2020: The Democratic Presidential Nomination Thread

[Steve of phpBB]

Are you talking about people whose employers pay 100% of their insurance? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that at all the norm here. "Salary plus benefits" just means they offer health care, not that they fully cover it.

That's a good point. I keep extrapolating from my firm's practice, where the employees pay a pittance towards their premiums, an amount that hasn't changed in at least 25 years.

I guess the most accurate answer is, "Some do and some don't, and those that do pay different amounts."

I pay $1200 a month as an employee toward health insurance for my family with my employer paying whatever it is they pay. And then co-pays and deductibles on top of that. Most people pay way more than a pittance as it stands even with employer provided health insurance...

Any idea what your actual premium is? I'd guess the firm is probably paying about half. And yeah, obviously there are copays and deductibles.

This year we gave our employees a choice between a $250 deductible plan, with basic copays, or a HRA where they have a deductible and max out-of-pocket expense of $4000, but we separately cover the first $2500. So if their costs are below $2500, they pay nothing, and if they get cancer (like that partner - it's not good), they pay no more than $1500.

[Steve of phpBB]

So the only way that $60K family is losing here is if they pay less than $200 per month with zero co-pays or out of pocket expenses.

I'm not disagreeing (I'm sure you're right) - but can you explain the math?

[mister d]

$60,000 * 0.04 = $2,400
$2,400 / 12 = $200 per month

[Steve of phpBB]

$60,000 * 0.04 = $2,400
$2,400 / 12 = $200 per month

Got it. I think the tax would actually only be half that, since the first $29K isn't taxed. So it's only $1200 per year.

If that were the only tax increase needed to fund Medicare 4 All, it'd be a no-brainer.

[mister d]

There would obviously be employer side taxes and far more punitive taxes on the higher earners. If you take that plan and assume $5K out of pocket for a family, you need to make over $150K before you see a loss. At $250K, its only a loss of $4K, and that's not even a true loss, its basically insurance against something innocuous like a birth or something far more devastating that a decade of these payments wouldn't put a dent in. To me, even before getting into the ethics of everyone receiving care without concern for payment, its a no-brainer. By the time it actual hurts in tangible dollars, you're making enough that 90+% of the country should not give the smallest of fucks about your "losses".

[BSF21]

Sanders increased tax proposals don't start anywhere near $60K.

I was referring to something earlier in the thread.

But Sanders' proposals will clearly require tax increases on people other than those making $200K per year. We went through the math a couple of weeks ago.

Forty percent of households make at least $80K. A big chunk (35%?) make at least $100K. So I think the same principle applies unless you limit your increases to the obviously rich, and then see above.

(At any rate, hasn't Sanders proposed an additional tax on all income above $30K or so to pay for M 4 All?)

To be clear, know the 29k figure is false, just like the rest of the "quotes" up there. I'm just indicating the weaponry that has been used against Sanders/Warren as progressive. It's all false. But the media doesn't care because their job is to make sure people stay tuned in and scared about any future that doesn't directly benefit them.

Sanders' own website talks about a 4 percent tax on all income above $29K. Unless they're fake sites.

Yes, an the fear mongering incorrect GOP Facebook talking point has been 52%. Which is more than 4%. 4% would be great. And fair. And have an adverse effect on my total income which I am fine with.

[mister d]

Mmmm and this of course ...

[Steve of phpBB]

There would obviously be employer side taxes and far more punitive taxes on the higher earners. If you take that plan and assume $5K out of pocket for a family, you need to make over $150K before you see a loss. At $250K, its only a loss of $4K, and that's not even a true loss, its basically insurance against something innocuous like a birth or something far more devastating that a decade of these payments wouldn't put a dent in. To me, even before getting into the ethics of everyone receiving care without concern for payment, its a no-brainer. By the time it actual hurts in tangible dollars, you're making enough that 90+% of the country should not give the smallest of fucks about your "losses".

We've been down this road before. Single payer would require a sixty percent increase in total federal spending per year - the federal government spends about $5 trillion per year now, and single payer would require another $3 trillion per year. So it would require, basically, a sixty percent increase in taxes just to keep the deficit where it is. I don't think the math works with just a 4% tax increase on regular folks and everything else being put on employers and super-high earners. If I recall correctly, imposing a 100% income tax on all income above $250K only brings in about one-eighth of the money you need (and doesn't leave any money for free tuition and child care, fighting climate change, etc.).

The ethical argument assumes that single payer, and this particular version of it, is the only option for universal coverage.

[A_B]

That's only if employers stop paying anything. SIngle payer isn't the same as Medicare for All, right? Am i just arguing semantics?

I know if my employer stops paying for my healthcare and wife and kids, it's a LOT off the top (I get a statement each year and have to put how much they pay for premiums in my tax return). So in that case, employers would be all over that version of a plan. But generally speaking, corporations aren't all over this or it would already be done.

[mister d]

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download ... nline=file

[BSF21]

There would obviously be employer side taxes and far more punitive taxes on the higher earners. If you take that plan and assume $5K out of pocket for a family, you need to make over $150K before you see a loss. At $250K, its only a loss of $4K, and that's not even a true loss, its basically insurance against something innocuous like a birth or something far more devastating that a decade of these payments wouldn't put a dent in. To me, even before getting into the ethics of everyone receiving care without concern for payment, its a no-brainer. By the time it actual hurts in tangible dollars, you're making enough that 90+% of the country should not give the smallest of fucks about your "losses".

We've been down this road before. Single payer would require a sixty percent increase in total federal spending per year - the federal government spends about $5 trillion per year now, and single payer would require another $3 trillion per year. So it would require, basically, a sixty percent increase in taxes just to keep the deficit where it is. I don't think the math works with just a 4% tax increase on regular folks and everything else being put on employers and super-high earners. If I recall correctly, imposing a 100% income tax on all income above $250K only brings in about one-eighth of the money you need (and doesn't leave any money for free tuition and child care, fighting climate change, etc.).

The ethical argument assumes that single payer, and this particular version of it, is the only option for universal coverage.

How about when some tax revenue is funneled towards healthcare and public health instead of pewpews and bombs? Does that help the math?

[Steve of phpBB]

That's only if employers stop paying anything. SIngle payer isn't the same as Medicare for All, right? Am i just arguing semantics?

I know if my employer stops paying for my healthcare and wife and kids, it's a LOT off the top (I get a statement each year and have to put how much they pay for premiums in my tax return). So in that case, employers would be all over that version of a plan. But generally speaking, corporations aren't all over this or it would already be done.

Medicare 4 All is one version of single payer. As far as I know, it's the only version of single payer that is being seriously discussed.

Under the Medicare 4 All proposal, employers would stop paying health insurance premiums for employees, because private health insurance woudl be replaced by the government plan. There would be no need for employers to pay health insurance premiums.

In an ideal world, you'd impose a tax on employers that replaces the premium liability, so employers would basically see no change in their spending, but now that money would be plowed into a much better, more efficient system that covers everyone.

The problem is, there is no good way that I'm aware of that can simply replace insurance premium payments with tax payments. Some folks are going to come out ahead, and some are going to get screwed. And the people getting screwed will be folks with political power, and they will scream very loudly.

[Steve of phpBB]

There would obviously be employer side taxes and far more punitive taxes on the higher earners. If you take that plan and assume $5K out of pocket for a family, you need to make over $150K before you see a loss. At $250K, its only a loss of $4K, and that's not even a true loss, its basically insurance against something innocuous like a birth or something far more devastating that a decade of these payments wouldn't put a dent in. To me, even before getting into the ethics of everyone receiving care without concern for payment, its a no-brainer. By the time it actual hurts in tangible dollars, you're making enough that 90+% of the country should not give the smallest of fucks about your "losses".

We've been down this road before. Single payer would require a sixty percent increase in total federal spending per year - the federal government spends about $5 trillion per year now, and single payer would require another $3 trillion per year. So it would require, basically, a sixty percent increase in taxes just to keep the deficit where it is. I don't think the math works with just a 4% tax increase on regular folks and everything else being put on employers and super-high earners. If I recall correctly, imposing a 100% income tax on all income above $250K only brings in about one-eighth of the money you need (and doesn't leave any money for free tuition and child care, fighting climate change, etc.).

The ethical argument assumes that single payer, and this particular version of it, is the only option for universal coverage.

How about when some tax revenue is funneled towards healthcare and public health instead of pewpews and bombs? Does that help the math?

It'd help a little.

You could totally eliminate the military. That would cover about 20 percent of the revenue needed for single payer.

If you totally eliminate the military *and* impose a 100% tax on income above $250K, you're about one-third of the way there.

That's the big problem. It's not that single payer is "expensive". It's that compared to all this other stuff, it is really fucking immensely expensive on a scale we usually don't think about.

But to be fair, this is just looking at the federal government spending. Overall, a switch to single payer would probably result in less overall spending on health care. And it would certainly result in better and fairer outcomes. But again, that means millions of politically powerful people getting "screwed" by the transition.

[The Sybian]

Let's just get Uncle Jeff (Bezos) to pay for all of our healthcare.

[degenerasian]

What would be the State's role in M4A?

I ask because even though 'Canadian' health care is often mentioned, it is run by the provinces using federal money. In some cases, BC and Manitoba, charge healthcare premiums.

Like what if you give Alabama healthcare money and they just pocket it?

[Steve of phpBB]

What would be the State's role in M4A?

I ask because even though 'Canadian' health care is often mentioned, it is run by the provinces using federal money. In some cases, BC and Manitoba, charge healthcare premiums.

Like what if you give Alabama healthcare money and they just pocket it?

I'm pretty sure it'd be federal, like U.S. Medicare is.

[Joe K]

What would be the State's role in M4A?

I ask because even though 'Canadian' health care is often mentioned, it is run by the provinces using federal money. In some cases, BC and Manitoba, charge healthcare premiums.

Like what if you give Alabama healthcare money and they just pocket it?

One of the more maddening political things of the last 10 years is that a bunch of Republican states rejected free money from the federal government for Medicaid expansion, solely because they wanted to hurt Obama politically. That’s literally letting people die solely to make the ACA less popular.

[Steve of phpBB]

What would be the State's role in M4A?

I ask because even though 'Canadian' health care is often mentioned, it is run by the provinces using federal money. In some cases, BC and Manitoba, charge healthcare premiums.

Like what if you give Alabama healthcare money and they just pocket it?

One of the more maddening political things of the last 10 years is that a bunch of Republican states rejected free money from the federal government for Medicaid expansion, solely because they wanted to hurt Obama politically. That’s literally letting people die solely to make the ACA less popular.

And they were able to do it because John "I just call balls and strikes" Roberts and other Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices decided that the Constitution required the expansion to be optional.

[Rush2112]

That’s literally letting people die solely to make the ACA less popular.

Make ObamaCare less popular. People hate ObamaCare but love ACA.

It's amazing how well the propaganda machine works.

[Joe K]

What would be the State's role in M4A?

I ask because even though 'Canadian' health care is often mentioned, it is run by the provinces using federal money. In some cases, BC and Manitoba, charge healthcare premiums.

Like what if you give Alabama healthcare money and they just pocket it?

One of the more maddening political things of the last 10 years is that a bunch of Republican states rejected free money from the federal government for Medicaid expansion, solely because they wanted to hurt Obama politically. That’s literally letting people die solely to make the ACA less popular.

And they were able to do it because John "I just call balls and strikes" Roberts and other Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices decided that the Constitution required the expansion to be optional.

I hope Joe Biden is prepared for the possibility that Umpire Roberts throws out the ACA altogether if he is elected. Because the Court just agreed to take up a case challenging it in 2021. Biden’s health care plan of “let’s just improve the ACA rather than doing anything drastic” could become obsolete rather quickly.

[mister d]

Oh, I think he's prepared ...

[Steve of phpBB]

What would be the State's role in M4A?

I ask because even though 'Canadian' health care is often mentioned, it is run by the provinces using federal money. In some cases, BC and Manitoba, charge healthcare premiums.

Like what if you give Alabama healthcare money and they just pocket it?

One of the more maddening political things of the last 10 years is that a bunch of Republican states rejected free money from the federal government for Medicaid expansion, solely because they wanted to hurt Obama politically. That’s literally letting people die solely to make the ACA less popular.

And they were able to do it because John "I just call balls and strikes" Roberts and other Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices decided that the Constitution required the expansion to be optional.

I hope Joe Biden is prepared for the possibility that Umpire Roberts throws out the ACA altogether if he is elected. Because the Court just agreed to take up a case challenging it in 2021. Biden’s health care plan of “let’s just improve the ACA rather than doing anything drastic” could become obsolete rather quickly.

Sure, but if the individual mandate is held unconstitutional, Congress could either just repeal it or reinstate the tax penalty that was in the bill when Roberts approved it the first time.

If he's elected, President Sanders' plan is also going to be "let's just improve the ACA rather than doing anything drastic." Because doing anything drastic won't be on the table.

[Steve of phpBB]

Oh, I think he's prepared ...

So a public option would expand health insurance coverage to 97% of the country? What a terrible idea.

[brian]

Million dollar idea -- do one of those parody T-shirts of the Warner Bros logo but have it be Bernie Bros instead (change the W to a B, etc.).

There's gotta be like bunches of those out already, right? If not, let's all pitch in some dough and get that rolling and make a million dollars.

[Johnnie]

Knock yourself out:

https://www.redbubble.com/shop/Bernie+b ... search_box

ETA:

I'm just excited we could add another mouth/asshole to The Human Centristpede since Beto is so fucking cool these days. We need a shirt with that drawing!

[Pruitt]

Knock yourself out:

https://www.redbubble.com/shop/Bernie+b ... search_box

ETA:

I'm just excited we could add another mouth/asshole to The Human Centristpede since Beto is so fucking cool these days. We need a shirt with that drawing!

Kids gotta learn - never fall in love with a politician.

[brian]

I don’t see anything like my idea. I need a graphic designer on retainer.

[brian]

I mean the logo you’re parodizing has to be pretty iconic but I think that WB is.

[rass]

If you wanna abolish ICE

BERNIE, BROTHER

[Steve of phpBB]

It just hit me how infuriating it'll be tonight hearing folks talk about which candidates "won" various states when winning states is completely fucking irrelevant in the Democratic primary.

[Steve of phpBB]

[govmentchedda]

[Joe K]

Warren was pretty obviously finished after New Hampshire but because her supporters are so concentrated among educated white people, who largely hang out around other educated white people, pretty much none of the staunch Warren backers I know realized that. There also seemed to have been a lot of denial within her campaign as her stated goal of a convention fight where she prevails is a total pipe dream (unless the real intent in staying in is to hurt Sanders without hurting her progressive brand).

[degenerasian]

Can we make t-shirts?

"I spent several hundred million and all I got was American Samoa” t-shirts.

[mister d]

So a public option would expand health insurance coverage to 97% of the country? What a terrible idea.

Given that it’s still more expensive, still leads to people avoiding preventive care, still creates medical bankruptcies and still leaves the equivalent of 2/3 of New England entirely uninsured? Agreed.

[brian]

Warren was pretty obviously finished after New Hampshire but because her supporters are so concentrated among educated white people, who largely hang out around other educated white people, pretty much none of the staunch Warren backers I know realized that. There also seemed to have been a lot of denial within her campaign as her stated goal of a convention fight where she prevails is a total pipe dream (unless the real intent in staying in is to hurt Sanders without hurting her progressive brand).

Heaven forbid those people get to choose what kind of leader might be best for everyone. (Just for posterity. I know that’s obviously not what you’re saying, just laughing at the irony of actually picking the most intelligent, best-suited person to the position. Murica!)

[mister d]

Huh huh huh purity tests huh huh huh ...

[Joe K]

She’s not going to even finish 2nd in a single state during the entire primary campaign.

[Joe K]

Electability!

[mister d]

Giff yell at him!!!