"Who's gonna pay for Medicare for all?" is either stupid or disingenuous

You can fund health care for all. Will the quality be any good? Nope.

 

Evidence says otherwise.

 

Where is it better?

 

England, norway, etc.

 

Norway is increasingly supplementing their socialized medicine with private insurance. And surveys show they’re not happy with their systems.

 

How about we focus on those taxes which support programs that are designed to take the fruits of one persons labor and allocate those to another person directly.

 

That's factually incorrect. If a company posts profits, then they paid a portion of that profit in taxes. In the end though, no corporation pays taxes. All those dollars are from profits paid by consumers.. more of a consumption tax. Taxing corporations only creates two things; increased costs of goods and services and a reduction in available capital for growth.

Corporations are not headless beasts. They are comprised of people. All of those things you talk about are benefits to the people, some of which are engaged in corporations. Not to mention, the overwhelming majority of corporations are "small business".

Why we try to create this big bad monster that is corporate private enterprise, when no such thing exists is beyond me.

There is a cost to support you. That is a fact. The costs of the roads you drive on, the cost of the military that protects our way of life and our economy, and all of the other shared costs that benefit you. Yet, nearly half the population pays zero federal income tax.

It's ironic to me that you will sit here complaining about some "not paying enough" taxes to support all these things you enjoy, while those who make so little enjoy all of the benefits they do provide at no cost.

So, beyond providing all of the services that benefit everybody, and people living in a country people are busting down the doors to get in, you also want housing and food.

Some need it. I support social safety nets. Most don't. I don't know where you fall, but in the end... if I had all of that being provided to me I would probably keep my mouth shut and be grateful for what is being provided.

Separation of church and state is paramount, not only when it's convenient to your argument. I am not religious, so your attempts to take a swipe at my perspectives assuming I am simply because I am fiscally conservative doesn't resonate.


WillReadMore... you ought to be thankful you live in the United States. Many other countries around the world, would allow you to starve to death in the street.

 

- Other countries are being successful while spending far less than we do. If we want better healthare than other first world countries, that isn't going to be a financial problem.

- Most if not all first world countries have systems where those who can afford more care can get more care.

When we design our system we'll be able to take advantage of what every other first world nation has learned.

 

You can look up the fortune 500 companies that don't pay income tax. You can't claim that those companies are all making no net income.

And, your comments about consumers paying all the tax is not interesting. Consumers pay consumption taxes at the point of purchase, and those tax dollars stay there - they don't go to funding the infrastructure that the public provides in order for the company to reap its profits.

That's just you and your politics. This issue has nothing to do with companies being "monsters".

Demanding that gitantic consumers of our public infrastructure should pay no taxes while being butt hurt about some tuy struggling to keep his family together is the ultimate in moral depravity.

In fact, I'd bet you are fully aware of that, yet spout that disgusting line of argument regardless.

Keep your story straight.

Either you support the social safety net or you don't.

It has nothing to do with whether either of us is wealthy, as that is not what the social safety net is about.

Your comments about me are just a demonstration of the "argument from ignorance" fallacy.

 

Or, in other words:
By taxing the "rich" and "corporations".

 

There are basic needs that our society has to consider.

We include food, housing, etc.

But, healthcare is just as required.

Deciding that being alive and capable of working is somthing that only those with money get to have is both immoral and self destructive of our country.

 

We already provide food and medical for the poor.

What is your point?

 

Well, no.

Any employer of more than 50 employees has to have a department that manages and pays for the healthcare of its employees. The cost of this feature goes beyond that actual healthcare and management costs, as it requires corporate management time from those who are trying to run a business. It is also a factor in the decision making for businesses to decide to grow. Hiring your 50th employee is a huge deal.

Single payer healthcare would FREE corporations from this requirement, not only saving them the actual costs but allowing business decisions to be made on the basis of capitalism.

 

Uh, read my post.

 

The statement I responded to:
The vast majority of it will be paid for by the dollars that you (or your employer) currently spend on private health care insurance.

If the state takes over health care, employers will not spend said money on private insurance -- they will keep the money, invest it, or whatever.

The only way "the dollars that you (or your employer) currently spend on private health care insurance" will go to fund medicare for all, as per the claim by the OP, is if the state forces the employers to pay that money to the state -- that is, the state raises taxes on said employers.

So... Yes.

 

We already provide food and medical care for the poor.
What is your point?

Yes, I have read your above post but I will restate it if you would like

'There are basic needs that our society has to consider....we already include food, housing etc'.....You also stated that healthcare is just as required.

....With all of that in mind.... ( I sort of dispute that we provide housing but its not worth going off on that tangent) Being that we already provide food and healthcare for the poor (In other words, we already provide healthcare for those unable to work).... So, what is your point?

 

I agree that taxes will be raised. But, that doesn't change the fact that corporations will be freed of healthcare as being a corporate decision making factor related to when/how to grow, how to compete for employees, etc. Plus, they have responsibilities for healthcare plan decisions, corporate communications and the plan managemet that involves the per-employee decision making. If you work for a company of more than 50 employees you are probably aware of the healthcare decisions that the corporatiion needs you to make, as it is exceedingly rare for there to be zero options..

Also, most companies contract out their insurance or at least the claims management in the case that they are large enough to "self insure". These costs can not help but be higher than the cost of management by an organization such as Medicare, because the management company needs to make a profit and has accounts managment costs on a per client basis. They also have sales and marketing costs.

Freeing corporations from healthcare requirements would be a large improvement for employers of more than 50 employees.

And, its an improvement for employees, too, as the issues of healthcare are no longer tied to a corporation and job selection would be free of this issue. How many people select a job on the grounds of the healthcare coverage instead of what is best for them in other dimensions?

 

And thus, you DO agree with what I said:
"Medicare for all" will be paid for by taxing the "rich" and "corporations".
Thanks.

 

There are many millions who have no coverage of any kind or find coverage that is provided to be less than adequate for a variety of reasons.

Remember that our efforts to get people covered are oriented to getting people to buy coverage plans from for-profit insurance corporations. For those living paycheck to paycheck, this can be very difficult. Often being sick means losing pay. And, that can easily mean losing coverage.

One can get help at the ER, but that is a cost to us all when the individual can't pay. And, ER aid is the most expensive kind of healthcare we have.

It's still the case that 2/3 of those who file for bankruptcy state healthcare costs as a reason.

As for your point about cost of housing I'm just referring to the fact that housing costs are a signifiant contributor in cost of living calculation, poverty level, etc., so in that way it is a factor in determining level of support.

 

That is a purely political bit of nonsense in terms of who will pay what, however.

Single payer healthcare will mean a GIGANTIC savings for all employers of more then 50 employees as I noted.

THAT can be considered a huge redution in government mandated expenditure.

Emphasizing the tax side alone is PURE partisan political BS.

And, you know that.

 

And, you agree with it.
Thanks.

 

Indeed there are millions who lack coverage, and yes that is for a variety of reasons including an awful lot of young people capable of buying insurance but willing to gamble in order to spend money on other things. What that number does NOT include is the poor because they already qualify for Medicaid and always have at least in the last 50 or so years.

What you said specifically on the topic was "Deciding that being alive and capable of working is somthing that only those with money get to have is both immoral and self destructive of our country."...

Clearly, this topic is not relevant to those incapable of working since they would be poor and therefore easily qualify for Medicaid. My question to you is what is your point? The poor are clearly already covered under Medicaid. I have zero problem subsidizing the healthcare for the truly poor, but I have serious problems with subsidizing the healthcare for lets say the 40th percentile. You seem to be lumping all of them into one and then acting as if you are only referring to those that are unable to work.

 

You mean like the GI bill?

 

No, you're attempting to make a totally fake point and I'd far prefer the truth.

 

There’s a reason other counties spend less. We subsidize their price caps. And I don’t know that I’d call their systems “successful”.