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

abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
@Padawanbater2

OK, that version was too hard for you, I'll try to simplify all the steps even more and put them all in one post, since it is so hard for you and you came up with this joke, "The federal budget can't afford it without +.24 trillion more revenue (give or take) per year".

Step one: current costs of healthcare which the government does not pay and therefore is not federal spending and therefore has no effect on taxes: 35 trillion. I'll agree to your number even though it has nothing to do with taxes since I agree the current system is fucked.

Step two: Bernie's bill costs 32.6 trillion. So yes, healthcare costs would begin to come down.

Step three: Taxpayers still have to fund 32.6 trillion dollars in addition to the current federal expenditures since we're adding that entire amount to federal expenditures since the number in step one has nothing to do with federal expenditures.

Step four: Bernie's bill includes great ideas to stick it to the rich, we should do them whether we increase federal spending or not. However, they only cover about half of the number that we agreed on in step two.

Step five: Bernie's bill therefore, if passed as is, at this time, would increase the federal deficit by 1.4 to 1.7 trillion dollars.

See my next post for step six.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Let's simplify this even more.

Let's say there's a fat kid, we'll call him Billy.

Billy likes ice cream. He buys ice cream from Bob for about tree fiddy.

Bernie comes along and says, "hey Billy, Bob is ripping you off, I'll sell you some ice cream for $3.26" You don't have to actually pay for it though.

Bubba then taxes me to pay for your fucking ice cream.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Cheers, good night, enjoy free shit. And don't worry, nobody has to pay for it.
Click to expand...
Everybody pays for it, that's the idea. Nothing is free. The majority of us who can are willing to provide for those that can't because we know a healthy educated population is better than an unhealthy uneducated population in the long run.

You disagree. But how do you justify it?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Everybody pays for it, that's the idea. Nothing is free. The majority of us who can are willing to provide for those that can't because we know a healthy educated population is better than an unhealthy uneducated population in the long run.

You disagree. But how do you justify it?
Click to expand...
I pay very little because I am extremely healthy. My work (PADI) covers me and my clients for diving related stuff and I cover myself and since I am so healthy, it's quite cheap.

I'm willing to take on small tax hikes to get everyone covered by expanding medicare to those who want it, but I don't want it. You put words in people's mouths and tell them what they agree with while ignoring what they're saying because to you, nuance is a thing that you take pictures of with anal duct tape.

You don't disagree because you don't understand. I thought you were going to bed...
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
I pay very little because I am extremely healthy. My work (PADI) covers me and my clients for diving related stuff and I cover myself and since I am so healthy, it's quite cheap.

I'm willing to take on small tax hikes to get everyone covered by expanding medicare to those who want it, but I don't want it. You put words in people's mouths and tell them what they agree with while ignoring what they're saying because to you, nuance is a thing that you take pictures of with anal duct tape.

You don't disagree because you don't understand. I thought you were going to bed...
Click to expand...
You need to interject personal attacks because you know your position is weak

If you knew your position was strong, you wouldn't need to resort to personal attacks

If it was strong, you would let it stand on its own merits
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
I pay very little because I am extremely healthy. My work (PADI) covers me and my clients for diving related stuff and I cover myself and since I am so healthy, it's quite cheap.

I'm willing to take on small tax hikes to get everyone covered by expanding medicare to those who want it, but I don't want it. You put words in people's mouths and tell them what they agree with while ignoring what they're saying because to you, nuance is a thing that you take pictures of with anal duct tape.

You don't disagree because you don't understand. I thought you were going to bed...
Click to expand...
You pay very little because you're healthy. We are not talking about those that can pay and provide for themselves because they're healthy.

We're talking about the very weak, who cannot pay for themselves. I still see them as human beings worth dignity, regardless of their ability to pay for the healthcare they require. I would gladly, without hesitation, pay more to ensure their survival. Because it's not what's best for me, it's what's beneficial to them. If I have to pay a little bit more so that someone else can utilize healthcare without going broke, charge it. I'm willing. That's what I want my taxdollars to go towards.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
The wealthy should pay more, the poor should pay less. That's the platform I support. You think we can't afford it because you're the one who will pay for it. We can afford it if the wealthy pay their fair share.

If you disagree, you support the idea that the wealthiest Americans can't afford to have their taxes raised to support the poorest Americans obtaining healthcare
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
You need to interject personal attacks because you know your position is weak

If you knew your position was strong, you wouldn't need to resort to personal attacks

If it was strong, you would let it stand on its own merits
Click to expand...
You completely disregarded my argument by ignoring most of it and distorting the rest. I have explicated everyone of your comments AND insulted you.

You're dumb.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
The wealthy should pay more, the poor should pay less. That's the platform I support. You think we can't afford it because you're the one who will pay for it. We can afford it if the wealthy pay their fair share.

If you disagree, you support the idea that the wealthiest Americans can't afford to have their taxes raised to support the poorest Americans obtaining healthcare
Click to expand...
Oh look, a retard.

Do we need to go over the steps again slowly?

Where will the 14-17 trillion dollars come from? Please tell us where that 14-17 trillion dollars will come from Curtis.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Oh look, a retard.

Do we need to go over the steps again slowly?

Where will the 14-17 trillion dollars come from? Please tell us where that 14-17 trillion dollars will come from Curtis.
Click to expand...
You insist on the insults because you know your position is weak as fuck

If you thought your position were strong, you would rely on its strength to sell your argument

I'm not interested in helping you embarrass yourself further
 
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.

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.

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.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

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.

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.

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.
Click to expand...
Did you think we didn't notice the copy/paste the first time?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Did you think we didn't notice the copy/paste the first time?
Click to expand...
I copy pasted myself because you have been disregarding these arguments while accusing me of ad hominem. In fact I have addressed every one of your childish replies before insulting you and that is not at all ad hominem.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
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

If Bernie's healthcare plan is implemented, the deficit would be close to 3 trillion dollars in the first year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top