Medicare-for-all would require significant new spending by the federal government, but that increase would be offset by reduced private spending on healthcare. So, there would be new taxes, but businesses and individuals will be saving on insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs.
Studies by both the left and right have estimated the cost at $32 trillion over 10 years, which is slightly lower than projections for healthcare spending under the current system.
The benefits of a single-payer system would include 1) everyone is covered, 2) more services covered. And all for about the same overall cost.
Another benefit is that health insurance would no longer be tied to one's employer. This will free people to explore new career opportunities (including starting new businesses) without being chained to their current employer by health insurance. A recent study found that more than half of current employees indicated that they stayed at their current job for health insurance. Another study found that employer-sponsored health insurance system creates an "entrepreneurship lock" that keeps people from starting new businesses.
I just looked this up for grins. If you stole every dollar the top 1% make in the US, it would amount to $3900 per person/year. That's about $330/month/person and that's if you confiscate EVERY PENNY THEY MAKE FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR. Tell me again how the 1% is going to pay for this! Seriously people, I'm all ears. Again, don't lie to me and tell me it's going to be free because 'the rich' are going to pay for it. Tell me honestly how much it's going to cost me and just maybe we can work something out. The politicians on the left know it doesn't work out the way they say it will but they're buying votes. Period!
Edit: Keep in mind I'm already paying for me and my family...
Clearly no one is suggesting that ONLY the 1% pay taxes and have all their money confiscated. Though it's worth mentioning that the top marginal tax rate in the Eisenhower Administration (meaning after a certain amount, that is what was paid) was over 90%, and I don't ever hear anyone running around calling Ike the second coming of Lenin. Nor does anyone ever suggest anything is "free". I have never heard a Democratic politician talk about giving away "free" stuff. I don't know where the suggestion that they do comes from. Clearly, the fact that the party is up front about believing in higher taxes than their opposition concludes that they DON'T believe it's free, or why would they even bother to try and pay for it that way??
Oh they pretty much preach about the 'rich' paying for everything. Their higher taxes won't pay for any of this shit without the middle class paying the lion's share but they WILL not admit that. Name one time that they have.
Every time they vote against tax cuts, which is constantly. Including last year.
That's a joke right? All they ever said was tax cuts for 'the rich'. I'm sorry, but I got a tax cut too. I'm middle class. They never once admitted they voted against a tax cut for the middle class.
The corporations get to keep their tax cuts *Forever*. You, however, do not. It will go away in 2025. It's the incredible vanishing tax cut!
"Among individuals, it would help higher-income families the most. The Tax Foundation said those in the 95 to 99 percent range would receive a 2.2 percent increase in after-tax income. Those in the 20-80 percent income range would receive a 1.7 percent increase.
The Tax Policy Center broke it down a little more. Those in the lowest-earning fifth of the population would see their income increase by 0.4 percent. Those in the next-highest fifth would receive a 1.2 percent boost. The next two quintiles would see their income increase 1.6 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively. But the biggest increase, 2.9 percent, would go to those in the top-earning fifth." From here:https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968
So, the rich benefitted more than you did. The corporations benefitted most. The fact that Trump *knows* his tax-cuts didn't help the middle class is how he promised a "Middle Class Tax Cut" in the run-up to the election that he knew was nothing but swamp gas because Congess wouldn't be back until well *after* the election.
Hand counting probably would involve more than one person double-checking the same vote to make sure no unscrupulous vote counters tweaked the results, though I don't really know what it looks like in the office during the counting process. Also, each ballot should have lots of different names on it for various seats; not all of them are going to be straight party tickets. That would also make the counting process much slower.
0:38 - Was under a military dictatorship, but was during the cold war with revolutionaries trying to make the country into a new Cuba. Was not a good regime, but during the Geisel regime, the country had the highest growth in the entire world. No, dictatorship is not good, the ideal is in worst possible scenario a transitional government who will allow elections earlier as possible and porsecute the revolutionaries bu his crimes respecting human rights instead of a underground torture/execution but lets be honest, Cuba is far worse than any military dictatorship.
1:12 - No, "awful words" was mostly used out of context.
1:32 - No, i an worrying for my life because i know that anyone can kill me with 5% of chance of punishment. And that owning 9mm is a more serious crime than blinding a man.
1:44 - No, David Duke criticized his "pro Israel" ideology and criticized Bolsonaro from marrying an mixed race woman.
2:20 - He said it against accusations of homophoby by being against pro gay material for children.
2:40 - I agree that his policies towards natives are not good. Natives should not be integrated by force.
2:48 - No, to RESEARCH on the forest with the biggest biodiversity and said that the states should have more autonomy to have his own laws becayse a centralized government can't work in completely different realities. São Paulo with the same environment law as Amazonas can't work.
3:12- His wife is 1/8 black. This words are mostly jokes.
3:45 - Yes, he should REMOVE affirmative action programs. We are a white minority country who have affirmative action to protect the majority from minority and was a Blonde, Blue Eyed princess who ended slavery here. Not mention, Zumbi dos Palmares(fugitive leader) have slaves.
4:12 - He was accused of being a rapist and responded to the insult with a insult
4:15 - Talking about how expensive is to hire woman tanks to benefits
4:41 - And the police is the most likely police in the world to DIE on work.
5:21 - Guns prevent crimes, the country was much safer before draconian mexican style gun control. Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina is experiencing reduction on criminalty, but Brazil is experiencing a rise.
5:44 - He said it because a massive corruption scandal evolving purchasing the congress to pass laws.
6:20 - Again, he was very Angry.
I an replying to this video, because the video puts almost all attacks against Bolsonaro in few minutes.
I just looked this up for grins. If you stole every dollar the top 1% make in the US, it would amount to $3900 per person/year. That's about $330/month/person and that's if you confiscate EVERY PENNY THEY MAKE FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR. Tell me again how the 1% is going to pay for this! Seriously people, I'm all ears. Again, don't lie to me and tell me it's going to be free because 'the rich' are going to pay for it. Tell me honestly how much it's going to cost me and just maybe we can work something out. The politicians on the left know it doesn't work out the way they say it will but they're buying votes. Period!
Edit: Keep in mind I'm already paying for me and my family...
@Balrog99 I really don't understand your multiple posts on this issue. The facts are so clear that the US health care system is incredibly expensive, but (for the population as a whole) produces pretty poor results. Have a look at the information on this site if you've not already done so.
The US spends twice as much on health care on average as other wealthy countries and, other than satisfying a twisted ideology, there's no benefit gained for that. For those that can afford it I agree the US provides good health care, but so do other countries. I've seen nothing to suggest a middle-class person gets a better standard of service in the US than, say, Germany - but they very, very clearly pay more for that service.
Rather than the middle classes asking who's going to pay extra taxes for a different health care system, they should be demanding the spending reductions that would be possible under a different system so that they can keep more of their hard-earned money.
I just looked this up for grins. If you stole every dollar the top 1% make in the US, it would amount to $3900 per person/year. That's about $330/month/person and that's if you confiscate EVERY PENNY THEY MAKE FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR. Tell me again how the 1% is going to pay for this! Seriously people, I'm all ears. Again, don't lie to me and tell me it's going to be free because 'the rich' are going to pay for it. Tell me honestly how much it's going to cost me and just maybe we can work something out. The politicians on the left know it doesn't work out the way they say it will but they're buying votes. Period!
Edit: Keep in mind I'm already paying for me and my family...
They are not.
Yes, taxes will go up under single payer healthcare. Flat out. Yes, the size of the government will increase. Clinton used that against Bernie Sanders in the Democrat debates, and said it would increase the size of the federal government by about 40%, which sounds about right.
HOWEVER, offsetting that, is that you will pay no healthcare expenses. No health insurance expenses.
That is the reality of single payer healthcare. It's not the "free shit" or "welfare" the Republicans love to harp on, or Democrats will try to dodge how to pay for it. They should own up to the numbers.
Numbers: Federal government is about 4 trillion dollars, Medicaid/care is about 1.2 trillion of that, or about 2.8 trillion non-healthcare. For the country, healthcare is about 3 trillion dollars, so 2.8+3 trillion gets you 5.8 out of 4 trillion. 5.8/4=1.45.
And 3 trillion can probably be pared down a little once the profit aspect is reigned in. I'd guess maybe 10% total? So 5.5/4=1.375?
It is no different than other government services such as infrastructure or military spending, it just needs to be put in a priority queue of where tax money goes.
One of the biggest problems in the U.S health system compared to everywhere else is drug prices. This is where a large part of the greater expenses comes from. Drug prices in the U.S are a few times higher then they are everywhere else.
There isn't any reason for this but corporate opportunism. The government doesn't negotiate on prices like elsewhere in the world and it should. Trump made some statements recently that indicates he may do so, which would be a huge benefit to everyone here.
Medicare-for-all would require significant new spending by the federal government, but that increase would be offset by reduced private spending on healthcare. So, there would be new taxes, but businesses and individuals will be saving on insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs.
Studies by both the left and right have estimated the cost at $32 trillion over 10 years, which is slightly lower than projections for healthcare spending under the current system.
To be fair, the more recent of those two studies suggested that it was more likely than not expenses would increase, but did outline a plausible scenario where savings occur.
Drug prices is a problem; but as I think I mentioned a few pages earlier not as big a problem as many people think.
They are substantially more expensive, but prescription drugs are not that large a % of the total health care system. I think the number is around 10%? However, hospital stays are especially expensive in the US as well. One of the factors are also much higher salaries for doctors, which is I think is partially driven by two factors:
Cost of medical school in the US
AMA controlling the number of doctors trained in the US
I just looked this up for grins. If you stole every dollar the top 1% make in the US, it would amount to $3900 per person/year. That's about $330/month/person and that's if you confiscate EVERY PENNY THEY MAKE FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR. Tell me again how the 1% is going to pay for this! Seriously people, I'm all ears. Again, don't lie to me and tell me it's going to be free because 'the rich' are going to pay for it. Tell me honestly how much it's going to cost me and just maybe we can work something out. The politicians on the left know it doesn't work out the way they say it will but they're buying votes. Period!
Edit: Keep in mind I'm already paying for me and my family...
Clearly no one is suggesting that ONLY the 1% pay taxes and have all their money confiscated. Though it's worth mentioning that the top marginal tax rate in the Eisenhower Administration (meaning after a certain amount, that is what was paid) was over 90%, and I don't ever hear anyone running around calling Ike the second coming of Lenin. Nor does anyone ever suggest anything is "free". I have never heard a Democratic politician talk about giving away "free" stuff. I don't know where the suggestion that they do comes from. Clearly, the fact that the party is up front about believing in higher taxes than their opposition concludes that they DON'T believe it's free, or why would they even bother to try and pay for it that way??
Oh they pretty much preach about the 'rich' paying for everything. Their higher taxes won't pay for any of this shit without the middle class paying the lion's share but they WILL not admit that. Name one time that they have.
Every time they vote against tax cuts, which is constantly. Including last year.
That's a joke right? All they ever said was tax cuts for 'the rich'. I'm sorry, but I got a tax cut too. I'm middle class. They never once admitted they voted against a tax cut for the middle class.
The corporations get to keep their tax cuts *Forever*. You, however, do not. It will go away in 2025. It's the incredible vanishing tax cut!
"Among individuals, it would help higher-income families the most. The Tax Foundation said those in the 95 to 99 percent range would receive a 2.2 percent increase in after-tax income. Those in the 20-80 percent income range would receive a 1.7 percent increase.
The Tax Policy Center broke it down a little more. Those in the lowest-earning fifth of the population would see their income increase by 0.4 percent. Those in the next-highest fifth would receive a 1.2 percent boost. The next two quintiles would see their income increase 1.6 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively. But the biggest increase, 2.9 percent, would go to those in the top-earning fifth." From here:https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968
So, the rich benefitted more than you did. The corporations benefitted most. The fact that Trump *knows* his tax-cuts didn't help the middle class is how he promised a "Middle Class Tax Cut" in the run-up to the election that he knew was nothing but swamp gas because Congess wouldn't be back until well *after* the election.
Regarding tax cuts, I think it also deserves to be mentioned that the tax cuts led directly for wage increases for ordinary folks. Walmart, the largest private employer in the country last I checked, raised their minimum wage to 11$ an hour after the policy took effect and cited it as the reason. Wells Fargo and others did similar things.
I also don't see why things that benefit the rich are inherently bad, especially if the lower classes are also benefitting.
And no tax bill is going to live past 2025 anyway, as by then a new administration will be writing new tax policy.
Drug prices is a problem; but as I think I mentioned a few pages earlier not as big a problem as many people think.
They are substantially more expensive, but prescription drugs are not that large a % of the total health care system. I think the number is around 10%? However, hospital stays are especially expensive in the US as well. One of the factors are also much higher salaries for doctors, which is I think is partially driven by two factors:
Cost of medical school in the US
AMA controlling the number of doctors trained in the US
A bit of background checking tells me that administration costs are about 8% of health care, so less than drug prices, but not by much, and the U.S spends around double what the average country would spend on that. Salaries for doctors and other specialists is also a little more than double.
The larger general costs in the U.S seem to reflect overspending in a number of areas rather than one major problematic area of the health system.
One of the biggest problems in the U.S health system compared to everywhere else is drug prices. This is where a large part of the greater expenses comes from. Drug prices in the U.S are a few times higher then they are everywhere else.
There isn't any reason for this but corporate opportunism. The government doesn't negotiate on prices like elsewhere in the world and it should. Trump made some statements recently that indicates he may do so, which would be a huge benefit to everyone here.
Medicare-for-all would require significant new spending by the federal government, but that increase would be offset by reduced private spending on healthcare. So, there would be new taxes, but businesses and individuals will be saving on insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs.
Studies by both the left and right have estimated the cost at $32 trillion over 10 years, which is slightly lower than projections for healthcare spending under the current system.
To be fair, the more recent of those two studies suggested that it was more likely than not expenses would increase, but did outline a plausible scenario where savings occur.
Bernie Sanders proposed Medicare-for-all. The right-wing think tank crunched the numbers, came up with $32 trillion over 10 years, which was $2 trillion lower than projected health care spending under the current system. So, they changed the test to get the answers they wanted (i.e., raise the expenses until it costs more than Bernie's plan and declare it won't work).
A bit of background checking tells me that administration costs are about 8% of health care, so less than drug prices, but not by much, and the U.S spends around double what the average country would spend on that. Salaries for doctors and other specialists is also a little more than double.
The larger general costs in the U.S seem to reflect overspending in a number of areas rather than one major problematic area of the health system.
Yes. One thing that is both interesting and very hard to measure accurately is in what ways people without insurance increase the cost, as emergency services kick in only when it has become quite serious. One interesting stat was that the US rate of hospitalization for Asthma is substantially higher than in the EU (around double I think). And Asthma is the cause for ~25% of ER visits.
Yeah, Wal-Mart raised it's wages. And then immediately shuttered 63 stores mere DAYS later, including (if I remember correctly from that time, and I do) a group a Sam's Club employees who went into work that day not even knowing their building was no longer even open. Wonder how they felt about their increased wages. AT&T also engaged in massive layoffs days after a PR blitz about the tax cuts and bonuses. They probably correctly assume everyone has forgotten about that by now. I haven't.
Point being, if a corporate giveaway that is overwhelmingly being spent on stock buybacks is going to be given credit for every piece of positive economic news, then it also has to receive the blame for all bad stories. And both these companies announced these raises and bonuses BEFORE the new law ever took effect, ostensibly meaning they could have offered them at any time prior, but choose to hold their workers as hostages until they could back up their truck directly to the bank vault.
Yeah, Wal-Mart raised it's wages. And then immediately shuttered 63 stores mere DAYS later, including (if I remember correctly from that time, and I do) a group a Sam's Club employees who went into work that day not even knowing their building was no longer even open. Wonder how they felt about their increased wages. AT&T also engaged in massive layoffs days after a PR blitz about the tax cuts and bonuses. They probably correctly assume everyone has forgotten about that by now. I haven't.
This is why I am of the opinion that the "Fight for 15" folks are incredibly short-sighted. The first thing that would happen if the minimum wage were set to $15 per hour is that at least half of the "Fight for 15" people would be out of a job. Grocery stores and fast food chains are already moving towards self-order or self-checkout lanes to minimize the number of employees they have; this trend will continue to increase as time passes. Raising the minimum wage by that amount would only accelerate this process.
Minimum wage is *NOT* designed to be the wage point at which you are trying to pay the regular monthly bills for a family of four, much less buy a house or any of the normal things families of four might do. Minimum wage is for high school students, college students who are also taking classes, people who want extra income to pad their primary income, people who for a variety of reasons cannot do the typical 5-day/40-hour week, or older people looking for a little extra income after retirement. A married couple in their late 20s or early 30s who have one child and are trying to make ends meet by holding minimum wage jobs have earned failing grades in their adulting classes.
Drug prices is a problem; but as I think I mentioned a few pages earlier not as big a problem as many people think.
They are substantially more expensive, but prescription drugs are not that large a % of the total health care system. I think the number is around 10%? However, hospital stays are especially expensive in the US as well. One of the factors are also much higher salaries for doctors, which is I think is partially driven by two factors:
Cost of medical school in the US
AMA controlling the number of doctors trained in the US
I've heard another factor is liability insurance for doctors is ridiculously expensive as well, practically a racket, when compared to other countries and is a huge chunk of Doctors costs.
-- The tax cuts overwhelmingly went to the top 1% and corporate stock buy backs. Like 80% of the benefits.
The little savings that went to most people are practically a 'negative savings'. For most, the tax cuts are completely offset by inflation and rising gas prices and increases in the federal debt that will have to be paid later with interest.
These tax cuts for the rich are completely irresponsible.
One of the biggest problems in the U.S health system compared to everywhere else is drug prices. This is where a large part of the greater expenses comes from. Drug prices in the U.S are a few times higher then they are everywhere else.
There isn't any reason for this but corporate opportunism. The government doesn't negotiate on prices like elsewhere in the world and it should. Trump made some statements recently that indicates he may do so, which would be a huge benefit to everyone here.
Medicare-for-all would require significant new spending by the federal government, but that increase would be offset by reduced private spending on healthcare. So, there would be new taxes, but businesses and individuals will be saving on insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs.
Studies by both the left and right have estimated the cost at $32 trillion over 10 years, which is slightly lower than projections for healthcare spending under the current system.
To be fair, the more recent of those two studies suggested that it was more likely than not expenses would increase, but did outline a plausible scenario where savings occur.
To be fair, Ontario’s health care does not cover medication or prescription drugs. Those are paid out of pocket or through insurance. IIRC, drugs used during a hospital visit are covered though.
If one stays at a hospital, they can “upgrade” their room to semiprivate or private for a premium fee.
Other things, like eye exams or chiropractic services are also not covered, but can be covered through insurance.
So even though we have “free” healthcare, not everything is covered by it. Once again, it should be up to the government to decide what they should prioritize their spending on and deem what should be covered.
I’ll also note, all these are decided by the provinces but mandated by the federal government. It is possible to have 50 different Health Care plans (heck, you all probably have more than that with insurance companies), one for each State, with each state saying what is covered and not covered.
Having that discussion first can help with the “how much will it cost/can we afford it” debate.
I think I mentioned prior that a Blue State (Say Vermont) needs to step up and show the rest of country that a single payer system for health care can work. That is what happened in Canada with Saskatchewan and Tommy Douglas.
North Korea is continuing work at 16 different ballistic missile sites in scattered areas. Apparently a Pentagon program to monitor these sites has been stalled for months due to bureaucratic issues.
@Mathsorcerer That makes zero sense. If a job isn't expected to allow you to survive, what is the point of having a job? For that matter, if you aren't "supposed" to be able to pay bills with one (seriously, whta is the reasoning behind that?) How exactly is someone supposed to pay for an education on a job that isn't meant to be survived off of, let alone pay for prohibitively expensive schooling?
Sinema wins in Arizona. Now no matter what happens in Florida in the recount, Democrats still are within striking distance in 2020 to possibility take that chamber. I would place very long odds on Corey Gardner surviving in Colorado in 2 years, meaning Democrats simply need to make a couple of pick-ups. They aren't immediately obvious, but they will have no shortage of defending Republicans to target. If Heitkamp sealed her fate for voting against Kavanaugh, it's highly possible Susan Collins of Maine sealed her's for voting for him.
Yeah, Wal-Mart raised it's wages. And then immediately shuttered 63 stores mere DAYS later, including (if I remember correctly from that time, and I do) a group a Sam's Club employees who went into work that day not even knowing their building was no longer even open. Wonder how they felt about their increased wages. AT&T also engaged in massive layoffs days after a PR blitz about the tax cuts and bonuses. They probably correctly assume everyone has forgotten about that by now. I haven't.
Wal Mart closed stores due to tax cuts? lol what.
Unless they did so, I fail to see the relationship between it and the tax policy. I imagine those stores were unprofitable or ill located.
That sounds a lot more like throwing anything remotely negative at the wall and seeing what sticks, as the media is won't to do and as they did about the policy using that very factoid when it came out, rather than anything rational about the policy itself.
One of the biggest problems in the U.S health system compared to everywhere else is drug prices. This is where a large part of the greater expenses comes from. Drug prices in the U.S are a few times higher then they are everywhere else.
There isn't any reason for this but corporate opportunism. The government doesn't negotiate on prices like elsewhere in the world and it should. Trump made some statements recently that indicates he may do so, which would be a huge benefit to everyone here.
Medicare-for-all would require significant new spending by the federal government, but that increase would be offset by reduced private spending on healthcare. So, there would be new taxes, but businesses and individuals will be saving on insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs.
Studies by both the left and right have estimated the cost at $32 trillion over 10 years, which is slightly lower than projections for healthcare spending under the current system.
To be fair, the more recent of those two studies suggested that it was more likely than not expenses would increase, but did outline a plausible scenario where savings occur.
Bernie Sanders proposed Medicare-for-all. The right-wing think tank crunched the numbers, came up with $32 trillion over 10 years, which was $2 trillion lower than projected health care spending under the current system. So, they changed the test to get the answers they wanted (i.e., raise the expenses until it costs more than Bernie's plan and declare it won't work).
It sounds like you're saying they fabricated the data, or tried to reach a conclusion they wanted and manipulated it. Is there evidence? Wanton claims of fraud and dishonesty would certainly not be tolerated against left wing sources in this thread.
Yeah, Wal-Mart raised it's wages. And then immediately shuttered 63 stores mere DAYS later, including (if I remember correctly from that time, and I do) a group a Sam's Club employees who went into work that day not even knowing their building was no longer even open. Wonder how they felt about their increased wages. AT&T also engaged in massive layoffs days after a PR blitz about the tax cuts and bonuses. They probably correctly assume everyone has forgotten about that by now. I haven't.
Wal Mart closed stores due to tax cuts? lol what.
Unless they did so, I fail to see the relationship between it and the tax policy. I imagine those stores were unprofitable or ill located.
That sounds a lot more like throwing anything remotely negative at the wall and seeing what sticks, as the media is won't to do and as they did about the policy using that very factoid when it came out, rather than anything rational about the policy itself.
So Wal-mart just SAYING in a press relesse the tax cut is the only reason they raised wages is sufficient causation, but the news they were closing 63 stores mere days later is totally out of bounds for discussion?? Feel free to take the word of a company that used to take out life insurance policies on their own employees and purposely keeps their employeed under 32 hours a week to avoid paying them benefits.
Yeah, Wal-Mart raised it's wages. And then immediately shuttered 63 stores mere DAYS later, including (if I remember correctly from that time, and I do) a group a Sam's Club employees who went into work that day not even knowing their building was no longer even open. Wonder how they felt about their increased wages. AT&T also engaged in massive layoffs days after a PR blitz about the tax cuts and bonuses. They probably correctly assume everyone has forgotten about that by now. I haven't.
Wal Mart closed stores due to tax cuts? lol what.
Unless they did so, I fail to see the relationship between it and the tax policy. I imagine those stores were unprofitable or ill located.
That sounds a lot more like throwing anything remotely negative at the wall and seeing what sticks, as the media is won't to do and as they did about the policy using that very factoid when it came out, rather than anything rational about the policy itself.
So Wal-mart just SAYING in a press relesse the tax cut is the only reason they raised wages is sufficient causation, but the news they were closing 63 stores mere days later is totally out of bounds for discussion?? Feel free to take the word of a company that used to take out life insurance policies on their own employees and purposely keeps their employeed under 32 hours a week to avoid paying them benefits.
The 32 hour thing was purposely put in the legislation for this very reason. Otherwise, why was it put in there?
I think the more relevant detail is that the Walmart raise increases were announced before the tax cut, and therefore could not have been the result of the tax cut. It's also worth pointing out that median wages started increasing during the Obama years, much like GDP growth and the strong stock market, all of which have been falsely credited to Trump despite predating his presidency by several years.
I once said that a crackdown in Brazil was damning evidence against Bolsonaro. When @Balrog99 pointed out that it predated his election, I took back my statement, because whatever one might think about correlation vs. causation, it's impossible for an effect to come before the cause.
Comments
Studies by both the left and right have estimated the cost at $32 trillion over 10 years, which is slightly lower than projections for healthcare spending under the current system.
The benefits of a single-payer system would include 1) everyone is covered, 2) more services covered. And all for about the same overall cost.
Another benefit is that health insurance would no longer be tied to one's employer. This will free people to explore new career opportunities (including starting new businesses) without being chained to their current employer by health insurance. A recent study found that more than half of current employees indicated that they stayed at their current job for health insurance. Another study found that employer-sponsored health insurance system creates an "entrepreneurship lock" that keeps people from starting new businesses.
"Among individuals, it would help higher-income families the most. The Tax Foundation said those in the 95 to 99 percent range would receive a 2.2 percent increase in after-tax income. Those in the 20-80 percent income range would receive a 1.7 percent increase.
The Tax Policy Center broke it down a little more. Those in the lowest-earning fifth of the population would see their income increase by 0.4 percent. Those in the next-highest fifth would receive a 1.2 percent boost. The next two quintiles would see their income increase 1.6 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively. But the biggest increase, 2.9 percent, would go to those in the top-earning fifth."
From here:https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968
So, the rich benefitted more than you did. The corporations benefitted most. The fact that Trump *knows* his tax-cuts didn't help the middle class is how he promised a "Middle Class Tax Cut" in the run-up to the election that he knew was nothing but swamp gas because Congess wouldn't be back until well *after* the election.
America spends vastly more on healthcare for worse outcomes according to most of the research I've read.
0:38 - Was under a military dictatorship, but was during the cold war with revolutionaries trying to make the country into a new Cuba. Was not a good regime, but during the Geisel regime, the country had the highest growth in the entire world. No, dictatorship is not good, the ideal is in worst possible scenario a transitional government who will allow elections earlier as possible and porsecute the revolutionaries bu his crimes respecting human rights instead of a underground torture/execution but lets be honest, Cuba is far worse than any military dictatorship.
1:12 - No, "awful words" was mostly used out of context.
1:32 - No, i an worrying for my life because i know that anyone can kill me with 5% of chance of punishment. And that owning 9mm is a more serious crime than blinding a man.
1:44 - No, David Duke criticized his "pro Israel" ideology and criticized Bolsonaro from marrying an mixed race woman.
2:20 - He said it against accusations of homophoby by being against pro gay material for children.
2:40 - I agree that his policies towards natives are not good. Natives should not be integrated by force.
2:48 - No, to RESEARCH on the forest with the biggest biodiversity and said that the states should have more autonomy to have his own laws becayse a centralized government can't work in completely different realities. São Paulo with the same environment law as Amazonas can't work.
3:12- His wife is 1/8 black. This words are mostly jokes.
3:45 - Yes, he should REMOVE affirmative action programs. We are a white minority country who have affirmative action to protect the majority from minority and was a Blonde, Blue Eyed princess who ended slavery here. Not mention, Zumbi dos Palmares(fugitive leader) have slaves.
4:12 - He was accused of being a rapist and responded to the insult with a insult
4:15 - Talking about how expensive is to hire woman tanks to benefits
4:41 - And the police is the most likely police in the world to DIE on work.
5:21 - Guns prevent crimes, the country was much safer before draconian mexican style gun control. Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina is experiencing reduction on criminalty, but Brazil is experiencing a rise.
5:44 - He said it because a massive corruption scandal evolving purchasing the congress to pass laws.
6:20 - Again, he was very Angry.
I an replying to this video, because the video puts almost all attacks against Bolsonaro in few minutes.
The US spends twice as much on health care on average as other wealthy countries and, other than satisfying a twisted ideology, there's no benefit gained for that. For those that can afford it I agree the US provides good health care, but so do other countries. I've seen nothing to suggest a middle-class person gets a better standard of service in the US than, say, Germany - but they very, very clearly pay more for that service.
Rather than the middle classes asking who's going to pay extra taxes for a different health care system, they should be demanding the spending reductions that would be possible under a different system so that they can keep more of their hard-earned money.
Yes, taxes will go up under single payer healthcare. Flat out. Yes, the size of the government will increase. Clinton used that against Bernie Sanders in the Democrat debates, and said it would increase the size of the federal government by about 40%, which sounds about right.
HOWEVER, offsetting that, is that you will pay no healthcare expenses. No health insurance expenses.
That is the reality of single payer healthcare. It's not the "free shit" or "welfare" the Republicans love to harp on, or Democrats will try to dodge how to pay for it. They should own up to the numbers.
Numbers:
Federal government is about 4 trillion dollars, Medicaid/care is about 1.2 trillion of that, or about 2.8 trillion non-healthcare. For the country, healthcare is about 3 trillion dollars, so 2.8+3 trillion gets you 5.8 out of 4 trillion. 5.8/4=1.45.
And 3 trillion can probably be pared down a little once the profit aspect is reigned in. I'd guess maybe 10% total? So 5.5/4=1.375?
https://nationalpost.com/health/how-much-does-the-average-canadian-pay-for-public-health
The government will pay for it through taxes. Most of these taxes are hidden in their products such as Beer/Wine, or tobacco products. Or it is taken from our income with Premiums or through Employer Health Tax
It is no different than other government services such as infrastructure or military spending, it just needs to be put in a priority queue of where tax money goes.
There isn't any reason for this but corporate opportunism. The government doesn't negotiate on prices like elsewhere in the world and it should. Trump made some statements recently that indicates he may do so, which would be a huge benefit to everyone here.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/25/trump-says-medicare-to-negotiate-lower-drug-costs-to-end-rigged-system.html To be fair, the more recent of those two studies suggested that it was more likely than not expenses would increase, but did outline a plausible scenario where savings occur.
They are substantially more expensive, but prescription drugs are not that large a % of the total health care system. I think the number is around 10%? However, hospital stays are especially expensive in the US as well. One of the factors are also much higher salaries for doctors, which is I think is partially driven by two factors:
Regarding tax cuts, I think it also deserves to be mentioned that the tax cuts led directly for wage increases for ordinary folks. Walmart, the largest private employer in the country last I checked, raised their minimum wage to 11$ an hour after the policy took effect and cited it as the reason. Wells Fargo and others did similar things.
I also don't see why things that benefit the rich are inherently bad, especially if the lower classes are also benefitting.
And no tax bill is going to live past 2025 anyway, as by then a new administration will be writing new tax policy.
The larger general costs in the U.S seem to reflect overspending in a number of areas rather than one major problematic area of the health system.
Point being, if a corporate giveaway that is overwhelmingly being spent on stock buybacks is going to be given credit for every piece of positive economic news, then it also has to receive the blame for all bad stories. And both these companies announced these raises and bonuses BEFORE the new law ever took effect, ostensibly meaning they could have offered them at any time prior, but choose to hold their workers as hostages until they could back up their truck directly to the bank vault.
Minimum wage is *NOT* designed to be the wage point at which you are trying to pay the regular monthly bills for a family of four, much less buy a house or any of the normal things families of four might do. Minimum wage is for high school students, college students who are also taking classes, people who want extra income to pad their primary income, people who for a variety of reasons cannot do the typical 5-day/40-hour week, or older people looking for a little extra income after retirement. A married couple in their late 20s or early 30s who have one child and are trying to make ends meet by holding minimum wage jobs have earned failing grades in their adulting classes.
--
The tax cuts overwhelmingly went to the top 1% and corporate stock buy backs. Like 80% of the benefits.
The little savings that went to most people are practically a 'negative savings'. For most, the tax cuts are completely offset by inflation and rising gas prices and increases in the federal debt that will have to be paid later with interest.
These tax cuts for the rich are completely irresponsible.
If one stays at a hospital, they can “upgrade” their room to semiprivate or private for a premium fee.
Other things, like eye exams or chiropractic services are also not covered, but can be covered through insurance.
So even though we have “free” healthcare, not everything is covered by it. Once again, it should be up to the government to decide what they should prioritize their spending on and deem what should be covered.
I’ll also note, all these are decided by the provinces but mandated by the federal government. It is possible to have 50 different Health Care plans (heck, you all probably have more than that with insurance companies), one for each State, with each state saying what is covered and not covered.
Having that discussion first can help with the “how much will it cost/can we afford it” debate.
I think I mentioned prior that a Blue State (Say Vermont) needs to step up and show the rest of country that a single payer system for health care can work. That is what happened in Canada with Saskatchewan and Tommy Douglas.
That's Putin
Unless they did so, I fail to see the relationship between it and the tax policy. I imagine those stores were unprofitable or ill located.
That sounds a lot more like throwing anything remotely negative at the wall and seeing what sticks, as the media is won't to do and as they did about the policy using that very factoid when it came out, rather than anything rational about the policy itself.
I once said that a crackdown in Brazil was damning evidence against Bolsonaro. When @Balrog99 pointed out that it predated his election, I took back my statement, because whatever one might think about correlation vs. causation, it's impossible for an effect to come before the cause.
https://www.workdayminnesota.org/articles/court-slams-walmarts-use-dead-peasant-insurance
Truly a great American company and pillar of ethical practices.