253 Economists in Support of S. 1129 a Medicare for All Health Care System

abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
You posted this argument in another thread with another topic for some reason and I'm not sure why, since you started this thread for this topic, so I'll just assume you meant to post it here and I'll go ahead and respond to it here.
Padawanbater2 said:
You're wrong on the issue of universal healthcare.
Click to expand...
OK, I'll wait for your argument. Your previous arguments have fallen completely flat. You have failed utterly to prove me wrong, but we'll see what argument you have to offer since you refuse to respond on your own thread where I destroyed your bullshit.
Padawanbater2 said:
We've had the arguments, you don't believe the evidence, even though out of 11 OECD countries, the US healthcare system bottoms the list in regards to quality of care and cost. You're arguing against a cheaper system that has been proven to work better in 10 different countries than the private insurance system we have in the US because, you're a middle class American who, for whatever reason(s), has bought into the propaganda that it will be more expensive than what we pay now to provide and your taxes will become unfeasibly high for you.

Why continue to engage about this when you don't have the evidence to back up your position?
Click to expand...
So this is your argument...

Let's see, you failed to address how Bernie's plan only includes half of the cost. I guess we'll have to choose between massive debt and massive tax hikes to pay for the remaining 17 trillion dollars of the cost over that first decade. Well, you tried, but yeah -- failed. You said it was propaganda that I bought into. So I'll just remind you that I got that info directly from Bernie's braindead healthcare bill. He estimates the cost at 32.6 trillion dollars for the first ten years. He lists a bunch of great ideas to tax the wealthy but we've added those up. They pay for almost half of his bill.

So your argument here is basically that I will save money overall by having to pay extra taxes (just for the healthcare portion of Bernie's absurd 97 trillion dollar economic agenda) in exchange for comprehensive medicare coverage that is so much more than I need.

Your evidence for this claim?

Oh right, nothing. You aren't even citing his bill, I'm the one doing that. You're dumb.
 
Last edited:
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
So what we're left with is something like "those other countries can do it so why can't we?"...

I will simplify this and present pertinent facts, line by line. I invite all to verify them and call me out on any errors.

OK, I will tell you why we can't. Because of the fucking federal budget. We can't nationalize healthcare in America until healthcare costs come down, not before, as you suggest. Even if we use the lowest estimate (which is Bernie's) and not the higher estimates made by healthcare industry experts regarding the cost of Bernie's braindead bill, it would cost very close to the entire federal budget. The bill provides for federal revenue to cover half of the cost.

I have argued this before despite that you flail your arms about insisting I have not. Let's just talk numbers.

Bernie's bill includes the estimate of 32.6 Trillion dollars as the cost of his plan for the first decade.

The entire federal budget for fiscal 2019 was as follows:

expenditures = 4.4 trillion dollars

revenue = 3.4 trillion dollars

deficit = almost a trillion dollars

Now, we can see clearly that this is a budget item the US can not afford. The deficit was almost 50% higher by the end of 2019. Passing Bernie's bill as is, at this time, would increase the deficit by an additional 1.4 to 1.7 TRILLION DOLLARS. His revenue ideas are great but they only cover about half of the cost of this.

Military spending, by contrast, though it is by far the highest in the world, is a paltry (by comparison) 700 billion dollars annually, less than a quarter of the cost of Bernie's healthcare bill.

Repealing Trump's tax cuts to the rich would not even eliminate the deficit.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
So what we're left with is something like "those other countries can do it so why can't we?"...

I will simplify this and present pertinent facts, line by line. I invite all to verify them and call me out on any errors.

OK, I will tell you why we can't. Because of the fucking federal budget. We can't nationalize healthcare in America until healthcare costs come down, not before, as you suggest. Even if we use the lowest estimate (which is Bernie's) and not the higher estimates made by healthcare industry experts regarding the cost of Bernie's braindead bill, it would cost very close to the entire federal budget. The bill provides for federal revenue to cover half of the cost.

I have argued this before despite that you flail your arms about insisting I have not. Let's just talk numbers.

Bernie's bill includes the estimate of 32.6 Trillion dollars as the cost of his plan for the first decade.

The entire federal budget for fiscal 2019 was as follows:

expenditures = 4.4 trillion dollars

revenue = 3.4 trillion dollars

deficit = almost a trillion dollars

Now, we can see clearly that this is a budget item the US can not afford. The deficit was almost 50% higher by the end of 2019. Passing Bernie's bill as is, at this time, would increase the deficit by an additional 1.4 to 1.7 TRILLION DOLLARS. His revenue ideas are great but they only cover about half of the cost of this.

Military spending, by contrast, though it is by far the highest in the world, is a paltry (by comparison) 700 billion dollars annually, less than a quarter of the cost of Bernie's healthcare bill.

Repealing Trump's tax cuts to the rich would not even eliminate the deficit.
Click to expand...
Not defending Bernie's brain dead bill because he HASN'T estimated how much it will cost and how it will be paid for. There are plenty of white papers out there and unofficial numbers but Bernie's bill does not contain the numbers necessary to make any claims.

The question I have regarding your talking points is the idea that paying for private coverage is not important to taxpayers while the federal budget is? What Bernie and Warren are advocating for is socializing the cost of healthcare, de-privatizing it if you will. Private companies charge 12% for administration and Medicare administration runs 2%, this simple fact translates to hundreds of billions of dollars in savings. I'm not saying no other costs can be reduced but even if there were no other reductions what difference does it make to individuals whether the money comes from private payments or taxation?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Now let's dig in a little further and fill in some of the things I left out. These are obvious to those paying attention but I'll go over it again anyway.

32.6 trillion dollars in the first decade doesn't mean 3.26 trillion dollars a year. It starts higher and goes down as costs go down. Some (@hanimmal for example) have argued costs would not actually go down and while I can't directly refute his argument, I'm not convinced of it. I will argue according to the notion that single-payer would indeed reduce healthcare costs, although I do respect his input.

Nonetheless, in my previous post, for simplification, I simply stated that the deficit would increase by 1.4 - 1.7 trillion dollars if the bill were to be passed as is, at this time. As I pointed out, and will repeat, the bill does include novel taxation on the ultra wealthy which would bring in about half of the revenue needed to pay for the bill. These ideas are fantastic and should be implemented regardless, but that's just my opinion.

What all of this means, is that the government would have to raise revenue in other ways to avoid this increase in the deficit. Since we would already be taxing the actual fuck out of the rich and sure, go ahead and tax them more if possible, tax hikes on the middle class would be inevitable. Take your time coming to acceptance of this, I'm sorry for bringing this reality to you. The only alternative is a cataclysmic deficit.

Now you tell me, when everything the government is currently spending money on is cut to near nothing and it's still not enough to pay for this and everyone is being taxed to hell, how are we going to get infrastructure? How are we going to get environmental protection? Agricultural subsidies? A safety net? Police? Schools?

Something else I left out, is the economic impact of the bill. I brought up the example of military spending in comparison to healthcare spending. When comparing these two, it is worth noting that the military creates jobs and the military industrial complex increases the GDP significantly. Bernie's bill on the other hand would have two effects on the economy that deserve mention. It would cause the loss of between 700k and a million jobs and doctors would take a pay cut.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I was going to answer this double question response with two replies but I combined them.

Fogdog said:
Not defending Bernie's brain dead bill because he HASN'T estimated how much it will cost and how it will be paid for. There are plenty of white papers out there and unofficial numbers but Bernie's bill does not contain the numbers necessary to make any claims.
Click to expand...
Bernie's healthcare bill does contain enough to inform the estimates. 32.6 trillion is the lowest estimate for the full comprehensive coverage for all which his bill does include. Warren's proposal has lower estimates because it doesn't spend so much.

We could go with the Mercatus study if you prefer. That estimate is 49 trillion dollars for the first decade.

Bernie's economic agenda goes way beyond his healthcare bill and in other proposals you can fill in the missing pieces. When you include free tuition and his version of a green new deal, it starts to become clear why he proposed a top statutory federal tax of 77%.

Fogdog said:
What Bernie and Warren are advocating for is socializing the cost of healthcare, de-privatizing it if you will. Private companies charge 12% for administration and Medicare administration runs 2%, this simple fact translates to hundreds of billions of dollars in savings. I'm not saying no other costs can be reduced but even if there were no other reductions what difference does it make to individuals whether the money comes from private payments or taxation?
Click to expand...
The choice is what matters to us. I can take a plan with deductibles and copays and manage my health by eating right and exercising. That's where 'Medicare for all who want it' comes in as a clearly superior plan moving forward. It gets everyone covered while reducing costs AND reducing private premiums.
 
Last edited:
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
I'll respond to the rest of your replies, but for brevity, the current healthcare system in America costs ~$35 trillion for the decade. Estimates for M4A are $32.6 trillion. Enacting a universal system of healthcare would save the country $2.4 trillion.

If you believe there's no way we can possibly cover the cost of enacting universal healthcare without raising taxes or increasing the deficit, why do you believe we can pay what we currently do without issue?

If we can't afford M4A, as you seem to believe, how can we afford the more costly system that's currently in place?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
WE don't afford the current system.

I afford my healthcare costs and YOU afford or fail to afford yours.

Also, I do not support the current model which leaves 27 million people uninsured.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
WE don't afford the current system.

I afford my healthcare costs and YOU afford or fail to afford yours.

Also, I do not support the current model which leaves 27 million people uninsured.
Click to expand...
I don't believe healthcare should be treated as a commodity, every single one of us is going to need it eventually, I simply don't think those who can't afford it should be left out in the cold. That's not the idea of America I have when I think about how great this country actually could be. I think healthcare is a human right. That's fine if you disagree with that, I don't think that's right, but it's your right to believe that.

But the issue you seem to have the most disagreement with is the cost of it. You don't believe we as a country can afford it. It's expensive, you're right, but what we pay now is more expensive. How can we afford what we currently pay for healthcare, but can't afford a cheaper system that covers everybody? I understand you don't support the current system, I'm not saying you do. You support "M4A who want it", but still have not addressed the issue with all the sick people signing onto that program while all the healthy people continue to buy private, overburdening the system and producing poorer results.

Choice? M4A provides more choice as every doctor within the system would accept all coverage, regardless of ability to pay
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I don't believe healthcare should be treated as a commodity, every single one of us is going to need it eventually, I simply don't think those who can't afford it should be left out in the cold. That's not the idea of America I have when I think about how great this country actually could be. I think healthcare is a human right. That's fine if you disagree with that, I don't think that's right, but it's your right to believe that.

But the issue you seem to have the most disagreement with is the cost of it. You don't believe we as a country can afford it. It's expensive, you're right, but what we pay now is more expensive. How can we afford what we currently pay for healthcare, but can't afford a cheaper system that covers everybody? I understand you don't support the current system, I'm not saying you do. You support "M4A who want it", but still have not addressed the issue with all the sick people signing onto that program while all the healthy people continue to buy private, overburdening the system and producing poorer results.

Choice? M4A provides more choice as every doctor within the system would accept all coverage, regardless of ability to pay
Click to expand...
I'm convinced you're dyslexic. You have obviously ignored 90% of my argument and distorted the other 10%.

This is why I always call you dumb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top