Jump to content

Bernie's ‘Medicare for All’ Would Cost $32.6 Trillion Over 10 Years, Study Says


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

So the working and middle classes gets a tax hike and the "undeserving poor" (in the eyes of many working and middle class people) continue to live high on the hog and get severely subsidized health care? What working or middle class person would get a tax increase and still be ok with being on the hook for a """reasonable""" deductible? What do they get out of it, besides yet another expensive program for lazy poor that they get nothing from? 

 

Maybe the end result looks something like what you are proposing. But you fall for the trap that Democrats have for years: starting from watered down shit, and continue to water it down.

in summary, what massdriver is trying to say the whole trickle down coverage or separate but equal type of coverage?  If so, that's a disaster already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, darkness35 said:

in summary, what massdriver is trying to say the whole trickle down coverage or separate but equal type of coverage?  If so, that's a disaster already.

In summary, I want a plan that has cost controls built in so our nation is healthy and fiscally strong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

I am not advocating where to start or a poltical strategy. I am telling you what I think should be policy. 

 

As for the working middle class, I imagine that the government policy would be far better than what most working people get now.  

 

 

For what it's worth, the policy is shit. It's yet another upper middle class attempt to seem reasonable, but not understand the plight of the poor and working classes, and how the dynamic you propose further perpetuates the antagonism between the two groups. What is a reasonable copay? Or deductible? Can someone making $10/hr working 60 hour weeks afford that if they break a leg and can't work, let alone be able to take off a few hours of hourly labor (with no job protection mind you) in order to make it to the doctor that they still have to pay 2 hours of their labor in a copay?

 

The upper twenty percent have gotten virtually all the wage gains in the past ~50 years. They are the ones who have money to fund their 401ks and IRAs and other tax advantaged ways to realize that gains in the market far outweigh  wage gains in the long term. They should be the ones who pay for the vast majority of healthcare for all, and it shouldn't be another "fuck the middle class" where they make too much to get good subsidies, and make to little to afford it outright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

For what it's worth, the policy is shit. It's yet another upper middle class attempt to seem reasonable, but not understand the plight of the poor and working classes, and how the dynamic you propose further perpetuates the antagonism between the two groups. What is a reasonable copay? Or deductible? Can someone making $10/hr working 60 hour weeks afford that if they break a leg and can't work, let alone be able to take off a few hours of hourly labor (with no job protection mind you) in order to make it to the doctor that they still have to pay 2 hours of their labor in a copay?

 

The upper twenty percent have gotten virtually all the wage gains in the past ~50 years. They are the ones who have money to fund their 401ks and IRAs and other tax advantaged ways to realize that gains in the market far outweigh  wage gains in the long term. They should be the ones who pay for the vast majority of healthcare for all, and it shouldn't be another "fuck the middle class" where they make too much to get good subsidies, and make to little to afford it outright.

I don't view universal healthcare as the only way to help the poor and middle class. A negative income tax and wage subsides should be employed to help the people in question. Healthcare should be about getting everyone affordable coverage, but also should be about creating a program that is efficient and sustainable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put aside the fiscal concerns for a moment, as important as they are...is this *politically* possible?

 

Look at the way the ACA was strangled in its grave just to increase the odds of a Republican getting the White House.  Look at how the Democratic supermajorities in Congress collapsed after it was passed.

 

Do you really think, in the current environment, that a Bernie Sanders-ish president will garner and then retain the political support he/she needs to pull this kind of thing off?  When there’s so much political gain to be had from framing him/her as Mao reincarnate and whipping Tea Partiers into a frenzy?

 

Or, being a little more realistic, when we know that the powerful financial interests that largely control both parties and most of our political infrastructure will fight something like this tooth-and-nail?

 

At least in the short- and medium-term I’m skeptical.  (Long-term, who knows) I think the real question is whether there’s anything to be gained by trying to implement single-payer and failing, or whether that will just make things worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...