I'm sure they will be in the implementation process assuming we ever get there which we almost definitely won't
But when you are discussing cost, you need to represent all the cost. The cost of healthcare overall is reduced even if the amount the government pays increases drastically.
Taxes that’s how it will be paid for that’s how everything is paid. There that question never has to be asked again.
I mean, I agree with this. It's worth breaking down all the way, not simplistically (as some are doing). Of all the policies being floated, this one is the most complex, and (IMO) the one with the highest possibility of getting fucked up in drafting and/or implementation. The issue is one that is at least 30 years in the making (some can argue 50) and it is not undone with wand-waving. Personally I think it's more urgent to finish the job that OCare was supposed to do which is ensure that (a) all americans have health ins and (b) address the needs of the chronically underinsured (typically poor). That has to be the first priority of any health reform, taking care of those that need it most.
Those that need it most are the ones that can’t really be served with private health insurance plans. That’s the reason we have Medicare. The healthcare costs of the elderly are too high for almost all retirees to pay for a plan that would cover them. The people most in need of healthcare are the ones that will drive the most expense into the system. This is why the government should get involved - to control costs and spread out the expense.
I agree with you, but I think a solid plan is to address the needs of these people first. For instance, if you have a family A: grossing 120,000 in St Louis that pays 700 per month in premiums for an employer plan with a 200 deductible and a 5000 max per year, with the typical array of copays at that plan level, that is a family that has a decent situation (not perfect, not that it cannot be improved, but not bad). They are not in dire need of healthcare reform. Family B grosses 68,000 in queens NY and they have (if any) some shitty employer catastrophic only plan with a 5k deductible, they pay 500 per month in premiums for that HDHP. The uninsured and greatly underinsured are at a far greater risk. Let's raise taxes and adjust funding of other programs to address those in most dire need. They are falling through the cracks in the current system. One emergency will break them and possibly send them to BR. Family A probably does not face the same issue(s)
But you don’t really know who is the most leveraged and in the most risk. You can certainly make assumptions based on tax returns - and those may be mostly correct - but if you are talking about restructuring how we deliver healthcare in this country, why not talk about fixing it for everybody instead of for only a portion. I think the realization that there is problem with how we provide healthcare in this country has reached a wide enough breadth of the population that we can have that conversation now. I don’t think we have to discount that opportunity why talking about expanding Medicare or Medicaid eligibility marginally to some additional groups instead of talking about how to fix things for everyone.
other countries have shown the model, a strongly progressive tax structure but don't create these convoluted social welfare programs of trying to find the "most needy". just make them universal and tax accordingly.
Finding the uninsured is probably not all that hard. Determining the underinsured is where things get complicated. But frankly, I am all for a tax hike to help those in need. I just don't know why I would get all excited to help those who are, in the grand scheme of things, already doing OK. Also: If, hypothetically, one wanted to eliminate all private insurance (incl employer groups) we would be giving a gift to all businesses who pay some premiums in order to have this benefit which is designed to allow them to attract and retain employees. Now they don't have to provide shit because the government takes that burden off of them. For small employers, maybe this is a societal net positive. For large employers, they reap a huge savings. That would need to be precisely addressed in any taxation scheme used for funding the program. My take is that this is a nuanced and complex issue with layers, and slopping a broad brush over the top of it seems slapdash af. I don't think its fair that some taxpayer would be (in small part) paying to help some family that is fine as is. If one raises taxes, after you address the health insurance issue for those in need, I would rather use excess tax dollars to properly fund education, maternity leave, student debt forgiveness for the lower and middle class, etc.
Googled Andrew Stein... his wiki is a doozy - Trust fund baby whose highest office held was NYC City Counsil President - Indicted for being involved on a Ponzi Scheme. - Oh and dated ANNE COULTER. This fucking guy
So you have graduate school debt, have a combined household income of over $250,000, own a home in a high cost of living area, and you want student loan forgiveness so that it'll be easier for you to save for retirement and pay for your kids' education. As someone with high student loan debt that causes me to make certain financial decisions based on that debt, I get where you're coming from in wanting more financial flexibility but someone in your situation is arguably a good example of why Warren's plan may be more politically palatable.
There is a lot to respond to here. 1. In general, you wouldn’t be helping out the guy who is already well off. Depending on his medical situation, it’s possible he benefits but that'd likely be from economies of scale rather than your tax dollars. His taxes are probably going up more than others to pay for it. 2. There is almost certainly no version of a national health insurance plan that doesn’t include corporate taxes. Not having your personal healthcare tied to your employer is a benefit to the employee and helps them improve mobility which should increase salaries or at the very least happiness at your place of work. 3. Arguing about which policy should take priority is a different argument than arguing about how to reform healthcare in this country to lower cost, guarantee access, and improve outcomes.
State of the union and presidential campaign platforms are always the most hypothetical and pie-in-the-sky proposals.
I agree. Unless you prefer how one plan is being paid for over the other. There must be enough voters (possibly Trump voters in 16) that this would benefit to buy enough votes for Bernie to do it.
Well yes, but also no. More like "there's actually a plan to fund it" via Wall Street. I think this video clears it up:
This much student loan talk is giving me anxiety... For real tho I don’t know how I feel about it. Wife and I are attorneys who make just a bit under Warrens threshold but have about $250k in loan debt and pay more on it than we do for our mortgage as we live in hillbilly land Michigan. Particularly painful as the only job I could get out of school was at a non-profit that didn’t pay shit and led to increased debt load while making the IBR 10% payment. Both plans would help us immensely but there are a lot of people who have no options and really need the help more.
Yeah, I'm in a similar boat. I would benefit from either plan currently, but at the same time I am fortunate to make enough to be able to pay off my student loans without it crippling me financially. Sure, I'd love the extra $1,200/month in my pocket to spend on stupid shit/save for retirement, but there are a lot more practical uses for that money than helping me out. Not saying I wouldn't take it, but I am not going to be the first in line or voting based on that policy alone.
I make a lot of money and already paid off my student loans. My finances will be affected if Wall Street is taxed because we have a lot in the market. I can definitely afford the tax, and I’m no where close to the 1%. If it makes college affordable for my kids and future generations it is worth it. Also hot take: should only apply to public university loans, not private schools don’t @ me.
not a hot take going forward but i'd have to research it more to the impact of it not being retroactive for private schools
I guess they unveil the bill tomorrow but it looks like it’s everything. Would be nice to get out from under the congressionally mandated 7% interest rate...