Thanks Conservatives

[BlueRaiderFan]

No, they aren't taxed at the rate. Currently they could be taxed at 39%, but many, if not a great many, pay less because of deductions. And yes, the extra 6% could make a difference. You'll pardon me if I question your data as I've seen otherwise. I would post it, but that would mean I'm not "thinking for myself." In my opinion, a person that would think posting references to back up their argument is not thinking for themselves, is fill in the blank ______.

 

[BlueRaiderFan]

Of course a small increase alone wouldn't do it, we would need to cut back somewhere... speaking of which, what percentage of our discretionary budget is spent on war?

 

[BlueRaiderFan]

By the way, Mike, when you retire, stand on your principals and don't apply did, or accept, social security or medicare. As far as that goes, any of our social programs ever...

 

[BlueRaiderFan]

And by the way, I've shown you some fairly convincing facts, that you've chosen to ignore, so I guess we just don't agree on this one. Also, I've researched it thoroughly and I've given several modifications we can make .BEYOND A TAX INCREASE, but you keep IGNORING those and mentioning TAX INCREASes.. So, if you are going to ignore those and keep pounding away at one point, I'm going to choose to ignore your posts, because your debate is weak. When you want to acknowledge the other things I've mentioned to correct the issue with Medicare, than we can talk. Start debating like an adult.

 

[BlueRaiderFan]

Pardon me for posting a link and "not thinking for myself," but here is an interesting tidbit for you;

https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes


Increase Social Security taxes. Workers currently pay 6.2 percent of their earnings into the Social Security system, and employers pay a matching amount. If that tax rate was gradually increased to 7.2 percent over 20 years, it would reduce the Social Security funding shortfall by 52 percent, NASI found. For a worker earning $50,000, this tax increase would result in paying 50 cents more per week during each year the change was phased in. Gradually raising the Social Security payroll tax by 1 percent over 20 years is a popular fix, with 83 percent of the survey respondents supporting this change.

Alternatively, the Social Security payroll tax could be increased more abruptly to 7.2 percent in 2022 and 8.2 percent in 2052. This payroll tax increase would reduce Social Security’s funding gap by 76 percent, and result in a sudden $9.60 per week tax increase for a worker earning $50,000 in each year the tax rate changes. A majority of the survey respondents (66 percent) support increasing Social Security taxes in two steps, but the sudden tax increases are less popular than a gradual change.


Another thing that would help would be to cut discretionary spending on wars. I've been to combat, Mike, have you? Have you ever had to take a life? Have you ever had to fire on what you thought were military personnel at night in vehicles on a highway, only to find out later that some of them are women and children? I have. I won't tell you what wild dogs can do to bodies overnight when they are hungry, but I can tell you it isn't pretty. You and your war mongering ilk need to shut your damned pie holes and LISTEN!

Hey, here's a few ideas so that maybe they'll sink into your skull;

1) Cut discretionary military spending. It will help slow down the wars, many of which we don't need, if not most, and we can move that money to healthcare.

2). We can increase taxes over time to help fund social security.

3) We can do like other countries and require employees to pay more toward SS too.

4) We can take over much, if not all, of the healthcare system and control costs.

Those are just a few things that could be done.

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

BRF, you have completely missed the point of most of my responses. Its hard to have a debate when you are convinced that the math works. Through the years you have had 3 big grips; Education (funding, student loans), SSI and healthcare and your solution to solving this is taxing the rich more and cut military spending. All three of these are controlled by the govt. And yet, you are for more govt to solve the very problem the govt has created.

Here are the facts:
Military spending is way down historically, the numbers have been shared. I don't have a problem spending less, but you have to CHANGE the mission.

SSI & Medicare - Spending is way up mainly because of demographics and a program designed for a different time. You can not tax your way out of it. We have been increasing the taxes on these programs for years. You literally have to change the design of the program and how its funded. I have shown you there is a max intake of taxes (regardless of how you tax).

Healthcare - Don't have time to debate this right now. I will lay out my cards. I have stage 4 cancer, I've been battling it for 6 years. I am on a very expensive treatment right now that isn't approved in Europe. During this 6 years, I have worked full time and excelled in my career (code - payed a lot in taxes) If, I lived in some of these countries you lift up I would be dead. They control cost by withholding treatment, its called rationing. And maybe we should withhold care and not pay for all these treatments and let people like me die, that is a society discussion. There is no magic to single payer. They simple do not provide treatment, its rationed. I know this personally, I am connected to people all around the world that have my disease, we collaborate, share treatment advice, etc. They simple don't have access to the same care. So while our system is very flawed, be careful what you wish for.

All of these arguments are complicated because they are politicized. My goal in this thread was to get you to look at a bigger picture. To look beyond the emotional side, the political side. All of this is solvable, but I refuse to just tax more again without talking about changing the mission, or changing the structure of social program in a way that make them a 21st century solution.

 

[BlueRaiderFan]

Ok, first of all, no one is saying that the government isn't doing a good job of controlling the money. What we are saying is that they are over funding the military due to conservative constituant backing. You are missing the point on that one and yes, there is a difference.

I've shown you some numbers which again, you've chosen to ignore. The rest I won't address because we're been over it.

 

[BlueRaiderFan]

Also, as far as the rationing, they do a bit of it, but that didn't mean your life is in danger. It does mean that if you are forty and need a hip replaced, you might have to wait, but it's not life and death.

 

[BlueRaiderFan]

Lastly and AGAIN... NO ONE IS SAYING THAT TAXING MORE ALONE WILL FIX IT.

 

[BlueRaiderFan]

And no, your bullshit "percentage of GDP" The point is what percentage of our budget does it take and takes too much.

 

[MidTnBlues]

BRF, you have completely missed the point of most of my responses. Its hard to have a debate when you are convinced that the math works. Through the years you have had 3 big grips; Education (funding, student loans), SSI and healthcare and your solution to solving this is taxing the rich more and cut military spending. All three of these are controlled by the govt. And yet, you are for more govt to solve the very problem the govt has created.

Here are the facts:
Military spending is way down historically, the numbers have been shared. I don't have a problem spending less, but you have to CHANGE the mission.

SSI & Medicare - Spending is way up mainly because of demographics and a program designed for a different time. You can not tax your way out of it. We have been increasing the taxes on these programs for years. You literally have to change the design of the program and how its funded. I have shown you there is a max intake of taxes (regardless of how you tax).

Healthcare - Don't have time to debate this right now. I will lay out my cards. I have stage 4 cancer, I've been battling it for 6 years. I am on a very expensive treatment right now that isn't approved in Europe. During this 6 years, I have worked full time and excelled in my career (code - payed a lot in taxes) If, I lived in some of these countries you lift up I would be dead. They control cost by withholding treatment, its called rationing. And maybe we should withhold care and not pay for all these treatments and let people like me die, that is a society discussion. There is no magic to single payer. They simple do not provide treatment, its rationed. I know this personally, I am connected to people all around the world that have my disease, we collaborate, share treatment advice, etc. They simple don't have access to the same care. So while our system is very flawed, be careful what you wish for.

All of these arguments are complicated because they are politicized. My goal in this thread was to get you to look at a bigger picture. To look beyond the emotional side, the political side. All of this is solvable, but I refuse to just tax more again without talking about changing the mission, or changing the structure of social program in a way that make them a 21st century solution.

Best of luck battling your cancer, Mike. Six years is a hell of a long fight.

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

Best of luck battling your cancer, Mike. Six years is a hell of a long fight.

Thanks, this isn't something I've ever shared on this site...just part of my life, its been a wild crazy ride and it continues. No matter what, I will be a Raider fan till the day the Good Lord takes me!

 

[BlueRaiderFan]

Mike, in many countries, more well to do people, like yourself, have private insurance, while the masses use a single payer system. You would still be able to get your specialized care.

 

[RaiderDawg78]

Mike, in many countries, more well to do people, like yourself, have private insurance, while the masses use a single payer system. You would still be able to get your specialized care.

A single-payer system of some type will eventually be implemented in the US. The American Medical Association (AMA) is still against it, but their stance has changed. The current "AMA policy supports patients buying "individually selected health insurance," subsidized with advanced or refundable tax credits, that corresponds inversely to income, McAneny (AMA president) said."

Surveys indicate a majority of Americans believe the federal govt. has a responsibility to provide healthcare to all, right at 1/2 the country wants a single-payer system and now a slight majority of physicians support it (10 years ago 58% were against it) The younger physicians and student groups in the AMA favor a Medicare for all.

Like most laws, it will depend on implementation and individual situations. I'm sure it will be bad for some people and great for others. Looking at the real numbers, Canadian's life expectancy and health outcomes are actually better than Americans and their are published studies to support it. So for the masses it would probably be better. However, there are numerous examples, like Mike's associates, where it may be bad. I'm sure sometime in the next decade or so, we will see how it works in the U.S.

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

A single-payer system of some type will eventually be implemented in the US. The American Medical Association (AMA) is still against it, but their stance has changed. The current "AMA policy supports patients buying "individually selected health insurance," subsidized with advanced or refundable tax credits, that corresponds inversely to income, McAneny (AMA president) said."

Surveys indicate a majority of Americans believe the federal govt. has a responsibility to provide healthcare to all, right at 1/2 the country wants a single-payer system and now a slight majority of physicians support it (10 years ago 58% were against it) The younger physicians and student groups in the AMA favor a Medicare for all.

Like most laws, it will depend on implementation and individual situations. I'm sure it will be bad for some people and great for others. Looking at the real numbers, Canadian's life expectancy and health outcomes are actually better than Americans and their are published studies to support it. So for the masses it would probably be better. However, there are numerous examples, like Mike's associates, where it may be bad. I'm sure sometime in the next decade or so, we will see how it works in the U.S.

Some random thoughts...

First of all although we don't have single payer the govt controls it, so in essence we do have single payer. Over 50% is paid for today via the govt. The difference is those of us that have private insurance and in higher tax brackets foot the bill for most of America. This is not disputable. The fact is those that actually pay are being drastically overcharged.


The US covers 55% of the WORLDWIDE spend on drug development. While prices are high, do not think for a moment that this investment will shrink if we go to a single payer. I think we can get the cost down but you need to view this from 360 degrees.

We don't really have free market policies in healthcare today. Why can't we actually try it, instead of the slow grind of moving away (the irony being costs keep increasing even tho Govt involvement grows). Taxes will go up. I would rather choose to spend on my own healthcare than have to pay more for single payer and loose my choice.

Even if we go with Bernie's estimate of $32 Trillion over 10 years, who here believes it will not be drastically higher....explain to me how the govt will collect another $32 trillion? Historically, we have collected between 14.5% to 20% of GDP....does anyone believe we are going to able to collect 30-35% of our GDP in taxes? The budget today is $4T, so we are going to go to a $7T budget to save about $200B a year? Bernie claims his medcare for all will save $2T over 10 years.

A big part of our healthcare cost increase is simple due to demographics - more old people, less workers per person in the system. Single payer does nothing about this.


Our clinical outcomes are because of culture not because we don't have single payer system. Our clinical outcomes are also based on being a "smart" patient and in my belief realizing you are in charge and the system works for you. Even if you poor in the US, you have the ability to make an appointment with any specialist (you may have to drive or fly to get there but you can have access)...this will end with Single payer.

Unfortunately, I agree we will end up with Single payer due to laziness of the average American. Its always easier to accept the lowest common denominator than to work towards something better - single payer means less freedom.

Lets not throw out the baby with the bath water. To save Bernie's $200B a year, I can think of many ways without the govt taking it all over.

 

[RaiderDawg78]

Some random thoughts...

First of all although we don't have single payer the govt controls it, so in essence we do have single payer. Over 50% is paid for today via the govt. The difference is those of us that have private insurance and in higher tax brackets foot the bill for most of America. This is not disputable. The fact is those that actually pay are being drastically overcharged.


The US covers 55% of the WORLDWIDE spend on drug development. While prices are high, do not think for a moment that this investment will shrink if we go to a single payer. I think we can get the cost down but you need to view this from 360 degrees.

We don't really have free market policies in healthcare today. Why can't we actually try it, instead of the slow grind of moving away (the irony being costs keep increasing even tho Govt involvement grows). Taxes will go up. I would rather choose to spend on my own healthcare than have to pay more for single payer and loose my choice.

Even if we go with Bernie's estimate of $32 Trillion over 10 years, who here believes it will not be drastically higher....explain to me how the govt will collect another $32 trillion? Historically, we have collected between 14.5% to 20% of GDP....does anyone believe we are going to able to collect 30-35% of our GDP in taxes? The budget today is $4T, so we are going to go to a $7T budget to save about $200B a year? Bernie claims his medcare for all will save $2T over 10 years.

A big part of our healthcare cost increase is simple due to demographics - more old people, less workers per person in the system. Single payer does nothing about this.


Our clinical outcomes are because of culture not because we don't have single payer system. Our clinical outcomes are also based on being a "smart" patient and in my belief realizing you are in charge and the system works for you. Even if you poor in the US, you have the ability to make an appointment with any specialist (you may have to drive or fly to get there but you can have access)...this will end with Single payer.

Unfortunately, I agree we will end up with Single payer due to laziness of the average American. Its always easier to accept the lowest common denominator than to work towards something better - single payer means less freedom.

Lets not throw out the baby with the bath water. To save Bernie's $200B a year, I can think of many ways without the govt taking it all over.

I agree with a lot of your points and I am NOT saying I am for a single payer system. I just see it coming.

Trying to find the positive in something I don’t want. I expect my personal out of pocket to go way up when it goes through - forced to contribute to the single payer tax and my personal supplemental to get the full coverage I want.

 

[BlueRaiderFan]

And how much have we spent on war the last 17 years?

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

And how much have we spent on war the last 17 years?

Change the mission and we can reduce Military spend. In 2018 we spent $45B in Afghanistan. Probably since 2001, we spend about $4 Trillion, but not all of that was net new spending. That $4T would fund a little over one year of Medicare for all, maybe.

...regardless military spend and a health care system have nothing to do with one another.

A better argument for you would be what could we do together that could reduce the spent about $200B a year to make it cost neutral with "Medicare for all", (Using Bernie's numbers). I'd love to work on that.

 

[BlueRaiderFan]

Obviously you've never heard of discretionary spending if you think one doesn't affect the other. Money spent on war is money we could spend on healthcare. In a single payer system, which the vast majority of Americans would use if we had one, taxes could also be increased on individuals because they would no longer have the money coming out of their pay due to private insurance premiums. There would also be a reduction in cost for several reasons, so your figure for the 4 trillion is inaccurate. You are also making the assumption that every citizen would use the single payer system, which is also incorrect. It's very likely that we would have a system similar to the UK, where just over 10% of the population is in private insurance. Most of them are top earners, so you wouldn't have to worry about losing your private healthcare insurance. There's not a simple solution, but it could be done, if we wanted to. At the very least I would like to see an expansion of Medicaid and a change of the rules so that a person didn't have to lose their assets before the qualify for healthcare.

 

[BlueRaiderFan]

Also, we've spent just over $5 trillion in those wars.

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

No, I'm using Bernie Sanders numbers. He is projecting $32.6 T for 10 years, that's just over 3T per year.

Your using this idea that the wealthy will also have private insurance...I perplexed, shouldn't everyone have access to the best care? We actually have that today. Its imperfect but its a an advantage of what we have. When I'm at Vanderbilt there are lots of folks from lower income groups right beside me getting access to the same doctor, to the same drugs.

Do you really believe our govt is going to go from collecting $3.3T to collecting $6.6T? In years past when rate were reallly high we didn't collect much more in regards to GDP than when we do now. There are laws of science and economics.

The US Feds.states take in 28% of GDP. So what do other large counties take in...say those over 75M

Mexico - 23.7%
UK - 34%
Russia - 20%
Brazil - 34%
India - 22%
China - 20%
Indonisia - 12%
The rest of the large are low

Sure in places like Norway, a country of 3M they are willing to pay 50% in taxes, you can throw in Sweden, another small country they pay about 47%.

So in order to bring almost $7T we are going almost double taxes. Where does this come from...using your logic this money is going to have to come from lower and middle income people because you are not going to be able to get this from higher income people (they don't have another 3T in income). Technically, I guess employers are just going to hand over a good portion of the cash, maybe.

All the large western countries that have universal care are in worse fiscal shape than we are.

Its simple not easy to get there from where we are...there is no proof in our history that we could pull this off.

 

[BlueRaiderFan]

First of all, your logic is flawed, but I'm done with the long winded posts. We can have a single payer system, and it would lower costs. If you don't want one, I suggest you start contacting your rep about expanding Medicaid and changing some of the rules associated with it.

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

How am I flawed, I am asking you how the Federal Govt will begin collecting 7T in taxes over the 3.7T it collects today.

 

[MidTnBlues]

I agree with a lot of your points and I am NOT saying I am for a single payer system. I just see it coming.

Trying to find the positive in something I don’t want. I expect my personal out of pocket to go way up when it goes through - forced to contribute to the single payer tax and my personal supplemental to get the full coverage I want.

I don't think this country will ever pass a full on single payer system,and I don't personally think Congress will even take it serious anytime soon.

1. Most of the country is not for it, and good luck passing a bill that jeopardizes 13 million people's jobs.
2. Congress and pretty much your average American is too ridiculous right now to pass any kind of legislation of this magnitude. The ACA was essentially a Republican plan that Republicans tried to pass since Nixon and now all of a sudden they hate it. On top of that it seems like there is no consistent definition of "single payer" among Democrats. When elections come around both parties have this ridiculous idea that is somehow popular among their voter base. Republicans have a "wall" and Democrats have "single payer". Neither one of them really talk about how they will fund it, how it will impact people,or really any details about their idea but it gets the votes. With less and less of a middle ground in Congress I doubt we will get any kind of basic healthcare legislation passed let alone a far left plan.
3. CBO has not scored Sander's plan as far as I know,but I can imagine their report will make him look like a fool.
4. The ACA triggered a lot of legal battles. Imagine going this route.

Also, as someone who has been in the insurance industry for longer than I should have been - there is no such thing as full coverage. I feel it necessary to point that out every time someone uses that term.

 

[RaiderDawg78]

Also, as someone who has been in the insurance industry for longer than I should have been - there is no such thing as full coverage. I feel it necessary to point that out every time someone uses that term.

Geez man. Semantics. Full as in the amount coverage I want, not implying there is such a thing a full coverage insurance.

 

[MidTnBlues]

Geez man. Semantics. Full as in the amount coverage I want, not implying there is such a thing a full coverage insurance.

I knew what you meant There was some partial humor intended in that statement; sorry if the tone came off wrong there.

 

[RaiderDawg78]

I knew what you meant There was some partial humor intended in that statement; sorry if the tone came off wrong there.

No worries. I deal with folks lacking sarcasm detection & contextual recognition. Tone is lost in message boards.