Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    Yes, she's nuts. But that is the state of the modern Democratic (Socialist) Party. They have completely abandoned any form of reason in pursuit of their totalitarian utopia which would bring back feudalism - with the Democratic elite as the "lords" and the rest of us as peasants.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mccannon01 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      I think you got it nailed, blarman. Except I'd have worded your second sentence: "But that is the state of the modern Communist (Democrat) Party." Why mince words? That's their obvious goal. The Democratic elite will be the Commissars and Zampolites.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  gharkness 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    Well, considering that senior citizens already have to pay for Medicare, it'd be a helluva note if the rest of the population DIDN'T! Can't say it would surprise me, though.

    Honestly, I think they just want us to go ahead and die already. I've actually seen articles to that effect.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    my guess is that people who work would pay about 10% medical care tax (up from 2.9%), employers would pay another 15% medical care tax (up from 2.9%), and people who didnt work would get freebie care. Not going to be as cheap as obamacare, which wasnt as cheap as medical care pre-obamacare.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      "about 10% medical care tax (up from 2.9%)"
      These numbers sound roughly correct. We can roughly assume people use Medicare on the ave from age 65 to 85 and most of money paid in comes from people ages 25 to 65. The same group of people would be paying in but now also paying for ages 0 to 65. That's 65/(85-65) = 3.25 * what the program costs now. There are some savings b/c young people are healthier, but there will be some increased costs b/c Medicare payouts are lower than ave prices. Providers might have to raise prices if they lose some of these higher-paying customers.

      Indirect costs:
      - The costs of individual are socialized, so society has a legitimate reason to want to force me to abandon my unhealthful bad habits.
      - Politicians will spend time debating things like how many mamograms or colonoscopies gov't should pay for.
      - Gov't in the future might be run by attention-seeking clowns like President Trump. How many people want a critically important service they buy like healthcare run by anything associated with people like that?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        Better no government control. But trump would be a LOT better than AOC , warren, or Harris. The cost is going to be higher than it costs now, for sure. All the people on Medicaid now would not pay anything, and the question of copays would have to be addressed. People who respond to this “Medicare for everyone” are really going to want Medicaid. Maybe a VAT TAX TO HIT EVERYONE would bring in more money
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 months, 1 week ago
          "But trump would be a LOT better than AOC , warren, or Harris."
          It doesn't matter who you and I think would be good at managing your healthcare or using government surveillance without a warrant responsibly. You never know who will get that power.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 5 months, 1 week ago
            What is obvious in the last two years is that trump has little power unless the swamp approves. All he can do is stand in the way of the swamp until they succeed in getting rid of him. That’s all I expected in return for my 2016 vote. I anticipated one term for him and then a rapid March to socialism. That gives us basically two years before taxes go through the roof
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 months, 1 week ago
              The swamp thing is a post hoc stawman. None of that is real. I agree taxes will go up because the level of borrowing unsustainable and no one wants to cut spending. There will be lots of bellyaching when that happens. I hope there's not a rapid march to socialism. The risk is very high now, but things can change fast.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 5 months, 1 week ago
                This is the time to make the case against socialism on all available fronts- moral and practical. Use Venezuela as a real life example. Taxes can’t go up enough to pay for socialism
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 months, 1 week ago
                  I agree and am concerned about the long term. They have a strong argument about inequality, mostly from some people creating great wealth, having increased since WWII. They're right we were more socialist in the WWII and post-WWII times. They're right that automation is up-ending the economy, and we need gov't force if we want live to stay similar from generation to generation. They're right that return on equity has been going up and the price of unskilled labor has stayed constant. When you look at tall that, you might think it's the effect of robots taking over the human jobs, the dream of sci-fi authors. The few, the story goes, own these amazing means of production, so we need to tax them and give the money to the masses whose jobs have been displaced by automation. This all makes sense but i's wrong. Jobs aren't like meal tickets to be handed out. They happen when someone thinks hard about how to use all the latest tools, whether it's ox carts or modern robots, to help customers get what they want. It's not that there are too many people and not enough jobs. It's that way need more people, if they so desire, to get rich using those tools to solve problems.

                  My short-term (may become long-term) concern is that most politicians treat jobs and wealth as a scarce resource to be rationed rather than the result of smart people working hard to help one another in exchange for money. My long-term concern is the increased return on equity from automation will be seen as "the rich always get richer and the poor get poor, unless we have socialism."
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 5 months, 1 week ago
                    I could offer this
                    1). What really matters is how my life is going, and not how rich someone else is. Inequality is not important
                    2) it’s not like automation and robots is anything new at all. Elevators are robots, so are traffic lights and computers. But we all benefit from those things and the reduced costs and improved life they offer
                    3) inflation is a big culprit preventing us from seeing the reduced costs of automation in dollars. Keeps us from appreciating automation
                    4) world trade has exposed us to people willing to work for less. We in the USA have not competed well in this environment, resulting in the loss of jobs to Chinese workers
                    5) Obama deficit spent trillions in his 8 years which resulted in pent up inflation hidden by the federal reserve. Businesses are trying to limit price rises by cutting employment wherever possible, all the time while government is fighting the inflation it caused by raising minimum wages.
                    6). Deficit spending and inflation has taken away our ability to use prices to understand what’s really going on in the economy. I think dollar inflation has really run between 5 and 10% per year since about 1970. If so, anything that hasn’t rises in price by a factor of at least 10-15 is now actually cheaper in real terms due to efficiency improvements
                    7) robots are used only when they are cheaper per hour than people when all the costs are taken into account, and when all the advantages of each are considered
                    8). If inflation were zero, people would need to make less money to live today because of the robots and automation
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 months, 1 week ago
                      Yes. #1 is what it's all about.
                      #2 - I agree with this, but I think we may in the middle of a revolution as big as the beginning of agriculture or the industrial revolution, possibly something more than just more automation. Or maybe this is just a continuation of the industrial revolution. Regardless, socialism is not the answer.
                      #s 3, 6, and 8) - I never got why inflation matters. It's a simple matter to calculate for inflation when comparing past prices. If after adjusting for inflation whatever you sell is worth less, that's just the fact. It's not like it would suddenly be worth more if the medium of exchange were different.
                      It's a simple matter to store wealth in instruments that hold stable value (i.e. that "go up with inflation"), way more stable than a single asset like land, gold, or oil. I do not understand how money depreciating in value in a slow, predictable way causes anyone that much difficulty.
                      4) I see this as a lot like #2. Once travel became fast and inexpensive, there's no reason to think willing buyers and sellers can be kept apart on account of geography.
                      5) Deficit spending is a huge looming problem, but it did not cause inflation. There is no reason to single out President Obama. The deficit spending began during the president before him and nearly tripled when the next president came in.
                      I see successful businesses as trying to find a way to offer value that allows them to raise prices. A business model based just on low prices is questionable.
                      Minimum wages causes surplus supply of labor, i.e. unemployment. All my life the min wage has been near the price for unskilled labor, so it really hasn't had that much effect. If they raise it higher than the cost of labor, I believe it will not cause inflation but will cause other problems.
                      7) Yes. What a misguided sense of charity to have people working jobs that aren't necessary out of pity. I actually don't think that will happen. I do think people will use it as a justification for socialism.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by term2 5 months, 1 week ago
                        I think that raising minimum wage, since it is basically the rate for unskilled labor, will tend to speed up automation and use of robots, and the result of that will be higher low skilled unemployment.

                        We are about to see robots "learn" what they need to do. This will be a big thing.

                        The real problem with inflation is that it distorts the usefullness of pricing that most people instinctively rely on. I dont really know what the real inrlaion numbers are at any given point in time, given that the government lies so much, so I dont know if real prices have risen or fallen.

                        As to china, given we dont have the gold standard, we ship printed dollars over to china and then they are going to spend them back here, and we will see inflation kicking in. They arent going to just sit over there and see the US$ they are holding just losing value.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    I don’t think they are truthful. I think they mean Medicaid for all. Medicare covers only 80%, and no prescriptions. I have Medicare and I have to buy two private supplemental policies at $300 total a month plus the $130 per month for basic Medicare, and still there are prescription copays and the donut hole. Medicaid is totally free, which is what the leftists will want
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbunce 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    Vote buying less effective if the government benefits and services being promised to large groups of voters have to be paid by the same large groups of voters... even if that is where the money is... other smaller groups of voters... preferably outside the party base... is better.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by TheOriginalBadBob 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    The answer is obvious. We would all pay and the price would go up for any seniors that have any assets or income. The left has already alluded that they intend to pay for this with the money that we now use for our health insurance and out of pocket payments. That is what they mean when they say, "It is less than we are spending now."
    They just have to get around to telling you which looter scheme they are going to use.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    What she's proposing will apply as a service for anyone in the country, homeless, illegal, tourists, who won't be charged a dime, and of course those of us who will pay for it. Australia tried doing this in the mid 1970s, when I was assigned there in a joint project with the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). They quickly discovered the costs were far more than they had ever imagined, and threatened to grow beyond the government budget.

    The Australian constitution requires a balanced budget, so deficit spending isn't allowed. The Labor government had to choose between placing overnight restrictions on medical service, or instituting crippling tax increases. They chose neither, and went to Swiss bankers, trying to use that country's extreme privacy measures to sneak by the deficit spending law. They got caught and the Governor General had to disband the government and set up new elections, which the Liberal party (more like our GOP) won.

    We, unfortunately, have neither restrictions on deficit spending nor a Governor General (a unique element of British Commonwealth countries, who has only one duty: to report to the Royal head of state when a country's leadership has committed "grievous offenses" and evict the offending government). The result being, if idiot voters buy into this idea, either multi-trillion dollar deficit spending or huge tax increases. The government budget would have to double immediately (and I personally think this is a low estimate).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      The purpose of government programs is to give power to the politicians and employment for government workers. They were never supposed to deliver the promised benefits at the cost advertised. They always accomplish the former goals!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    I think, hope, pray (kidding) it's a moot question...

    I honestly believe based on recent massive political shifts since 2016, the majority of voting Americans, in particular enough intelligent and influential younger ones, will never fall for any universal/one-payer health care system again.

    All my many leftist friends and mostly left-wing cousins will. But there just aren't near enough of those to swing this country any further in the Far Left direction...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  5 months, 2 weeks ago
    I have a great idea. Probably won't catch on. When one submits a Bill (Senate or House), if it is ex-budget item existing when passed, the people voting for it should bear the cost. Does that get any support, you think?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo