Do Democrats Know How Radical Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare For All' Plan Is?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MonteRCMS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We are stuck with certain things.

Good or bad.

Like them or not.

What we CAN to is to wean ourselves off of them.

The 401(k) program is one of the weaning process things.

Totally private and with preferential tax treatment.

The IRA and more especially, the Roth IRA, is another of the weaning items.

Income redistribution is another issue.

But people can learn and be trained to wean themselves off.

Not overnight.

There are always people whose famous last words are: “Hey look at this.” as they tightrope walk across a bridge girder.
 
MonteRCMS said:
We are stuck with certain things.

Good or bad.

Like them or not.

What we CAN to is to wean ourselves off of them.

The 401(k) program is one of the weaning process things.

Totally private and with preferential tax treatment.

The IRA and more especially, the Roth IRA, is another of the weaning items.

Income redistribution is another issue.

But people can learn and be trained to wean themselves off.

Not overnight.

There are always people whose famous last words are: “Hey look at this.” as they tightrope walk across a bridge girder.
Click to expand...
We are not stuck with anything. We can change any program anytime we like. The big problem is hypocritical behavior. For one party to claim to be against big government and then support the welfare state is hypocritical.
 
The party that is supposed to be against big government DID NOT SET UP those big government institutions.

Go back to Franklin D. Roosevelt [ok and Herbert Hoover]. He was a Democrat.

But now, maybe we can get out from under those counter-productive welfare state institutions.

If you really really want to study the non-government remedies … then read Calvin Coolidge.

http://www.amityshlaes.com/book_coolidge.php
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
The party that is supposed to be against big government DID NOT SET UP those big government institutions.

Go back to Franklin D. Roosevelt [ok and Herbert Hoover]. He was a Democrat.

But now, maybe we can get out from under those counter-productive welfare state institutions.

If you really really want to study the non-government remedies … then read Calvin Coolidge.

http://www.amityshlaes.com/book_coolidge.php
Click to expand...
Ronald Reagan increased the social security tax rate, how is that demonstrating a preference for small government. The first rule when you get yourself in a hole is to stop digging.
 
MonteRCMS said:
We are stuck with certain things.
Good or bad.
Like them or not.
What we CAN to is to wean ourselves off of them.
Click to expand...
How does one “wean” themselves off of a lack of unskilled labor demand in this country (one of the root problems of the working poor)? In the name of free-trade, we’ve exported most of our decent paying, but unskilled jobs.
“Well, send them to college!”
Yeah, and because of that glut, student loan debt has exploded and the market value of a new degree largely hasn’t kept up with inflation for the last 20 years…
The 401(k) program is one of the weaning process things.
Totally private and with preferential tax treatment.
The IRA and more especially, the Roth IRA, is another of the weaning items.
Click to expand...
First and foremost, you must have disposable income in order to fund either a 401(k) or a Roth. So really, in order to “wean” them in this direction, we have to increase their income so they can actually invest.

And, BTW, it’s not “totally private” if it has preferential tax treatment. The taxes you save must be paid by someone else, so your retirement account is still somewhat socialized. As a matter of pure fact. Just FYI.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, Bill Clinton was accused of stealing from the SS fund to show he balanced the budget.

Bush declared wars which were unfunded, so the jury’s still out whether that can be considered raiding the SS fund.
 
ProVobis said:
To be fair, Bill Clinton was accused of stealing from the SS fund to show he balanced the budget.

Bush declared wars which were unfunded, so the jury’s still out whether that can be considered raiding the SS fund.
Click to expand...
The surplus of social security has always been used to hide the budget deficit. I am still at a loss to determine how I allegedly lied about the program, since I never said anything about Bush. I have been critical of Bush starting the wars and not paying for them. But I haven’t said anything about that on this thread some I am not sure I understand the other poster’s point.
 
It’s got to be a bi partison effort. Here’s a very informative article about medicare for all written by someone who " I have been researching the economics of health care for four decades. While I prefer a more comprehensive universal health care plan that covers all Americans, a simpler version would be much more affordable – and maybe even politically possible."

theconversation.com

‘Medicare for all’ could be cheaper than you think

Bernie Sanders’ single-payer health care plan is bound to be expensive and politically impossible. A simple expansion of Medicare offers a cheaper and more passable path to universal care.
theconversation.com theconversation.com

and this one about republicans for single payor.
https://www.healthcare-now.org/blog/doctors-orders-health-coverage-for-everyone/
 
stinkcat_14 said:
But the real question is, why do we need social security, medicare or the Galveston plan? If you believe in the constitution, freedom and limited government there is no place for any of these programs in the federal government. If you want the big government welfare state, then by all means, support these programs.
Click to expand...
I’m sure you can point to where exactly in the Constitution and its several amendments that somehow these are incompatible. You’re make a philosophical point, but don’t confuse it with a legal claim.
 
niceatheist said:
I’m sure you can point to where exactly in the Constitution and its several amendments that somehow these are incompatible. You’re make a philosophical point, but don’t confuse it with a legal claim.
Click to expand...
Obviously the supreme court has determined that social security is legal, although it has declared it legal as a welfare program, not a contractual obligation.
 
Joyful_Song said:
It’s got to be a bi partison effort. Here’s a very informative article about medicare for all written by someone who " I have been researching the economics of health care for four decades. While I prefer a more comprehensive universal health care plan that covers all Americans, a simpler version would be much more affordable – and maybe even politically possible."
Code: 
theconversation.com
‘Medicare for all’ could be cheaper than you think

Bernie Sanders’ single-payer health care plan is bound to be expensive and politically impossible. A simple expansion of Medicare offers a cheaper and more passable path to universal care.

and this one about republicans for single payor.
Click to expand...
I don’t think “Medicare for all” can possibly work without an adverse effect on care, since Medicare reimbursement is supposedly a discount from “normal” charges. Not everybody can have a “discount”.

Again, though, I guess I could be for “single payer” if it turns out like at least some of the European plans do. In some of them, “universal coverage” is akin to Medicaid in service and quality, and a person can be in the “private sector” if he wishes. He has to self-fund or pay with insurance in the latter, and doesn’t pay any penalties for doing it. He can also select his coverages. Probably it would turn out like some of the European systems, in that the private part is a lot better than the public part.

And I think everybody should pay into it, not support it with deficits or have most of the population non-contributory.
 
Last edited:
Well there are others who are working on different approaches to medicare for all.
http://www.pnhp.org/
Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. PNHP has more than 20,000 members and chapters across the United States.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
40.png
niceatheist:
I’m sure you can point to where exactly in the Constitution and its several amendments that somehow these are incompatible. You’re make a philosophical point, but don’t confuse it with a legal claim.
Click to expand...
Obviously the supreme court has determined that social security is legal, although it has declared it legal as a welfare program, not a contractual obligation.
Click to expand...
I’m not even sure what “contractual obligation” means. The fact is that after the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress’s powers to tax were greatly expanded. Now you might be right that the Founding Fathers might have found such income redistribution programs violated their notions of the Federal Government’s rightful powers, but things changed quite a bit in the intervening years.
 
niceatheist said:
I’m not even sure what “contractual obligation” means. The fact is that after the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress’s powers to tax were greatly expanded. Now you might be right that the Founding Fathers might have found such income redistribution programs violated their notions of the Federal Government’s rightful powers, but things changed quite a bit in the intervening years.
Click to expand...
I agree that things have changed quite a bit.

But you know, I’m pretty confident that if “Medicare for all” (which probably really means “Medicaid for most, private insurance for some”) was taxed in the same manner as is Medicare, i.e. taxes on all wages, it wouldn’t stand a chance of passage. Tell people their Medicare tax is going to double or treble, and the resulting howl would be loud enough to cause the capitol dome to collapse. It’s one thing to vote yourself a benefit at someone else’s expense. It’s quite another to vote to pay for it yourself.
 
One thing to keep in mind. It’s not a matter of either/or as far as private coverage goes. There is Medicare Supplement insurance which isn’t doing too badly, given that the government has already negotiated the prices before they do, generally much lower.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top