@Balrog99 Affordable is really simple. I could not afford healthcare before. Obamacare dropped, and then I could. See? Affordable, because I could afford it.
I seem to remember a couple of years back you saying you had fallen through the exchanges because of your income level and weren't eligible for subsidies. Did something change, or am I mistaken?? I swear it was you who had this unfortunate issue.
Yeah, that was a couple years later, when my wife lost her job. At that point, I was just stalling as long as I could before being evicted. We might have qualified for Medicaid at that point, but we didn't know that at the time. My wife's asthma medication cost $600 a month, and it was life saving stuff. If we didn't have Obamacare for two years, she might not be here. In the year between losing health insurance and my son's birth, we limped along by rationing it.
I'm glad to hear it helped you out. My point is only that it could have been more. Yes, it may be mostly the fault of Republicans but I've yet to hear an honest accounting from the Democrats on how to pay for healthcare for all. Just lies about 'keeping your doctor' and 'the rich' will pay for it somehow and 'we know we want it even though we won't read it before we pass it'.
Maybe we can discuss how to pay for this without mucking up everything in the process. I won't be interested in being charged for something I'm getting through my company. That would be double-charging me if my corporation gets to bow out for nothing (taking away my current benefit which really should be part of my salary, but isn't, and then charging me for that selfsame benefit).
I don't see how hard this is. It's just like any other government expense. In Ontario it is paid through Income Tax and the Lottery Corp. It gets budgeted like any other expense.
Canada pays roughly $6,300 per Canadian every year on health care, or about 11-12 our GDP.
This seems like a lot, but figuring the current American government wants to not only blow billions of dollars on a Wall, but also create a "Space Force" which would rival the $228 billion on health care that Canada spends, its all about prioritizing your countries money.
Why do we only ask how are we going to pay for it in context of stuff that helps us? Nobody was saying how are we going to pay for it when the GOP gave the rich a trillion dollar yearly tax cut and when they increased the military budget to near a trillion dollars. Medicare for all pays for itself by controlling currently out of control costs and profiteering. It saves money by cutting out the bloodsucking middle men. There's a reason we pay more but get less than countries with socialized medical care
@Balrog99 Oh, Obamacare could certainly have been better, but it was a solid step in the right direction. Our next step should be to improve on the improvement. Looking at how healthcare works in other countries.
Maybe we can discuss how to pay for this without mucking up everything in the process. I won't be interested in being charged for something I'm getting through my company. That would be double-charging me if my corporation gets to bow out for nothing (taking away my current benefit which really should be part of my salary, but isn't, and then charging me for that selfsame benefit).
I don't see how hard this is. It's just like any other government expense. In Ontario it is paid through Income Tax and the Lottery Corp. It gets budgeted like any other expense.
Canada pays roughly $6,300 per Canadian every year on health care, or about 11-12 our GDP.
This seems like a lot, but figuring the current American government wants to not only blow billions of dollars on a Wall, but also create a "Space Force" which would rival the $228 billion on health care that Canada spends, its all about prioritizing your countries money.
The US pays nearly 18% of our GDP on health care. So a Canada style system actually saves money. Source
If the answer is that a single-payer system would be so inefficient that it would bankrupt the strongest economy in the history of the world, then we obviously shouldn't do that. If the answer is more like, it may be more or less efficient, but the difference isn't huge and we'll muddle through the same way we muddle through now and did with super-expensive HMO plans 20 years ago and with broad union-supported plans 60 years ago, etc... well, I guess I say let's muddle through.
The answer seems clear to me. Almost any system would be more efficient than the existing US one and the difference is huge .
As with any major change to an existing near-universal system the costs of transition would be high, but the potential gains are so great the payback period would be very short - certainly less than a year if a new system were introduced immediately (though I would expect it to be phased to provide protection for those that would lose out under a new system).
Why do we only ask how are we going to pay for it in context of stuff that helps us? Nobody was saying how are we going to pay for it when the GOP gave the rich a trillion dollar yearly tax cut and when they increased the military budget to near a trillion dollars. Medicare for all pays for itself by controlling currently out of control costs and profiteering. It saves money by cutting out the bloodsucking middle men. There's a reason we pay more but get less than countries with socialized medical care
If you want to know how to socialize healthcare, have a look at the developed world. We've already done it
How does it work? If you don't mind my asking...
We already put money into Medicaire/Medicaid that we can't start using until we're 62 1/2, or are disabled. How much more are we talking about to cover from day 1?
Why do we only ask how are we going to pay for it in context of stuff that helps us? Nobody was saying how are we going to pay for it when the GOP gave the rich a trillion dollar yearly tax cut and when they increased the military budget to near a trillion dollars. Medicare for all pays for itself by controlling currently out of control costs and profiteering. It saves money by cutting out the bloodsucking middle men. There's a reason we pay more but get less than countries with socialized medical care
Why do we only ask how are we going to pay for it in context of stuff that helps us? Nobody was saying how are we going to pay for it when the GOP gave the rich a trillion dollar yearly tax cut and when they increased the military budget to near a trillion dollars. Medicare for all pays for itself by controlling currently out of control costs and profiteering. It saves money by cutting out the bloodsucking middle men. There's a reason we pay more but get less than countries with socialized medical care
Why do we only ask how are we going to pay for it in context of stuff that helps us? Nobody was saying how are we going to pay for it when the GOP gave the rich a trillion dollar yearly tax cut and when they increased the military budget to near a trillion dollars. Medicare for all pays for itself by controlling currently out of control costs and profiteering. It saves money by cutting out the bloodsucking middle men. There's a reason we pay more but get less than countries with socialized medical care
Yang is gonna surprise everyone, his popularity is exploding online rn. Not saying he's gonna win, but he's gonna surprise a lot of people and we will likely be seeing a lot more of him in years to come.
I don't know much at all about him. I suspect Bernie Sanders is going to be the nominee most likely unless somehow Biden jumps in and beats him or he croaks or chokes or something.
Yang seems very smart and has a lot of rather large new ideas. Some of them could work very well. I notice that his website says he supports a constitutional amendment to effectively "overturn" Citizens United (I don't think "overturn" is the technical term for this specific solution, but you get the idea) and also supports publicly funded elections, so he already passes my most important test. I'm hoping he has a strong idea of how specifically to "eliminate super PACs," since that's the sort of thing that would require a very big and well-designed bill that a lot of politicians would oppose.
I also notice he says his administration's officials would be forbidden not just from lobbying after they leave office (a promise also made by the Obama and Trump administrations), but would also be forbidden from returning to the private sector at all! That's another example of a rather bold proposal you don't see coming out of most politicians.
His whole website is just a treasure trove of novel, forward-thinking policy proposals, each targeting a long-running problem in our society and economy. It sounds like he's planning for the year 2040 where most folks are just thinking about 2020. I would like to see that kind of positive energy coming out of the government for once.
It's a pity we can only have one president at a time, because I like a lot of these new Democratic candidates. I feel like ten different people are offering me ice cream cones.
It's a pity we can only have one president at a time, because I like a lot of these new Democratic candidates. I feel like ten different people are offering me ice cream cones.
Isn't that jumping the gun a little. First try to find the best Democratic candidate, and then you still need to beat the other party...
Yang seems very smart and has a lot of rather large new ideas. Some of them could work very well. I notice that his website says he supports a constitutional amendment to effectively "overturn" Citizens United (I don't think "overturn" is the technical term for this specific solution, but you get the idea) and also supports publicly funded elections, so he already passes my most important test. I'm hoping he has a strong idea of how specifically to "eliminate super PACs," since that's the sort of thing that would require a very big and well-designed bill that a lot of politicians would oppose.
I also notice he says his administration's officials would be forbidden not just from lobbying after they leave office (a promise also made by the Obama and Trump administrations), but would also be forbidden from returning to the private sector at all! That's another example of a rather bold proposal you don't see coming out of most politicians.
His whole website is just a treasure trove of novel, forward-thinking policy proposals, each targeting a long-running problem in our society and economy. It sounds like he's planning for the year 2040 where most folks are just thinking about 2020. I would like to see that kind of positive energy coming out of the government for once.
It's a pity we can only have one president at a time, because I like a lot of these new Democratic candidates. I feel like ten different people are offering me ice cream cones.
Yeah, I can see both parties having to evolve around Yang's ideas in the election seasons to come. He's young, he's just arrived on the political scene, and he has a long time to gain momentum which he's already doing.
I don't know much at all about him. I suspect Bernie Sanders is going to be the nominee most likely unless somehow Biden jumps in and beats him or he croaks or chokes or something.
He's definitely the front runner of declared candidates. If Biden jumps in, I think Biden would be the new front runner.
The dynamic to watch is if Bernie can ever coalesce the support of PoC and women. If he can't, he'll be stuck at 40% of the primary electorate. 40% is plenty to win when there are 5 candidates. It's not necessarily enough if there are only two.
Also - plenty of people still blame him (justifiably or unjustifiably) for 2016. So while I think 95% of the Democrat electorate would back him in a general election (Anyone but Trump...) - there may be a lot of neverbernies in the primary.
I don't know much at all about him. I suspect Bernie Sanders is going to be the nominee most likely unless somehow Biden jumps in and beats him or he croaks or chokes or something.
He's definitely the front runner of declared candidates. If Biden jumps in, I think Biden would be the new front runner.
The dynamic to watch is if Bernie can ever coalesce the support of PoC and women. If he can't, he'll be stuck at 40% of the primary electorate. 40% is plenty to win when there are 5 candidates. It's not necessarily enough if there are only two.
Also - plenty of people still blame him (justifiably or unjustifiably) for 2016. So while I think 95% of the Democrat electorate would back him in a general election (Anyone but Trump...) - there may be a lot of neverbernies in the primary.
I pray to god Biden just stays out. I like him personally, he was a good pairing with Obama, but his past positions on myriad of issues will be flat-out disqualifiers in this primary. He is leading in polls on nothing but Vice Presidential name recognition.
I'm no expert of British politics, but I can't recall another PM who had THIS many humiliations holding on to power and not getting ousted. It seems like any of her predecessors would have been tossed overboard at least twice already:
She's in a horrible catch 22. In a sense she is the bravest public servant in the modern era, handling a job nobody wants.
I agree with this. There's a reason no one wanted to be the PM after the U.K. voted to leave. I may not like her politics a whole lot, but I respect her.
I guess tomorrow's vote will essentially decide if an extension is needed, and probably a second referendum if so (since I don't see a better brexit deal being offered, and tomorrow's vote is if they'll accept a hard brexit moving forward).
The dynamics are not going to change. The choices are a no-deal exit, another referendum, or an endless cycle of meaningless votes. In other words, the exact disaster it was always going to turn into.
Essentially May has been both humiliated and propped up by the Tory Brexiteers. They're happy to defeat her personally, but they don't want the government replaced because that might well change the political situation. They're still gambling that no-one will manage to change the existing law saying the UK leaves on the 29th March. It's possible that gamble will succeed, despite the fact there will be a clear vote against leaving without a deal tomorrow - because neither the Tories nor Labour currently show any willingness to co-operate across party lines to produce legislation acceptable to Parliament (and it was also notable again today that Corbyn did not support the idea of a second referendum).
There will be a further vote on Thursday asking MPs if they want an extension. That will give May a mandate to ask the EU for an extension, but there's no guarantee that request will be successful. There's a definite chance of domestic politics influencing that in other countries - for instance Spain could ask for further concessions about the status of Gibraltar as a condition of their agreement.
Even though there's only just over 2 weeks to go to the current deadline it's no easier to predict how things are going to go ...
This is not, by any definition, "paid leave". If you are taking a loan out of your social security that delays your retirement, then you are paying for it with your funds, thus it is in no way a paid benefit of your job. Mind you, this is the brilliant offer on the table from the party this is supposedly pro-family and pro-life. As long as the mother has to raid her retirement to take care of the baby. Republicans won't feel any shame in this proposal, but CBS damn well should for framing it as something it's not.
This is not, by any definition, "paid leave". If you are taking a loan out of your social security that delays your retirement, then you are paying for it with your funds, thus it is in no way a paid benefit of your job. Mind you, this is the brilliant offer on the table from the party this is supposedly pro-family and pro-life. As long as the mother has to raid her retirement to take care of the baby. Republicans won't feel any shame in this proposal, but CBS damn well should for framing it as something it's not.
That’s cute that you think that there will actually be social security left after all the boomers retire and die out.
If people want to know why a.) younger people aren't having more kids and b .) why we need immigrant labor to keep the economy moving, look at proposals like this that are outright hostile to the concerns of everyday people.
You don't need immigrant labor to keep the economy moving, you need it to insure low wages. Otherwise I agree. Literally no reason the American population isn't capable of performing any necessary job. If they aren't, then maybe the system is failing them and should be corrected.
Comments
I don't see how hard this is. It's just like any other government expense. In Ontario it is paid through Income Tax and the Lottery Corp. It gets budgeted like any other expense.
Canada pays roughly $6,300 per Canadian every year on health care, or about 11-12 our GDP.
This seems like a lot, but figuring the current American government wants to not only blow billions of dollars on a Wall, but also create a "Space Force" which would rival the $228 billion on health care that Canada spends, its all about prioritizing your countries money.
The US pays nearly 18% of our GDP on health care. So a Canada style system actually saves money.
Source
The answer seems clear to me. Almost any system would be more efficient than the existing US one and the difference is huge
As with any major change to an existing near-universal system the costs of transition would be high, but the potential gains are so great the payback period would be very short - certainly less than a year if a new system were introduced immediately (though I would expect it to be phased to provide protection for those that would lose out under a new system).
Speak of the devil...
Trump administration to propose $750 billion military budget next week
Why isn't anyone asking "How Are We Going to Pay For It"
Why are only things that help us subject to "how are we going to pay for it"?
This how the NHS is funded in the UK: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/how-nhs-funded
Does the 750 billion include funds given to Israel or is that a seperate bill that the American public has to pay for?
It's separate. $38 billion over 10 years.
Thank you.
On Thursday, WikiLeaks tweeted that Trump was losing the meme war to Yang.
I don't know much at all about him. I suspect Bernie Sanders is going to be the nominee most likely unless somehow Biden jumps in and beats him or he croaks or chokes or something.
I also notice he says his administration's officials would be forbidden not just from lobbying after they leave office (a promise also made by the Obama and Trump administrations), but would also be forbidden from returning to the private sector at all! That's another example of a rather bold proposal you don't see coming out of most politicians.
His whole website is just a treasure trove of novel, forward-thinking policy proposals, each targeting a long-running problem in our society and economy. It sounds like he's planning for the year 2040 where most folks are just thinking about 2020. I would like to see that kind of positive energy coming out of the government for once.
It's a pity we can only have one president at a time, because I like a lot of these new Democratic candidates. I feel like ten different people are offering me ice cream cones.
Isn't that jumping the gun a little. First try to find the best Democratic candidate, and then you still need to beat the other party...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-autograph-womans-chest/
Yeah, I can see both parties having to evolve around Yang's ideas in the election seasons to come. He's young, he's just arrived on the political scene, and he has a long time to gain momentum which he's already doing.
He's definitely the front runner of declared candidates. If Biden jumps in, I think Biden would be the new front runner.
The dynamic to watch is if Bernie can ever coalesce the support of PoC and women. If he can't, he'll be stuck at 40% of the primary electorate. 40% is plenty to win when there are 5 candidates. It's not necessarily enough if there are only two.
Also - plenty of people still blame him (justifiably or unjustifiably) for 2016. So while I think 95% of the Democrat electorate would back him in a general election (Anyone but Trump...) - there may be a lot of neverbernies in the primary.
I pray to god Biden just stays out. I like him personally, he was a good pairing with Obama, but his past positions on myriad of issues will be flat-out disqualifiers in this primary. He is leading in polls on nothing but Vice Presidential name recognition.
I agree with this. There's a reason no one wanted to be the PM after the U.K. voted to leave. I may not like her politics a whole lot, but I respect her.
I guess tomorrow's vote will essentially decide if an extension is needed, and probably a second referendum if so (since I don't see a better brexit deal being offered, and tomorrow's vote is if they'll accept a hard brexit moving forward).
There will be a further vote on Thursday asking MPs if they want an extension. That will give May a mandate to ask the EU for an extension, but there's no guarantee that request will be successful. There's a definite chance of domestic politics influencing that in other countries - for instance Spain could ask for further concessions about the status of Gibraltar as a condition of their agreement.
Even though there's only just over 2 weeks to go to the current deadline it's no easier to predict how things are going to go ...
This is not, by any definition, "paid leave". If you are taking a loan out of your social security that delays your retirement, then you are paying for it with your funds, thus it is in no way a paid benefit of your job. Mind you, this is the brilliant offer on the table from the party this is supposedly pro-family and pro-life. As long as the mother has to raid her retirement to take care of the baby. Republicans won't feel any shame in this proposal, but CBS damn well should for framing it as something it's not.
That’s cute that you think that there will actually be social security left after all the boomers retire and die out.