Current Events > Warren Left $30 Trillion Short of Paying for Her Health Plan

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-10-17/warren-left-30-trillion-short-of-paying-for-her-health-plan

She has a plan for everything except for how to pay for what she wants. Gross.

"Just raise taxes on the 1%!"
---

Manocheese posted...

"Just raise taxes on the 1%!"

The article talks about that. The $30 trillion hole is after her existing tax increases are accounted for.

If you cut military spending by 100%, you could only increase Medicare funding by like 25% lol

---

DarkRoast posted...

If you cut military spending by 100%, you could only increase Medicare funding by like 25% lol

Yeah the entire concept is ridiculous.

Her response will just be "rich people and corporate fat cats." Same brain-dead, fairy tale response that all these socialist loons give when their unrealistic policy is called out.
---

The Admiral posted...

Her response will just be "rich people and corporate fat cats." Same brain-dead, fairy tale response that all these socialist loons give when their unrealistic policy is called out.

I wonder if she also is one of the Democrats who agreed to give Medicare For All to illegals too?

The problem with our healthcare system is that it costs way too much compared to any other country.

It's like someone trying to sell you a Ford Escape for $1.5M, and instead of asking why the hell it's so expensive, you just try to find ways to raise the money.

The solution isn't more money, the solution is cost control measures. We are literally wasting billions of dollars on useless health Care expenditures. Spending even more money benefits no one except the middlemen.


---

The Admiral posted...

Her response will just be "rich people and corporate fat cats." Same brain-dead, fairy tale response that all these socialist loons give when their unrealistic policy is called out.

The US is the greatest country on Earth but totally incapable of achieving something that every other first-world country has
---

ASithLord7 posted...

The Admiral posted...

Her response will just be "rich people and corporate fat cats." Same brain-dead, fairy tale response that all these socialist loons give when their unrealistic policy is called out.

The US is the greatest country on Earth but totally incapable of achieving something that every other first-world country has

Where do you suggest we pull the missing $30 trillion from?

ASithLord7 posted...

The US is the greatest country on Earth but totally incapable of achieving something that every other first-world country has

"Our healthcare system is disgustingly overpriced and nobody can afford it. Let's scrounge around for more money to pay for it"

IE - the same wrong healthcare reform thinking for decades.

Nixon was on to something with a federal HMO system but Democrats basically called that a "death panel" system.


---

Loud_Pipes posted...

ASithLord7 posted...

The Admiral posted...

Her response will just be "rich people and corporate fat cats." Same brain-dead, fairy tale response that all these socialist loons give when their unrealistic policy is called out.

The US is the greatest country on Earth but totally incapable of achieving something that every other first-world country has

Where do you suggest we pull the missing $30 trillion from?

*crickets*
---

DarkRoast posted...

The problem with our healthcare system is that it costs way too much compared to any other country.

well that's perfect because even the most conservative cost estimates for public healthcare are lower than costs under our current system :)
---

Well just have Mexico pay for it
---

DarkRoast posted...

The problem with our healthcare system is that it costs way too much compared to any other country.

It's like someone trying to sell you a Ford Escape for $1.5M, and instead of asking why the hell it's so expensive, you just try to find ways to raise the money.

The solution isn't more money, the solution is cost control measures. We are literally wasting billions of dollars on useless health Care expenditures. Spending even more money benefits no one except the middlemen.

The middlemen are the ones causing that high price. They gotta take their cut.
---

Frolex posted...

well that's perfect because even the most conservative cost estimates for public healthcare are lower than costs under our current system :)

Precisely

So obviously that means you were first in line to oppose the ACA, then

---

The Admiral posted...

Loud_Pipes posted...

ASithLord7 posted...

The Admiral posted...

Her response will just be "rich people and corporate fat cats." Same brain-dead, fairy tale response that all these socialist loons give when their unrealistic policy is called out.

The US is the greatest country on Earth but totally incapable of achieving something that every other first-world country has

Where do you suggest we pull the missing $30 trillion from?

*crickets*

I would suggest looking at what every other first world country does and take our lessons from them.
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

I would suggest looking at what every other first world country does and take our lessons from them.

America is too prideful to do that.
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

The Admiral posted...

Loud_Pipes posted...

ASithLord7 posted...

The Admiral posted...

Her response will just be "rich people and corporate fat cats." Same brain-dead, fairy tale response that all these socialist loons give when their unrealistic policy is called out.

The US is the greatest country on Earth but totally incapable of achieving something that every other first-world country has

Where do you suggest we pull the missing $30 trillion from?

*crickets*

I would suggest looking at what every other first world country does and take our lessons from them.

And whats that
---

DarkRoast posted...

So obviously that means you were first in line to oppose the ACA, then

Of course not, though even if I did it's effect on health care costs wouldn't be the reason.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/2014/jun/new-analysis-of-health-insurance-premium-trends
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/business/slowdown-in-rise-of-health-care-costs-may-persist.html
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/05/facts-are-in-and-paul-ryan-is-wrong.html
https://archive.is/VQGMp

unless you mean I oppose the ACA as a substitute to public healthcare, in which case of course you're right
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

The Admiral posted...

Loud_Pipes posted...

ASithLord7 posted...

The Admiral posted...

Her response will just be "rich people and corporate fat cats." Same brain-dead, fairy tale response that all these socialist loons give when their unrealistic policy is called out.

The US is the greatest country on Earth but totally incapable of achieving something that every other first-world country has

Where do you suggest we pull the missing $30 trillion from?

*crickets*

I would suggest looking at what every other first world country does and take our lessons from them.

I looked and dont see a way to bridge the $30 trillion gap. Why dont you explain it to us?
---

When a Tylenol stops costing $400 in a hospital, doctors stop charging insurance companies a silly amount more than cash paying customers and pharmaceutical companies stop charging a 9,000% markup on prescription drugs we will start making progress.

These are just the tip of the iceberg
---

WashYourHands posted...

When a Tylenol stops costing $400 in a hospital, doctors stop charging insurance companies a silly amount more than cash paying customers and pharmaceutical companies stop charging a 9,000% markup on prescription drugs we will start making progress.

These are just the tip of the iceberg

1) doctors aren't involved in billing

Thanks

---

Loud_Pipes posted...

The article talks about that. The $30 trillion hole is after her existing tax increases are accounted for.

but before the $30 trillion we currently pay for healthcare as a nation
---

DarkRoast posted...

WashYourHands posted...

When a Tylenol stops costing $400 in a hospital, doctors stop charging insurance companies a silly amount more than cash paying customers and pharmaceutical companies stop charging a 9,000% markup on prescription drugs we will start making progress.

These are just the tip of the iceberg

1) doctors aren't involved in billing

Thanks

Doctors dont have control over what they charge for their services in their own offices?
---

WashYourHands posted...

Doctors dont have control over what they charge for their services in their own offices?

hospital doctors do not, no.
---

Sackgurl posted...

WashYourHands posted...

Doctors dont have control over what they charge for their services in their own offices?

hospital doctors do not, no.

Yes, I know. My uncle has his own practice and the difference from what he charges cash paying customers vs what he charges insurance companies is astronomical.

I know he is trying to help those without insurance, but after seeing some insurance invoices I can somewhat see why insurance companies charge so much
---

Sackgurl posted...

Loud_Pipes posted...

The article talks about that. The $30 trillion hole is after her existing tax increases are accounted for.

but before the $30 trillion we currently pay for healthcare as a nation

i dont know why she's so afraid to say it: the main part of the solution is "stop subsidizing employer healthcare plans with tax breaks"

the other part is 'tax people about the same as they currently pay for their insurance after their employer's subsidy' which probably amounts to a doubling of the payroll tax with no income cap and i think that could be framed in a way that people would understand

net effect would be more like a cost increase for the upper middle class and on rather than "the 1%" but dems are very afraid of targeting the most reliable republican voters for some reason. republicans were not afraid to do the same when they killed the SALT deduction.

Ah, the old "just make everyone pay 50%+ tax rates and we're covered" trick.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Ah, the old "just make everyone pay 50%+ tax rates and we're covered" trick.

why are you inventing artificially large numbers?

it's not even a trick, just reality: there's no reason to continue to subsidize private insurance purchases if tax dollars are paying for a competing system

we'd also be paying for it by eliminating medicaid and sending any federal subsidies to states for those programs (and, most likely, looking to redirect state tax dollars that pay for state-level medicaid) to the national program. VA also, and whatever insurance govt employees/senators/etc get.

the main "trick" is accepting the need for economy of scale and recognizing some things are much worse on the local level (why insuring 30,000 people gets you much worse negotiating power than insuring 300,000,000 people)
---

Loud_Pipes posted...

ASithLord7 posted...

The Admiral posted...

Her response will just be "rich people and corporate fat cats." Same brain-dead, fairy tale response that all these socialist loons give when their unrealistic policy is called out.

The US is the greatest country on Earth but totally incapable of achieving something that every other first-world country has

Where do you suggest we pull the missing $30 trillion from?

The billionaires have trillions of dollars for us to tax! Do you know how much a billion dollars is?!
---

fuck all these facts
can we just skip to the feelings part?
---

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/story-medicare-all-and-taxes-complex-warren-and-sanders-have-tell-it

---

Just like "tax the rich" started including "tax the upper middle class" in order to begin to pay for it, we'll start including "tax the middle class."

And then we might as well just all work shitty jobs and be on welfare because there's no point in aiming to achieve anything if the government artificially blocks you from doing so.

How are these numbers being totaled; how can EU members achieve such a system and not us, who are richer
---

Doe posted...

How are these numbers being totaled; how can EU members achieve such a system and not us, who are richer

Because we pay more for shit than they do. Focus should be on reducing costs, not trying to figure out how to pay for it.
---

Doe posted...

How are these numbers being totaled; how can EU members achieve such a system and not us, who are richer

Probably because EU members are content to have tiny take-home salaries and no prospects of ever owning property or building wealth.

Oh so we can't give afford to save people from dying right now because it will get in the way of all us temporarily embarrassed millionaires

How's the boot taste
---

Loud_Pipes posted...

Just like "tax the rich" started including "tax the upper middle class" in order to begin to pay for it, we'll start including "tax the middle class."

And then we might as well just all work shitty jobs and be on welfare because there's no point in aiming to achieve anything if the government artificially blocks you from doing so.

Exactly, its as if liberals want all of us to be equally poor and dependent on big daddy government
---

John_Galt posted...

Loud_Pipes posted...

Just like "tax the rich" started including "tax the upper middle class" in order to begin to pay for it, we'll start including "tax the middle class."

And then we might as well just all work shitty jobs and be on welfare because there's no point in aiming to achieve anything if the government artificially blocks you from doing so.

Exactly, its as if liberals want all of us to be equally poor and dependent on big daddy government

Socialism is rooted in jealousy, along with people trying to resolve the cognitive dissonance caused by their perceived sense of intellectual superiority against their lack of accomplishments and wealth. Instead of confronting the reality of their limitations, the playbook says to claim victimhood and attempt to level the playing field by taking from the more successful.
---

Saez said that eliminating health care premiums for individuals who are covered through their employers could be transformed into higher wages that would more than cover any tax increase. Its true that we might have to pay an extra tax but it can be structured in a way that we gain in extra wages, bigger than whatever extra tax will be there, he said.

That along with bringing down prices is the way to go. We absolutely have to control costs.
---

My only worry about UHC is that what I see in other countries is that funding/budgets seem to be so low that they run into major issues.

Yeah your get diminishing returns, and tons of people fall thorough the cracks, but the current system will get you lots of treatments quickly since the doctors/hospitals want to get P.A.I.D. and they'll get their money.

EDIT: It's kind of like our majorly underfunded public school system. Teachers are paid shit, and as a result, we get a lot of shit teachers/school infrastructure vs what you can find in private institutions.
---

Balrog0 posted...

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/story-medicare-all-and-taxes-complex-warren-and-sanders-have-tell-it

since people are content to ignore your great post for some reason

In 2017, the US spent about $3.5 trillion on health care, according to government estimates. Private health insurance (already heavily subsidized by government) covered about one-third, or $1.2 trillion, and Americans paid about 10 percent out of pocket. Public programs like Medicare and Medicaid paid the rest.

the finance hole looks more like 10 trillion than 30

the answer to how european countries tend to pay for it is VAT which is a bummer but probably is unavoidable as a solution path, since it's unavoidable as a tax
---

M_Live posted...

Loud_Pipes posted...

Where do you suggest we pull the missing $30 trillion from?

Well, genuine question, how does everyone else do it? Lol

Everyone else doesnt have the absurd costs the US has, so they dont have to come up with these silly numbers.
---

Sackgurl posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Ah, the old "just make everyone pay 50%+ tax rates and we're covered" trick.

why are you inventing artificially large numbers?

it's not even a trick, just reality: there's no reason to continue to subsidize private insurance purchases if tax dollars are paying for a competing system

we'd also be paying for it by eliminating medicaid and sending any federal subsidies to states for those programs (and, most likely, looking to redirect state tax dollars that pay for state-level medicaid) to the national program. VA also, and whatever insurance govt employees/senators/etc get.

the main "trick" is accepting the need for economy of scale and recognizing some things are much worse on the local level (why insuring 30,000 people gets you much worse negotiating power than insuring 300,000,000 people)

Artificially large? What exactly do you think tax rates are in Europe?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_in_Europe
---

This is a list of the maximum potential tax rates around Europe

you posted:

s0nicfan posted...

Ah, the old "just make everyone pay 50%+ tax rates and we're covered" trick.

looking at the plot of 'average' taxes paid, less the 'employer' portion, it appears the average rate paid in europe is about 30%

is that different from the answer you expected?
---

DarkRoast posted...

It's like someone trying to sell you a Ford Escape for $1.5M, and instead of asking why the hell it's so expensive, you just try to find ways to raise the money.

Yes, thank you
---