Support NeoGAF

[Hellraizah]

I love it.

Saw so many positive Bernie threads here. Almost everyone was on board for the Bern Train.

Now that the cost of free stuff comes out, people are jumping ship.

If you think free healthcare is a good idea, wait until you pay income taxes up the wazzoo and wait 15 hours at the hospital when you need to get checked. Nothing in life is free. Come to Quebec and see for yourself how bad of an idea this is.

Bernie Sanders is, by far, the worst candidate you have, even though Clinton and Trump sucks, too. Just hope that Jesse Ventura hops in the race.

 

[brainchild]

...by like $35 a paycheck for some, esspecially those who already have employers paying a large portion of the actual premium, no where near enough to offset the tax increase. Your employer isnt going to give you back what the healhplan ACTUALLY cost, only the premium you saw you were paying, which is often only a fraction of the true cost.

How much you will save completely depends on the employer. Furthermore, your employer isn't giving you anything; you will no longer be getting insurance through your employer. But more importantly, the annual tax doesn't just cover your healthcare, so it's not an apples to apples comparison.

The fact is, when you factor in all of your savings (not just the ones on your paycheck) with this progressive tax plan, you end up with a net positive; a completely different conclusion compared to viewing the tax plan in a vacuum.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

Even taking it at face value, I have no issues with it. I would be willing to pay more into taxes for streamlined health and education. The health systems in place now are nausea inducing, and frankly I'm horrified to leave my job because of not having health insurance. The options in the markets seem horribly overpriced and undervalued.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Yeah ok, I'm kind of losing interest here, mainly because we're talking about a theoretical world in which Bernie Sanders not only wins the Presidency but that the movement behind him is so strong that it forces this law through Congress. In that world, I don't know how many of your assumptions apply. I really just wanted to challenge the idea that people are going to always be misled and taken advantage of. Because you're really just basing it on your belief about people.

You still haven't refuted any of my claims about the financial ignorance of Americans. It's not some random claim that isn't true. Financial education is abysmal and the various things that many people are ignorant about exist. How can you sit here and seem to think that people are fully aware when they don't even know all the things I've mention plus they most certainly don't even have a ballpark figure of what companies are paying for their insurance? These things are true, not some hypothetical, and you haven't disputed any of it.

 

[SamVimes]

Nevermind the selfish accusations which may or may not be accurate, what are the gaffers that are balking at this planning to do in case they lose their job? What if they get some debilitating illness? Short term thinking at its finest.

 

[Ekai]

Sanders's tax increases come with healthcare built-in, right? So you wouldn't be paying separate health insurance anymore. For many people that alone could make up the difference.

This detail seems to be missed by PoliGaf. Sander's plan revolves around eliminating expenses in one manner while only making the little man pay a fraction of what they used to pay and having the insanely rich pay their fair share for once rather than just hide it in tax-havens. But sensationalist headlines/misleading graphs that dismiss the gritty details of Bernie's plan are fair easier to spread about and repeat en mass, even if they're blatant falsehoods, than spending two seconds to learn the details.

 

[MBison]

Wrong. The government established a stable environment for you to succeed. Now they are asking for help but you think you shouldn't have to.

Wrong.

With your logic, I haven't helped the government at all.

But in my lifetime, I have paid sales tax, property tax, car taxes, income taxes, state income taxes, gas taxes, and probably a dozen more taxes I haven't even thought of.

So don't tell me I HAVENT.

The US government takes in 3 trillion, that's TRILLION dollars in income taxes a year. How much is enough? What does the individual do in this situation? Like I'm taking in $100K a year but its not enough for my lifestyle. Oh yeah, I CHANGE MY LIFESTYLE so I can fit in the budget.

 

[Future]

This detail seems to be missed by PoliGaf. Sander's plan revolves around eliminating expenses in one manner while only making the little man pay a fraction of what they used to pay and having the insanely rich pay their fair share for once rather than just hide it in tax-havens. But sensationalist headlines/misleading graphs that dismiss the gritty details of Bernie's plan are fair easier to spread about and repeat en mass, even if they're blatant falsehoods, than spending two seconds to learn the details.

Most employees don't know the extent their employer pays to subsidize health care. The amount directly taken from their paychecks is a small amount compared to the total benefit package.

Unless employers automatically give raises to their employees to account for savings on their benefit package, most people won't notice much change from not having to pay for healthcare anymore. Employers are the ones that really save

 

[MBison]

You accomplished all you did because society gave you the tools, knowledge, and infrastructure to get there. Pay your share back in.

lol...

society didn't give me anything. How do you know where I came from?

 

[benjipwns]

Nevermind the selfish accusations which may or may not be accurate, what are the gaffers that are balking at this planning to do in case they lose their job? What if they get some debilitating illness? Short term thinking at its finest.

Use the public welfare system their taxes have paid for?

 

[Marty Chinn]

Most employees don't know the extent their employer pays to subsidize health care. The amount directly taken from their paychecks is a small amount compared to the total benefit package.

Unless employers automatically give raises to their employees to account for savings on their benefit package, most people won't notice much change from not having to pay for healthcare anymore. Employers are the ones that really save

But they will notice; they'll notice with the increase in taxes they pay per year. They'll take a double hit without even realizing it.

 

[Keri]

Yeah, I can't see this plan helping me, based on my current situation. According to this chart, my taxes will go up by ~$9,000 a year. Also, my employer already pays for all of my families health insurance ($0 is removed from my paycheck to cover my health insurance), so unless I'm somehow guaranteed that my employer will be forced to give me a raise after this plan is implemented, I won't see any offset in this respect. Nor will free college do me any good now, since I'll still be paying off my student loans for the next 20 years. It would be useful for my future child, but in this scenario I'm paying ~$162,000 extra in taxes over the next 18 years, to obtain their "free" college.

Also, I'm not adverse to helping others, but it's not like I'm exactly rolling in money here. I'm not sure what my families quality of life would look like, paying $750 extra a month in taxes. It would eat up our chances of saving money. If he could wipe out student loan debt for millennials, I'd have a lot more disposable cash to pay in taxes (so would a lot of us), but that's not on the table.

 

[Frozenprince]

Use the public welfare system their taxes have paid for?

Medicare is a thing these people do know that, right?

 

[HTupolev]

Is it really outlandish that employees could demand higher pay when the employers are spending less on benefits? Seems like it's already typical in special cases, i.e. independent contractors tend to make astronomically more than direct employees for the same work.

 

[Fiveshift]

What I find amazing is that I think most people here would agree the federal government is mostly beholden to special interests and generally corrupt with spending money and awarding contracts and yet many want to massively inflate that albatross with more money at the cost of reducing everyone's bottom line.

Are people expecting all that corruption and mismanagement of money to magically go away?

Whatever let's just add more ponzi schemes to join SS and Medicare.

 

[Ryouji Gunblade]

We don't necessarily need to tax much more, when we greatly overspend in military.

 

[rezuth]

I love it.

Saw so many positive Bernie threads here. Almost everyone was on board for the Bern Train.

Now that the cost of free stuff comes out, people are jumping ship.

If you think free healthcare is a good idea, wait until you pay income taxes up the wazzoo and wait 15 hours at the hospital when you need to get checked. Nothing in life is free. Come to Quebec and see for yourself how bad of an idea this is.

Bernie Sanders is, by far, the worst candidate you have, even though Clinton and Trump sucks, too. Just hope that Jesse Ventura hops in the race.

Rather wait 15 hours than go into debt cuz of one ambulance ride.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Is it really outlandish that employees could demand higher pay when the employers are spending less on benefits? Seems like it's already typical in special cases, i.e. independent contractors tend to make astronomically more than direct employees for the same work.

Yes, because most people don't see benefits as a monetary value. When they get coverage through UHC, it appears nothing has changed. They still get health care, and they still get their salary. Millions of people aren't suddenly going to push for getting more when it feels the same. You also have to understand that millions of people working regular jobs don't know the ins and outs of what a contractor makes nor that they're charging more to cover benefits.

We don't necessarily need to tax much more, when we greatly overspend in military.

It's naive to think that a decrease in military spending is going to be enough to cover the bulk of health care, not to mention the ramifications in the economy of a decrease in military spending. Cut too little, you don't get much revenue to divert elsewhere, cut to much and you're having a lot of people lose jobs while still not being able to completely cover health care.

 

[benjipwns]

What I find amazing is that I think most people here would agree the federal government is mostly beholden to special interests and generally corrupt with spending money and awarding contracts and yet many want to massively inflate that albatross with more money at the cost of reducing everyone's bottom line.

Are people expecting all that corruption and mismanagement of money to magically go away?

Whatever let's just add more ponzi schemes to join SS and Medicare.

You're ignoring the fact that there would never be fraud, waste, corruption and privacy violations in the federal government's total monopoly on health care services. Especially if tough measures were passed that disallowed it.

 

[Ryouji Gunblade]

It's naive to think that a decrease in military spending is going to be enough to cover the bulk of health care, not to mention the ramifications in the economy of a decrease in military spending. Cut too little, you don't get much revenue to divert elsewhere, cut to much and you're having a lot of people lose jobs while still not being able to completely cover health care.

I disagree. Shifting the money towards an investment in our citizen's future and health seems like a much more worthwhile pursuit, and we definitely have the money for it.

 

[Foffy]

Rather wait 15 hours than go into debt cuz of one ambulance ride.

Should have gotten two jobs to pay for the ride, you poor fuckin' sucker.

 

[Marty Chinn]

I disagree. Shifting the money towards an investment in our citizen's future and health seems like a much more worthwhile pursuit, and we definitely have the money for it.

A single payer system is expected to cost over 2 trillion dollars in the US. That chart shows just under 600 billion in military spending. I don't disagree that we shouldn't trim down military spending, but trimming down military spending is not going to cover health care and the more you trim down military spending, the more people who lose their jobs which will need to be made up elsewhere somehow.

 

[Ryouji Gunblade]

A single payer system is expected to cost over 2 trillion dollars in the US.

Can you give me a source on this? I am under the impression that a single payer system is more efficient and is less costly. Such as less paperwork and administration.

 

[benjipwns]

I disagree. Shifting the money towards an investment in our citizen's future and health seems like a much more worthwhile pursuit, and we definitely have the money for it.

Of course, if you include all federal spending your pie chart looks like this:

 

[Marty Chinn]

Can you give me a source on this? I am under the impression that a single payer system is more efficient and is less costly. Such as less paperwork and administration.

I pulled it from here:

http://decisiondata.org/news/how-much-single-payer-uhc-would-cost-usa/

 

[benjipwns]

I pulled it from here:

http://decisiondata.org/news/how-much-single-payer-uhc-would-cost-usa/

Why is he estimating single-payer costs based on the Netherlands which doesn't have single-payer but mandatory private insurance?

 

[Nivash]

I disagree. Shifting the money towards an investment in our citizen's future and health seems like a much more worthwhile pursuit, and we definitely have the money for it.

That pie chart is very misleading, discretionary spending accounts for less than one third of the federal budget. This was the total spending for 2015:

Military spending only accounts for a little over 16 %. The federal government is already spending almost twice as much as that on healthcare. Not only that: the US spends roughly 17-18 % of total GDP on healthcare while military spending just accounts for a little over 3 %. You could completely defund the military and it would still not be enough to cover more than a fraction of the cost of univrsal healthcare. And cutting healthcare costs by going universal still wouldn't be enough - countries like Germany and France are spending about 11 % of their GDP. If you want universal healthcare you need these massive tax hikes and I'm not sure if the numbers in this thread are even enough, the health plan the Sanders campaign put out earlier was unrealistic. It assumed way more savings than can be expected, so in reality the tax hikes would probably have to be even higher.

This idea that the military budget is some potentially endless source of funding is a myth that needs to die.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

I'm surprised taxes are so high given that they have Stephanie Kelton on board.

She's one of the reasons I got into mmt

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory

 

[Marty Chinn]

Why is he estimating single-payer costs based on the Netherlands which doesn't have single-payer but mandatory private insurance?

His justification is right here:

The Netherlands is actually a good baseline to use, since private companies still exist as more regulated entities alongside the government system, and it’s not likely the US will ever shut down private companies.

 

[Nivash]

Can you give me a source on this? I am under the impression that a single payer system is more efficient and is less costly. Such as less paperwork and administration.

Even if you could instantly cut the US costs by more than a third and land at 11 % of GDP like Germany and France, the cost would be just over 2 trillion. That's completely unrealistic though. You'd have to nationalise all healthcare facilities and fire millions while cutting paychecks for millions more to do that. Implementing universal healthcare to cover the current 17 % of GDP spending would actually cost close to 3,2 trillion, AKA close to what the current total federal spending is.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

That pie chart is very misleading, discretionary spending accounts for less than one third of the federal budget. This was the total spending for 2015:

Military spending only accounts for a little over 16 %. The federal government is already spending almost twice as much as that on healthcare. Not only that: the US spends roughly 17-18 % of total GDP on healthcare while military spending just accounts for a little over 3 %. You could completely defund the military and it would still not be enough to cover more than a fraction of the cost of univrsal healthcare. And cutting healthcare costs by going universal still wouldn't be enough - countries like Germany and France are spending about 11 % of their GDP. If you want universal healthcare you need these massive tax hikes and I'm not sure if the numbers in this thread are even enough, the health plan the Sanders campaign put out earlier was unrealistic. It assumed way more savings than can be expected, so in reality the tax hikes would probably have to be even higher.

This idea that the military budget is some potentially endless source of funding is a myth that needs to die.

That's a biased org.

 

[Nivash]

That's a biased org.

It's the same one Ryouji used, I thought it was fitting. It's not as if the numbers are controversial anyway, it's in the open record.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/118/2015-Estimate

 

[HarryHengst]

I make just over 80k living in LA. Another 9k a year in taxes would fucking HURT.

And sorry if it sounds selfish, but I already went through college and currently owe 55k in student loans, which I've paid down from 65 and continue to chip away at. I'm not really interested in sacrificing more of my own money right now while I try to pay off the loans so OTHER people can go to school for free. Maybe someday, but right now it feels like a slap in the face.

Yea healthcare would be nice but while mine's not amazing coverage I only pay $3500 a year currently. That's 6k I'd basically be paying in charity.

Ah, the good old 'fuck you, i got debts so you get debts too'' attitude. Its amazing how people prefer having other people go through the exact same shit they went just to prevent someone else getting a slightly better deal.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I love it.

Saw so many positive Bernie threads here. Almost everyone was on board for the Bern Train.

Now that the cost of free stuff comes out, people are jumping ship.

If you think free healthcare is a good idea, wait until you pay income taxes up the wazzoo and wait 15 hours at the hospital when you need to get checked. Nothing in life is free. Come to Quebec and see for yourself how bad of an idea this is.

Bernie Sanders is, by far, the worst candidate you have, even though Clinton and Trump sucks, too. Just hope that Jesse Ventura hops in the race.

Yeah the US system is far superior. Poor people don't go to the hospital at all and just drop dead. If you're middle class then you'll just wait until the last second and cross your fingers what you have isn't lethal. Then flip a coin to see if your insurance covers it, if not ,prepare for bankruptcy.

Vastly superior system.

 

[FyreWulff]

If you think free healthcare is a good idea, wait until you pay income taxes up the wazzoo and wait 15 hours at the hospital when you need to get checked. Nothing in life is free. Come to Quebec and see for yourself how bad of an idea this is.

Once again, someone conflates having to wait for healthcare with access to healthcare in the first place.

Plus, even THEN in the US, you can end up waiting a while. Hospitals use a triage system an if you're low priority they're going to have to wait while they treat people with more pressing concerns first.

Boo hoo, you had to wait 15 hours. Some people have to wait 10 years or never get to go in the first place.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

It's the same one Ryouji used, I thought it was fitting. It's not as if the numbers are controversial anyway, it's in the open record.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/118/2015-Estimate

Apologies. It does pan out.

 

[Ryouji Gunblade]

It's the same one Ryouji used, I thought it was fitting. It's not as if the numbers are controversial anyway, it's in the open record.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/118/2015-Estimate

Thanks for the enlightening information! I'm going to have to do some serious conversing with the guy that showed me the erroneous chart.

 

[benjipwns]

His justification is right here:

But that's not a justification at all. How can you estimate the costs of a monopolized system by comparing it to one with multiple insurance companies and private payers in competition?

 

[Marty Chinn]

But that's not a justification at all. How can you estimate the costs of a monopolized system by comparing it to one with multiple insurance companies and private payers in competition?

Because the monopolized system is going to have to fit within our current health care infrastructure which is made up between both public and private facilities and doctors. Those private entities aren't going to go away nor are the salary of doctors going to plunge. He's using it because it's the closest system that has a mixture of private companies under government guidelines with doctors that at least approach a similar pay scale. So using that as a baseline and then tacking on the unique issues that we have in our country isn't completely unreasonable. He's being generous. If you take our current system and costs and have the government pay for it, it would cost even more. He's arguing that this is going to cost less and save money than what we have now. The alternative if you throw out the Netherlands comparison is that it's going to cost even more given the current system we have in place which then still doesn't negate the point that reducing military spending is not going to suddenly cover universal health care.

 

[benjipwns]

The Netherlands does not have a single-payer system. Yet, he estimates the cost of a single-payer system using The Netherlands.

The Netherlands system is far closer to the current American one than it is to a single-payer system.

Whether or not it's plausible or achievable in the near term is irrelevant. You can't take a semi-competitive multi-payer private system and use it to estimate the potential costs of a single-payer system.

Might as well just scale Medicare up to Medicare For All, which would be about $4.7 trillion (this year alone) assuming no cost savings.

 

[iamBlkpleAsedoNt]

Hate to say this but Trumps healthcare plan that he did release is far closer to the Netherlands model than Bernie's.

 

[Buzzati]

Even if you could instantly cut the US costs by more than a third and land at 11 % of GDP like Germany and France, the cost would be just over 2 trillion. That's completely unrealistic though. You'd have to nationalise all healthcare facilities and fire millions while cutting paychecks for millions more to do that. Implementing universal healthcare to cover the current 17 % of GDP spending would actually cost close to 3,2 trillion, AKA close to what the current total federal spending is.

I don't think the firing of people would be an issue for partisan politics. Think of all the public and private CPAs, auditers, tax preparers, IRS employees, etc. that would lose their job from Cruz et all desire to remove the IRS. I haven't heard much umbrage from the right in regards to that.

 

[DragonSworne]

How much of the 3+ trillion dollars US spends on healthcare is due to elective procedures?

 

[Maxim726X]

Where do you live? I'd have to rub elbows with meth addicts and give weekly hand jobs to the property owners to find a town home costing $800 in San Jose, CA.

Cheapest I've ever found on Long Island for a basement studio 1 br/0/5 bath apartment is ~1,200 a month.

So obviously it matters a great deal where you live.

 

[Icomp]

Coming from a socialist country it's mind-boggling to see people care so little for eachother. Knowing loads of my moneys goes to help others is a comforting feeling.

I suppose living under a rock and finally seeing the light is hard to adapt to. It takes a strong willingness to change and a vision to change a whole country. Seeing as 70% of your country are mindless capitalst peons with a concept from the stone age (read, survival of the richest), I don't see it happening any time soon.

Poor "united" states.

 

[Schattenjäger]

People will die on the streets, but at least I can get that awesome TV I've been saving up for. We deserve a Trump presidency.

This hyperbole really needs to stop
It poisons the discussion

No one is dying in the streets

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

Yeah look at the crumbling roads from tax cuts being subsidized by the poor so corporations can keep more of the money dead to the economy.

Isn't the gas tax for crumbling roads? Georgia just passed an extra gas tax last year.

 

[noshten]

Lack Of Prenatal Care

Every year, nearly one million American women deliver babies without receiving adequate medical attention during pregnancy, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Researchers have shown that black women are not inherently more likely to have underlying pregnancy complications. Indeed, one national study that looked at five major common causes of maternal death and injury that collectively account for more than a quarter of all pregnancy-related deaths found that black women did not have a significantly higher prevalence than white women of those conditions—preeclampsia, eclampsia, obstetric hemorrhage, placental abruption and placenta previa. Yet black women were two to three times more likely to die than white women with the same complication.
For now, more interventions to keep women healthier even before they get pregnant, better care during and after pregnancy and better tracking of maternal deaths will be essential tools in the fight to save women from these preventable deaths.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-maternal-mortality-really-doubled-in-the-u-s/

Also American women who lack health insurance are four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications than women who have insurance. You also need to factor in those at most risk - cannot take maternity leave without risking losing their job.

 

[dabig2]

Some of the arguments in here...
"Why give more to the government for it to waste"
"It's easier to spend other people's money"
"SS+medicare are sinks and so too will other welfare programs"

America deserves 100 years of Dubya and Reagan. You guys would certainly enjoy Bush's "fiscal straitjacket" conservatism as long as he promises to cut taxes for you all. Worked out well for us in the end I guess.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Lack Of Prenatal Care

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-maternal-mortality-really-doubled-in-the-u-s/

Also American women who lack health insurance are four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications than women who have insurance. You also need to factor in those at most risk - cannot take maternity leave without risking losing their job.

America please...

If someone fired a pregnant woman where I live they'd be ripped apart in court.