controversial?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Debt will eventually need to be paid. Borrowing from future generations to give out extra wads of cash to old folks today is taking money from those future generations. What is there not to understand? Future generations will be forced to pay this debt, perhaps through some austerity by cutting back on benefits and infrastructure that present humans are enjoying right now.

The trouble is, the US budget is soon to be able 80% Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, interest and the military. The military definitely provides avenues for some cost reductions, but the remaining slice of the pie for discretionary spending in the US is getting smaller and smaller, meaning most cuts there will not affect the bottom line.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Stinks.

It's the usual garbage of tax the rich.

In addition there's the problem that it provides a huge incentive to outsourcing.

Ummm... outsourcing / temping became very popular about 10 years ago.

What's the point of a universal system if it provides an easy way for employers to avoid funding it? If health care is a human right, and contractors are human beings, then they should get the same health care as everyone else. Why is this so controversial?

Well, it'd cost a business person more money, therefore empirically evil.

 

[starwater]

What about the Switzerland example - everyone is required to by private health insurance and can pick from a menu of options. It seems to work for the Swiss, although a small country. The early stages of the ACA tried to do this with huge push back. Perhaps trying it again?

 

[PyramidHead]

What about the Switzerland example - everyone is required to by private health insurance and can pick from a menu of options. It seems to work for the Swiss, although a small country. The early stages of the ACA tried to do this with huge push back. Perhaps trying it again?

Leave everything under the control of the vultures who deny coverage over technicalities and raise their premiums every year? No thanks.

 

[scombrid]

Stinks.

It's the usual garbage of tax the rich.

In addition there's the problem that it provides a huge incentive to outsourcing.

Costs me 15k to Anthem to cover a $35k/yr employee with family coverage. Warren type reform reduces that cost if it is done right.

Which is in no way a rebuttal to what I said.

I was talking specifically about how she wants to fund it.

Replace paying Anthem per worker with a head tax per worker.

But I say heck with any kind of guaranteed care. Let's get rid of all regulations and all tax subsidies for employer provided care. No emtala requiring an emergency room to treat someone that can't pay. If an employer wants to buy your health care it gets taxed as income like any other perq. Basic care should be paid direct to provider and you should be insured priced to risk like property insurance. The promise of a free market in health care is the promise of the Tea Party/MAGA folks and they got voted into power so I'd say at this point that we deserve such a system. I'd be better off for awhile if I could pocket the huge annual fee paid to Anthem. I'm in my early 40s and very healthy. Barring a low probability event I have a few years before I enter the uninsurable age bracket. My employee that has type-I diabetes and the one with a kid that has Cystic Fibrosis? They're just screwed but that is what TeaParty MAGA is all about.

Besides, I have the blue-juice health disaster plan. If something is too costly to handle I have blue juice at the ready.

 

[scombrid]

What about the Switzerland example - everyone is required to by private health insurance and can pick from a menu of options. It seems to work for the Swiss, although a small country. The early stages of the ACA tried to do this with huge push back. Perhaps trying it again?

What does Switzerland do about someone with a pre-existing condition that costs $100k (or more) per year to manage? Does it force insurance companies to charge that person $15k per year for the policy while plopping out 10X more in costs?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Meanwhile, despite attempts to sabotage ACA, ACA rates are dropping in 2020. Granted, that is correction related due to the aforementioned attempt to sabotage ACA.

Health care experts, however, say the Obamacare marketplace is stronger because insurers have raised rates high enough in recent years to make selling plans on the exchanges a profitable businesses. This is prompting carriers to re-enter markets they had abandoned in recent years either because of heavy losses or uncertainty about the law's future emanating from Washington DC.

Twenty more insurers are joining the federal exchanges, bringing the total to 175 for 2020, up from a low of 132 in 2018. The number of states with only one carrier is dropping to two, down from five this year.

 

[PyramidHead]

In her haste to push something out that could be claimed by journalists as "M4A without a middle class tax increase", Warren has given ammunition to opponents of the policy by crafting a financing plan that doesn't provide enough money to begin with, disproportionately gets it from the lowest earners, and fails to cover anyone the employer classifies as a contractor.

If we agree with the pundits that this isn't a middle-class tax increase because it technically only applies to employers, then we're already conceding the point that what matters isn't the technicality but the cost to the average person. And if we're willing to accept that, then the whole argument for avoiding a middle-class tax increase disappears, since paying X more in taxes while paying Y less in medical expenses is good when X<Y. At that point, why not just bite the bullet and impose a progressive tax schedule, which would allow the burden to actually be shifted to the people most able to pay it?

 

[starwater]

In her haste to push something out that could be claimed by journalists as "M4A without a middle class tax increase", Warren has given ammunition to opponents of the policy by crafting a financing plan that doesn't provide enough money to begin with, disproportionately gets it from the lowest earners, and fails to cover anyone the employer classifies as a contractor.

If we agree with the pundits that this isn't a middle-class tax increase because it technically only applies to employers, then we're already conceding the point that what matters isn't the technicality but the cost to the average person. And if we're willing to accept that, then the whole argument for avoiding a middle-class tax increase disappears, since paying X more in taxes while paying Y less in medical expenses is good when X<Y. At that point, why not just bite the bullet and impose a progressive tax schedule, which would allow the burden to actually be shifted to the people most able to pay it?

Because you know - Socialism!!

 

[ZiprHead]

I can say with very good confidence that no one's plan for universal healthcare will be adopted with no changes. My guess is plans will be discussed and changed often in congress for six months to a year. It's way too complicated an issue to take at face value. Funding, reimbursement, qualifications, rules, so very many aspects that will all need to be mulled over.