Politicians don’t generally admit they were wrong about something, because their political opponents would hammer an admission of error. I suggest while waiting for her to do something no other politician would do, and which I haven’t seen you suggest any other politician do, you find a hobby to occupy your time.
Oh good, more undergraduate insights. I see that a Nobel laurate in economics wrote a paper which suggests a 70% marginal tax rate as the optimal upper marginal tax rate, but I’ll hold off reading that paper until after I’ve seen what thoughts Captain Undergraduate has to share. Or instead, I’ll do what you did and just find an undergraduate who shares my views and just read their Twitter musings?
I completely agree–where’s the benefit in looking to experts in economics to answer questions about economics? Instead, let’s see what some random internet douchebag has to say about her “rocking bod”.
“Slammin’ bod”. 
I had a minor accident which required a trip to the ER and multiple follow-ups. With my HDHP my total out-of-pocket expense was a little under $7K (and every provider but one was in-network). I suspect an unexpected $7K expense would bankrupt 50+% of households in America.
It’s a lot better than a $70K expense, or a $700K expense.
I wouldn’t mind seeing out of pocket capped at a yearly $5K. But all the years my kids were on Medicaid and SCHIP (which turned out to basically be the same thing), we never had to pay a dime in premiums or copays, and that’s pretty ridiculous.
It’s certainly not ideal, but U-HDHP has the benefit of breaking the mold, and getting the US on a single system, which has benefits beyond simply paying for health care. It allows for improved negotiation/pricing with providers, reduced administration and billing labor, which can work to actually reduce the cost of service directly.
One set of rules, one set of prices, and sets up the possibility of reducing the deductible or increasing non-deductible services in the future.
Why? Did you use trips to the doctor as a form of family vacation/entertainment?
You’re answering a question nobody asked. I’ll repeat. If many other countries can implement global healthcare at a cost of less than half what you currently pay per person, why do you think it will cost the US more. As previously stated, you can decide to pay twice per person what other countries pay, just to make sure you’ve got the very best…and it still won’t cost a penny more than what you currently pay.
In short, there’s no extra money to find. You can switch from the current mechanism to how ever you’d like to levy the charge, and it costs you nothing. Hell, in any other country it’d save you money.
But nah, best to focus on the gaffes of an inexperienced politician to somehow persist with the narrative that somehow m4a is an unaffordable pipedream.
You can’t just decree that health care will cost the same here as elsewhere. And we certainly don’t want the long waits my mother and sister deal with in Canada.
Uhh, no—and that’s an odd question. What are you getting at?
Why are we special? Does the physiology of Americans differ from the physiology of human beings who happen to live in other countries? Why is it more expensive to take care of our health than it is for people that live elsewhere. What makes us different?
What’s worse, having to wait a bit for non-emergency procedures, but having everything covered for everyone, or not being able to get health care at all, or going bankrupt because you didn’t want to die of a curable condition? How about being denied access to any care at all because you had a pre-existing condition once in your life? How about having your health insurance company actively trying to find any possible loophole to avoid covering your claims, the one thing they exist to provide and that you’ve been paying them to provide? I can’t understand this idea that our healthcare is so great as it currently stands that we can’t look at other countries to see how they seem to manage to get better outcomes for everyone for less cost.
He explains very clearly why a top tax rate of 70% would be woefully insufficient to fund Cortez’ agenda, particularly Medicare for All. He cites his sources, including the CBO and the OCED. You can continue to complain about his qualifications and ignore the data he’s laying out, but the bottom line is, taxes would need to be raised across the board to pay for Cortez’ agenda. If anybody tells you otherwise, they’re not shooting straight with you, Nobel laureate or no.
So your position is that AOC said that a 70% top-bracket tax would be the only funding source, with no other funding source considered, for MFA? If so, cite, please.
So if I have to pay a bit higher taxes, but no longer have anything deducted from my pay for insurance premiums, and my employer no longer has to pay anything toward my healthcare thereby giving me significantly more take home pay, I would be worse off, in your opinion? I think the dis-ingenuousness of this argument is that paying for Medicare for All would somehow be above and beyond what we already pay for health care in this country, when in actuality it would replace all of that and cost less.
Falsely excluded middle. I don’t support those things, some of which were already ameliorated by Obamacare. It wasn’t far upthread that I argued for a universal HDHP/HSA entitlement.
On Canadian wait times: first, they are bad on the merits. First my sister had a knee injury that would have left her on crutches for months, had she not gone down to Seattle to pay for it out of pocket. In my mom’s case, it was a wound care issue that risked severe problems as she is diabetic. Fortunately a nurse told her about a loophole to get herself at the top of the waiting list, but it shouldn’t work that way.
Even more importantly, it will be a political disaster if wait times suddenly increase for middle class swing voters. I guarantee you they won’t be interested in hearing about how at least people with worse jobs than them now have health coverage. There will be a giant hue and cry, and the whole thing will promptly get repealed, like single payer in Vermont or the Catastrophic Care Act in the late ‘80s.
Same is true if you slash doctor pay, or payments for MRIs, pharmaceuticals, etc. We should have kept those in check long ago as other countries did. But alas, we didn’t; and now we can only reduce them very gradually if at all.
He makes assertions which are stupid and wrong in order to reach a pre-conceived conclusion. You’ll find that Nobel laureate economists do less of that, which is why they’re worth listening to. But what they say may clash with what you want to believe, so I see why you avoid them.
Let me ask you a general question: If you’re paying for something, and you’re provided with an alternative way of purchasing it which will cost you less, would you take that deal? Like, if you could reduce your mortgage payments by $1,000 a month, but you would have to make your check out to the US Treasury rather than Bank of America, would you switch over? You get the house and everything all the same, only difference is that your payments go down and you write the check to a different entity. Would you do it, or would you whinge about how writing a check to the Treasury means your taxes have gone up?
If a family member was offered the same deal and they refused to take it, would you slap them and call them stupid?
Why are so many Americans so selfish? Other countries have figured this out. Poor people being able to get health care does not hurt me, why are so many people horrified by that prospect? I mean “people with worse jobs then them now have health coverage”? Really? How is that a bad thing? How is Americans not dying of preventable causes a bad thing just because they are poor? I surely hope we are better than that, but you’re probably right. We don’t seem to be capable of caring for all of our citizens, like so many other countries do. I guess America is exceptional, but not in a good way.
I already cited an economist who explained how they made it “cheaper”, and besides a charitable assumption that every doctor and hospital in the country would accept 40% lower payment rates with no effect on service, taxes would need to go up by 10% of GDP, far beyond what even a 100% tax rate on people earning a million dollars or more could pay for, which amounted to about 3.5% of GDP, iirc. And as a result of this, middle class Americans would then be paying more overall with new taxes than they were paying previously in premiums and out-of-pocket costs.
But this explanation was not delivered by a Nobel Prize winner, so clearly it’s not worth addressing. I think this is quite narrow-minded, but I can’t force people to address things they don’t care to address.
Oh yeah, that guy with an undergraduate degree who’s saying things that Nobel laureates are saying is wrong. Great source.
The only reason you would go to an undergraduate for your economic analysis rather than a Nobel laureate is if you’re looking for someone to confirm the dumb shit you already believe.
Do you do this in other aspects of your life? Do you avoid getting checkups from the guy with a medical degree who’ll tell you that you have diabetes in favor of the guy in the trailer park who’s watched every episode of House, who’ll tell you you’re just fine?
“Yeah, Doctor Jones thinks I have diabetes, but Bubba from the block says I’m fine, so pass the donuts!”
Yeah, they couldn’t find a Nobel prize winner who was willing to say that stupid shit. Boy, I wonder if there’s a reason for that, hmmmmm???
“Hey, Bubba says my toes falling off is totally normal. Why are you looking at me like that? You don’t want to believe I’m fine just because no actual doctor will say I’m fine? You’re so narrow-minded!”
According to reports, including one by the Urban Institute, M4A requires
[ul][li]The 25-40% cuts to healthcare providers, AND[/li][li]Large cuts in drug prices, AND[/li][li]Large cuts in administrative overhead, AND[/li][li]Doubling all personal and corporate federal income taxes, AND[/li][li]There was no increased utilization of health care services.[/ul]It would allegedly save $2T, but also increase the federal deficit by an undetermined amount. [/li]
Regards,
Shodan