Gov Insurance for All

[321931]

Recently in the news, we have a future 2020 candidate proposing a solution that will alter healthcare for all: Get rid of insurance companies and have Medicare for All.

As a dentist, we have been disconnected from the medical profession; however, what happens in medicine eventually happens to dentists- maybe a few years later.

How do you guys feel about this? In our field and from the MD's, I keep in touch with, gov mandated insurance for all would literally bankrupt physicians/dentists. An oral surgeon I worked with did a complex surgery for facial reconstruction...waited 6 month... and didn't get paid for anything. Also got involved in a lawsuit over it. Patient really didn't pay anything out of pocket.

Compare this with a simple wisdom teeth surgery with a PPO.. payment is processed within 2 weeks with most insurance carriers- and everyone is done and happy.

I am curious- how would you guys react if this were to pass? Could you even pay back your loans on this? Hospitals would take more writeoffs, and paycuts would be across the board. Whats your thoughts on this?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LebronManning]

Won't happen in at least the next 50 years or so. Pharma and Insurance lobbies (2 biggest and most powerful) will never let it happen. And republicans and 30% of democrats (like the Clintons and Bidens) won't let it happen. Our conservative supreme court might have something to say about it if somehow it got past those big 2 boundaries.

Personally I think Harris cost herself the general election (if she were to make it that far) with this. Maybe it will gain momentum for her to grab the nomination, but I think that's the one issue people will re-elect Trump to avoid.

Thank God

 

[NicMouse64]

Won't happen in at least the next 50 years or so. Pharma and Insurance lobbies (2 biggest and most powerful) will never let it happen. And republicans and 30% of democrats (like the Clintons and Bidens) won't let it happen. Our conservative supreme court might have something to say about it if somehow it got past those big 2 boundaries.

Personally I think Harris cost herself the general election (if she were to make it that far) with this. Maybe it will gain momentum for her to grab the nomination, but I think that's the one issue people will re-elect Trump to avoid.

Thank God

I really doubt people are going to re-elect trump over this. People are fed up with our S*** healthcare system. They want an easy fix. This is a perceived easy fix (even though it's not). I think Medicare-for-all has a chance of picking up steam, but many doctors will not want to be a part of the system if it doesn't fix a lot of the BS and corporatization that is currently happening in our system. Doctors are already leaving hospitals for private practice or medicine all together. It will turn into a 2-tiered system. Medicare for all will become a system where the doctors who stay in the system will supervise 4-5 NP/PAs and then a private cash alternative where the bureaucratic headaches are absent. It's already happening like this at the VA.

 

[TheRealCookieMonster]

I really doubt people are going to re-elect trump over this.

Stranger things have happened...
But yeah I have a feeling any big sweeping change to healthcare insurance is unlikely to actually change much. Maybe I’m wrong but Obama care seems like a good example of an extreme liberal attempt at healthcare that was ultimately restructured to suit the insurance companies. And then even outright rejected. Just smoke in mirrors for more votes.

 

[puahate]

I feel like retainer based medicine will just be popularized. Further stratification of health outcomes and fam med docs finding a niche and sticking to it.

 

[atomi]

The problem isn’t the insurance system or lack of a single payor system.

The problem is the outrageously, seriously comically, inflated prices that hospitals charge on their chargemaster that they literally just make up, the back room deals to negotiate lower rates with certain payers, and the legal system that allows this.

The whole pro-socialism anti-socialism debate is an artificially created distraction to shift attention away from the ludicrous pricing problem that feeds the ever-increasing bloat of 7 figure executive salaries and unnecessary administrative middlemen in modern American healthcare. All of whom gloat in their roles as our bosses and can’t help themselves to blame everything cost related on the rich elitist overpaid 1%-er doctors.

 

[atomi]

[QUOTE="TheRealCookieMonster, post: 20660332, member: 710128]Obama care seems like a good example of an extreme liberal attempt at healthcare that was ultimately restructured to suit the insurance companies. And then even outright rejected. Just smoke in mirrors for more votes.[/QUOTE]

It was literally called the affordable care act, not Obamacare. And it literally made healthcare less affordable.

When something new is promised with an Orwellian name, beware. It almost certainly will produce an Orwellian result.

 

[managedcarefin]

The problem isn’t the insurance system or lack of a single payor system.

The problem is the outrageously, seriously comically, inflated prices that hospitals charge on their chargemaster that they literally just make up, the back room deals to negotiate lower rates with certain payers, and the legal system that allows this.

The whole pro-socialism anti-socialism debate is an artificially created distraction to shift attention away from the ludicrous pricing problem that feeds the ever-increasing bloat of 7 figure executive salaries and unnecessary administrative middlemen in modern American healthcare. All of whom gloat in their roles as our bosses and can’t help themselves to blame everything cost related on the rich elitist overpaid 1%-er doctors.

Basically everything in this post is true besides this part. Administrative people aren't unnecessary in any system because there will be a need for people to charge insurance whoever that is or someone to streamline the supply chain or handle any of the many support functions that make a hospital and/or healthcare system run smoothly and efficiently.

 

[atomi]

Basically everything in this post is true besides this part. Administrative people aren't unnecessary in any system because there will be a need for people to charge insurance whoever that is or someone to streamline the supply chain or handle any of the many support functions that make a hospital and/or healthcare system run smoothly and efficiently.

Some administrators are certainly needed. I applogize if I suggested that we could do away with literally every last one of them.

However this is a problem....

 

[atomi]

When my patient comes in and asks, “Doctor, how much will this treatment cost me?”

How is it acceptable that not only can I not give him an answer, I can’t even give him a ballpark?

How is it acceptable that the bill can be tens to hundreds of times higher depending on whether it gets mailed to him personally or to an insurance company?

How is it acceptable that the secret price doesn’t even really matter because it will bankrupt him if he can’t get the super-secret special discount other payors do?

How is it acceptable that supposedy educated individuals are allowed to go around proclaiming that we need “free” healthcare for all without being forced to admit that the only way to produce truly “free” healthcare is to put a gun to the head of all physicians, nurses, therapists, pharmacists, drug makers, device company employees, and administrators and force them to work without compensation?

 

[NicMouse64]

Stranger things have happened...
But yeah I have a feeling any big sweeping change to healthcare insurance is unlikely to actually change much. Maybe I’m wrong but Obama care seems like a good example of an extreme liberal attempt at healthcare that was ultimately restructured to suit the insurance companies. And then even outright rejected. Just smoke in mirrors for more votes.

obamacare wasn't that liberal. If you look at it what it did it was just a way to take away power from doctors and give it to corporations. The more I think about it, the more I think it is a radical far right conservative idea. the fact that democrats ate it up shows that the left can be just as fallible as the right (I am left leaning).

 

[TheRealCookieMonster]

obamacare wasn't that liberal. If you look at it what it did it was just a way to take away power from doctors and give it to corporations. The more I think about it, the more I think it is a radical far right conservative idea. the fact that democrats ate it up shows that the left can be just as fallible as the right (I am left leaning).

I mean that's what it became, but it didn't start that way. It wasn't accepted initially because it was too liberal. Kinda like the housing bills, it was high jacked. Start with the idea of government support of homeless or poor or uninsured. Then turn that into something it originally wasn't. Makes voters feel good and still gets the corporations what they need.

 

[wamcp]

I’m a hospitalist and politics are the number one threat to my (and yours) income.

Changing to medicare for all or something similar will slash physician compensation in all fields, not just hospitalists.

For reference, here in the US, I am making 260k base pay for 10 night shifts a month (120 work hours per month, or 27.7 hours a week averaged). Keep in mind, though, that the average work hours for the examples below exceed 40.

Look at the NHS, where attending docs make ~110k USD. (General internal medicine jobs in Consultant).

See Canada, where hospitalists are making garbage rates of ~$900 USD for a single day shift (I have made $1800-2000 for a day shift at a prior moonlighting hospitalist gig...literally more than double the Canadian). Hospitalist | Canadian Society of Hospital Medicine

Or look at Japan, where they make ~130 USD for working even MORE average hours of work a week than everyone else (Hospital doctors feeling the strain | The Japan Times).

Not to mention all these countries have higher taxes, which will also increase for us if our politicians implement similar healthcare systems.

 

[deleted480308]

obamacare wasn't that liberal. If you look at it what it did it was just a way to take away power from doctors and give it to corporations. The more I think about it, the more I think it is a radical far right conservative idea. the fact that democrats ate it up shows that the left can be just as fallible as the right (I am left leaning).

Subsidized premiums, mandated bans on prexisting exclusions and covering adult children are pretty leftist ideas

 

[NicMouse64]

Subsidized premiums, mandated bans on prexisting exclusions and covering adult children are pretty leftist ideas

It's a weird combination of leftist ideology but conservative implementation. It's a Sh**show that's for sure.

 

[321931]

I’m a hospitalist and politics are the number one threat to my (and yours) income.

Changing to medicare for all or something similar will slash physician compensation in all fields, not just hospitalists.

For reference, here in the US, I am making 260k base pay for 10 night shifts a month (120 work hours per month, or 27.7 hours a week averaged). Keep in mind, though, that the average work hours for the examples below exceed 40.

Look at the NHS, where attending docs make ~110k USD. (General internal medicine jobs in Consultant).

See Canada, where hospitalists are making garbage rates of ~$900 USD for a single day shift (I have made $1800-2000 for a day shift at a prior moonlighting hospitalist gig...literally more than double the Canadian). Hospitalist | Canadian Society of Hospital Medicine

Or look at Japan, where they make ~130 USD for working even MORE average hours of work a week than everyone else (Hospital doctors feeling the strain | The Japan Times).

Not to mention all these countries have higher taxes, which will also increase for us if our politicians implement similar healthcare systems.

That's my concern as well. How can you justify the undergraduate, the graduate school amount of time and debt...for that kind of pay? One shouldn't go into healthcare primarily for money, but those kind of numbers are terrible. On top of that 200-300k worth of debt or in some cases even more debt. If one were to calculate the hourly pay with debt repayment, you would be better off doing a normal 8-5 job.

Would rather go into the trades or work at some gov job trying to get that cush pension and not having to deal with the med/dent stresses.

That's why I posted this topic. It may not come in 2020 but I feel like there maybe a shift towards this within our generation.

If it ever shifted towards that, I would honestly probably hang up my degree and work at a 8-5 job for some gov, clock in and out and not look back.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I’m a hospitalist and politics are the number one threat to my (and yours) income.

Changing to medicare for all or something similar will slash physician compensation in all fields, not just hospitalists.

For reference, here in the US, I am making 260k base pay for 10 night shifts a month (120 work hours per month, or 27.7 hours a week averaged). Keep in mind, though, that the average work hours for the examples below exceed 40.

Look at the NHS, where attending docs make ~110k USD. (General internal medicine jobs in Consultant).

See Canada, where hospitalists are making garbage rates of ~$900 USD for a single day shift (I have made $1800-2000 for a day shift at a prior moonlighting hospitalist gig...literally more than double the Canadian). Hospitalist | Canadian Society of Hospital Medicine

Or look at Japan, where they make ~130 USD for working even MORE average hours of work a week than everyone else (Hospital doctors feeling the strain | The Japan Times).

Not to mention all these countries have higher taxes, which will also increase for us if our politicians implement similar healthcare systems.

It is worth asking though. Is 110k or 900$ a day with significantly less work hours and little to no debt that bad? I mean, some people are finishing medical school with ~300+k debt in this country, have to go on medicare due to having families and no income, etc.

 

[deleted480308]

It is worth asking though. Is 110k or 900$ a day with significantly less work hours and little to no debt that bad? I mean, some people are finishing medical school with ~300+k debt in this country, have to go on medicare due to having families and no income, etc.

Doctors with residency? Because that sounds inaccurate at face value

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Doctors with residency? Because that sounds inaccurate at face value

I'm confused what you mean. Obviously they get insurance with residency. But like a solid quarter of my school was on Medicare cuz they couldn't afford health insurance for their families.

Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile

 

[wamcp]

It is worth asking though. Is 110k or 900$ a day with significantly less work hours and little to no debt that bad? I mean, some people are finishing medical school with ~300+k debt in this country, have to go on medicare due to having families and no income, etc.

What? They don’t have less work hours as an attending at any of the countries listed. In fact they often have to work more for smaller pay compared to the US (particularly in UK and Japan).

Did you look at the Japan article? They often only get TWO full days off a month, as an attending, pulling 12 hour days, and have to also do nights. For 130k.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

What? They don’t have less work hours as an attending at any of the countries listed. In fact they often have to work more for smaller pay compared to the US (particularly in UK and Japan).

Did you look at the Japan article? They often only get TWO full days off a month, as an attending, pulling 12 hour days, and have to also do nights. For 130k.

I've been told that doctor gigs in Europe are much more 40 hour jobs.

Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile

 

[LebronManning]

Honestly medicare for all (true single payer) is not going to happen and everyone except for berntards on college campuses realizes that. Including Kamala Harris. What might happen is:

A vast expansion of medicare/medicaid to where people who are in the that middle region where they don't qualify for medicaid and they can't afford (read: choose not to afford) private health insurance will receive medicare/medicaid. This way no one will be uninsured.
Why? Because there is absolutely no way people with private insurance are going to give that up and go on the same plans the homeless folks are on. Govt. can't just abolish the private insurance market and force people to give that up. At least not with our conservative supreme court (thanks Trump).

Like you all have said, this will create a two tiered system of healthcare and that's what it is. Honestly what I said above might not even be so bad for physician salaries...uninsured people right now pay nothing...maybe at least then uncle sam will be responsible for them.

 

[wontonsoup]

Honestly medicare for all (true single payer) is not going to happen and everyone except for berntards on college campuses realizes that. Including Kamala Harris. What might happen is:

A vast expansion of medicare/medicaid to where people who are in the that middle region where they don't qualify for medicaid and they can't afford (read: choose not to afford) private health insurance will receive medicare/medicaid. This way no one will be uninsured.
Why? Because there is absolutely no way people with private insurance are going to give that up and go on the same plans the homeless folks are on. Govt. can't just abolish the private insurance market and force people to give that up. At least not with our conservative supreme court (thanks Trump).

Like you all have said, this will create a two tiered system of healthcare and that's what it is. Honestly what I said above might not even be so bad for physician salaries...uninsured people right now pay nothing...maybe at least then uncle sam will be responsible for them.

Germany has a kind of 2 tier system and is doing fine for the most part. If you have a salaried job, you are automatically enrolled in a public, non profit "sickness fund," more or less like our current system of workplace insurance except public instead of contracted to insurance companies. Anyone can opt into a private insurance plan but most people (75%) choose not to because the public plan is pretty cheap and comprehensive. Their outcomes are as good as anybodies and 100% of the population is insured.

As far as compensation, the equivalent of physicians unions negotiate prices and contracts with the government and most within the system seem to think it's fair, albeit they don't have our debt burden and their workweek is generally more sane.

 

[dpmd]

Honestly medicare for all (true single payer) is not going to happen and everyone except for berntards on college campuses realizes that. Including Kamala Harris. What might happen is:

A vast expansion of medicare/medicaid to where people who are in the that middle region where they don't qualify for medicaid and they can't afford (read: choose not to afford) private health insurance will receive medicare/medicaid. This way no one will be uninsured.
Why? Because there is absolutely no way people with private insurance are going to give that up and go on the same plans the homeless folks are on. Govt. can't just abolish the private insurance market and force people to give that up. At least not with our conservative supreme court (thanks Trump).

Like you all have said, this will create a two tiered system of healthcare and that's what it is. Honestly what I said above might not even be so bad for physician salaries...uninsured people right now pay nothing...maybe at least then uncle sam will be responsible for them.

Exactly where do you think uncle Sam will come up the money to pay for them?

 

[dpmd]

I'm confused what you mean. Obviously they get insurance with residency. But like a solid quarter of my school was on Medicare cuz they couldn't afford health insurance for their families.

Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile

Medicare is for older folks,and those that are disabled or have certain health conditions. So I guarantee a quarter of your school was not on that. Medicaid is for low income folks. Might have been that (especially in a state that expanded it) or maybe they are on subsidized plans through the exchange.

 

[LebronManning]

Exactly where do you think uncle Sam will come up the money to pay for them?

Idk. It would likely be the Dems to be the ones to do this so logically maybe cutting it from Defense or Border security lol. Maybe tax hikes.

 

[321931]

Exactly where do you think uncle Sam will come up the money to pay for them?

The millennial will be paying for the gov pensions, social security and now healthcare for the baby boomers.

I wouldn't be surprised if all these programs are scrapped when the millennial gets older due to budget/costs.

 

[wontonsoup]

Exactly where do you think uncle Sam will come up the money to pay for them?

1. Cut from existing budget, i.e. massively bloated military budget
2. Tax the bejesus out of the billionaire class (much higher income, estate, and wealth taxes at the highest brackets) and close loopholes for offshore tax havens.

There is plenty of money in the US to fund healthcare, it's just a matter of priority.

 

[deleted480308]

I'm confused what you mean. Obviously they get insurance with residency. But like a solid quarter of my school was on Medicare cuz they couldn't afford health insurance for their families.

Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile

It seemed like you were talking about debt or unemployment stopping doctors from having insurance but you meant med students....my bad

 

[NicMouse64]

1. Cut from existing budget, i.e. massively bloated military budget
2. Tax the bejesus out of the billionaire class (much higher income, estate, and wealth taxes at the highest brackets) and close loopholes for offshore tax havens.

There is plenty of money in the US to fund healthcare, it's just a matter of priority.

Fire 90% of administrators.

 

[deleted480308]

1. Cut from existing budget, i.e. massively bloated military budget
2. Tax the bejesus out of the billionaire class (much higher income, estate, and wealth taxes at the highest brackets) and close loopholes for offshore tax havens.

There is plenty of money in the US to fund healthcare, it's just a matter of priority.

But why would you think it’s appropriate to pillage the wealthy?

 

[dpmd]

Idk. It would likely be the Dems to be the ones to do this so logically maybe cutting it from Defense or Border security lol. Maybe tax hikes.

Probably tax hikes and decreasing reimbursement for Medicare and medicaid meaning your bottom line gets hit in two ways.

 

[NicMouse64]

But why would you think it’s appropriate to pillage the wealthy?

because the wealthy pillage the poor through government brib--I mean "lobbying".

 

[ndafife]

Exactly where do you think uncle Sam will come up the money to pay for them?

Stop giving Trillion dollar handouts to billionaires
Stop fighting 18 year long wars that have cost a trillion dollars
Bring military spending down to the point where instead of spending more than the next 7 highest spending countries combined, we only outspend the next 3-4 combined

 

[wontonsoup]

But why would you think it’s appropriate to pillage the wealthy?

Because there is no such thing as a billionaire who earned their fortune. Every single one exploited either their workers, the environment, or the legal system and in most cases, all three. To throw a few examples out there to make this concrete: the Koch brothers -- who have spent ungodly amounts of money lobbying to expand their wealth and keep the population in the dark -- made their money from crude oil in North America. Why should they be the only ones to enjoy the benefits of the wealth derived from these resources? Jeff Bezos has been in the news so many times lately for exploiting workers that it's almost comical at this point -- 7 people have died, dozens more injured, and working conditions in general are awful. And before its mentioned, no, his 15$/hour PR scheme is not nearly good enough. To be clear, Jeff Bezos didn't make 160 billion dollars, the people packaging and delivering Amazon orders did, and he skimmed that money off of their labor. There is no such thing as a moral billionaire.

Also, frankly, it is baffling to hear people who will never ever hold anywhere near that kind of wealth and power defend these people who have, over and over, wrecked our economy and continue to destroy our environment.

But all of this is besides the point of Medicare For All. Funding it is important, yes, but that should not really be a serious question as long as the answer is so apparent. Instead, the logistics of implementing it with the least immediate harm to the economy should be most important, i.e. how do we fire 90% of administrators and shut down insurance companies without tanking our economy in the immediate future since these industries employ massive numbers of people?

 

[puahate]

But why would you think it’s appropriate to pillage the wealthy?

Odd hill to die on.

 

[dohopeful13]

It would be entirely unfair to anyone who has to take out 300k going to med school to cut their salary in half or more. The only thing that would make it fair enough is debt forgiveness, which won’t happen. I think this would result in a lot less people going into healthcare or leaving the industry in general at a time now when the entire country would be needing more providers. (Unless tuition costs are drastically droppped) The result would seem to be the docs remaining being overtaxed on their now slashed salary and overworked. This would mean longer wait times for patients too. Not to mention it could kill innovation in the drug industry by removing profit motive. And what about the economic impact of putting 500k insurance employees out of work?


That said, I just find it hard to believe Cigna and all these giant companies would just roll over and die. They have a lot of money in this game and lobbyists own republicans and Democrats. Democrats would need 60 to get it through the Senate and she’s already gotten pushback from many in her own party. Even if they did, the Supreme Court would almost certainly strike it down with a conservative majority. The government may offer everyone healthcare but abolishing private insurance almost certainly will fail.

 

[deleted480308]

because the wealthy pillage the poor through government brib--I mean "lobbying".

Maybe some do, so stop them. Don’t use that as an excuse to be a thief yourself

 

[deleted480308]

Odd hill to die on.

Theft is theft regardless of the target’s wealth

 

[puahate]

Theft is theft regardless of the target’s wealth

Taxes arent theft lol

 

[deleted480308]

Taxes arent theft lol

They certainly are, particularly when we start talking about insanely disproportionate taxes not the fund the general govt but to literally hand to others in the form of goods/services

 

[Goro]

obamacare wasn't that liberal. If you look at it what it did it was just a way to take away power from doctors and give it to corporations. The more I think about it, the more I think it is a radical far right conservative idea. the fact that democrats ate it up shows that the left can be just as fallible as the right (I am left leaning).

Subsidized premiums, mandated bans on prexisting exclusions and covering adult children are pretty leftist ideas

It's a weird combination of leftist ideology but conservative implementation. It's a Sh**show that's for sure.

Nic is correct, the idea came from that hyper-left organization known as the Heritage Foundation and put into being originally by that socialist Mitt Romney (that's sarcasm, folks). The ACA took the Massachusetts model and expanded it to all 50 states.

But why would you think it’s appropriate to pillage the wealthy?

Because that's where the money is. And you what happens when you tax the rich? They're still rich.

They certainly are, particularly when we start talking about insanely disproportionate taxes not the fund the general govt but to literally hand to others in the form of goods/services

Like residencies?
Congress has the power to tax, which pays for civilization, and Americans both left and right happen to LIKE goods and services.

 

[Goro]

I'm amazed that this thread hasn't been dumped in the SPF yet. Good job, SDNers!!!

 

[wontonsoup]

They certainly are, particularly when we start talking about insanely disproportionate taxes not the fund the general govt but to literally hand to others in the form of goods/services

Theft is a loaded word that was appropriated by the ultra-wealthy to convince people that they should be allowed to hoard their wealth like Smaug from The Hobbit. The entire premise of capitalist enterprise is to convince someone to work to produce something for you in exchange for some amount of money, which is necessarily less than the value of whatever it is they are producing, and then take the surplus value as profit. But I bet you don't see that as theft, do you?

And the entire point of general government is to distribute certain agreed-upon goods/services -- like roads, schools, utilities, and a million other things -- in exchange for, wait for it, taxes. Frankly, it is a little absurd not to include healthcare in the category of things that should be provided by the state to the end user, like a police force or a basic education. I agree that the taxes on the ultra-wealthy are disproportionate -- a 37% top tax rate is absurdly low and the fact that our highest bracket is 500k+ is also absurd. There is no reason someone making 500k should be taxed the same rate as Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates.

 

[resiroth]

I’m a hospitalist and politics are the number one threat to my (and yours) income.

Changing to medicare for all or something similar will slash physician compensation in all fields, not just hospitalists.

For reference, here in the US, I am making 260k base pay for 10 night shifts a month (120 work hours per month, or 27.7 hours a week averaged). Keep in mind, though, that the average work hours for the examples below exceed 40.

Look at the NHS, where attending docs make ~110k USD. (General internal medicine jobs in Consultant).

See Canada, where hospitalists are making garbage rates of ~$900 USD for a single day shift (I have made $1800-2000 for a day shift at a prior moonlighting hospitalist gig...literally more than double the Canadian). Hospitalist | Canadian Society of Hospital Medicine

Or look at Japan, where they make ~130 USD for working even MORE average hours of work a week than everyone else (Hospital doctors feeling the strain | The Japan Times).

Not to mention all these countries have higher taxes, which will also increase for us if our politicians implement similar healthcare systems.

Or look at Canada, where physicians make a comparable amount (they have far lower taxes due to the way their businesses are structured).

It can be done well, not that I trust our government to pull it off at all. We have a government that can’t even remain open. A Medicare system that still legally cannot negotiate drug prices. In the face of this people think Medicare for all is the solution. Amazing.

Theft is a loaded word that was appropriated by the ultra-wealthy to convince people that they should be allowed to hoard their wealth like Smaug from The Hobbit. The entire premise of capitalist enterprise is to convince someone to work to produce something for you in exchange for some amount of money, which is necessarily less than the value of whatever it is they are producing, and then take the surplus value as profit. But I bet you don't see that as theft, do you?

And the entire point of general government is to distribute certain agreed-upon goods/services -- like roads, schools, utilities, and a million other things -- in exchange for, wait for it, taxes. Frankly, it is a little absurd not to include healthcare in the category of things that should be provided by the state to the end user, like a police force or a basic education. I agree that the taxes on the ultra-wealthy are disproportionate -- a 37% top tax rate is absurdly low and the fact that our highest bracket is 500k+ is also absurd. There is no reason someone making 500k should be taxed the same rate as Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates.

The state currently provides healthcare to 40% of Americans right now. Why are people acting like this isn’t already the case?

And if healthcare is a “right”, why not housing? Why not water? Why not food? Should the government provide free food water and housing as well?

And what level of service constitutes healthcare? Is cosmetic breast surgery after mastectomy guaranteed? How many weeks of waiting is acceptable? Should older patients not be eligible for otherwise standard procedures like it is in the UK? Are Americans going to accept rationing of drugs like the UK does?

People tend to gloss over the many European countries with health systems that are not provided to everyone for free. Like Switzerland.

I frankly don’t see America embracing such a collectivist system (with the required rationing - yes, rationing - of care).


As much hype as there has been about taxing income > 10 million at 70% it wouldn’t generate much money. Few people make that much income. You would generate about 15B a year. For reference our defense budget is about 600B to 800B a year, and Medicare currently has a budget around 600B. 15B is a drop in the bucket. I’m not opposed to it, but I also think the fact the (far) left thinks this would somehow allow for any of their expansions of government benefits is truly scary. They simply don’t know what’s going on.

 

[LebronManning]

I agree that the taxes on the ultra-wealthy are disproportionate -- a 37% top tax rate is absurdly low and the fact that our highest bracket is 500k+ is also absurd. There is no reason someone making 500k should be taxed the same rate as Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates.

Really? Why should the uber rich be taxed at a higher rate? Isn't the whole point of "rate" to balance that out. 25% of 10B is 2.5B in tax whereas 25% of 100k is 25k. Is the disparity between 2.5B and 25k not enough of a difference in their tax burden?

 

[deleted480308]

Nic is correct, the idea came from that hyper-left organization known as the Heritage Foundation and put into being originally by that socialist Mitt Romney (that's sarcasm, folks). The ACA took the Massachusetts model and expanded it to all 50 states.


Because that's where the money is. And you what happens when you tax the rich? They're still rich.


Like residencies?
Congress has the power to tax, which pays for civilization, and Americans both left and right happen to LIKE goods and services.

Romney wasn’t being a fiscal conservative with that plan, it hurt him quite a bit in the republican primaries

Doesn’t matter if they are still rich, still theft

I don’t think the govt should fund residency either

 

[deleted480308]

Theft is a loaded word that was appropriated by the ultra-wealthy to convince people that they should be allowed to hoard their wealth like Smaug from The Hobbit. The entire premise of capitalist enterprise is to convince someone to work to produce something for you in exchange for some amount of money, which is necessarily less than the value of whatever it is they are producing, and then take the surplus value as profit. But I bet you don't see that as theft, do you?

And the entire point of general government is to distribute certain agreed-upon goods/services -- like roads, schools, utilities, and a million other things -- in exchange for, wait for it, taxes. Frankly, it is a little absurd not to include healthcare in the category of things that should be provided by the state to the end user, like a police force or a basic education. I agree that the taxes on the ultra-wealthy are disproportionate -- a 37% top tax rate is absurdly low and the fact that our highest bracket is 500k+ is also absurd. There is no reason someone making 500k should be taxed the same rate as Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates.

The point of capitalism is voluntary and mutually beneficial exchanges based upon the subjective priorities of both parties, don’t strawman basic economics

There is nothing wrong with someone wanting to stockpile their money like smaug, light cigars with it or buy gold foil toilet paper.....it is their money

If income is to exist it should be a flat rate from the first dollar to the last for the general govt with no welfare (corporate or individual)

 

[puahate]

This talk will be moved to SPF soon. That's my prediction unfortunately

 

[NITRAS]

.... I agree that the taxes on the ultra-wealthy are disproportionate -- a 37% top tax rate is absurdly low and the fact that our highest bracket is 500k+ is also absurd. There is no reason someone making 500k should be taxed the same rate as Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates.

Be careful. You might easily be characterized as ultra rich by being a doctor.