Easy Win For President Trump?

[Wally]

she should be worried that the house is on the wrong track.

Who dragged her party so far left? It was her old boss.

 

[Wally]

In every real world example, comparable countries (ie first world democracies) with universal healthcare have significantly lower healthcare costs and better healthcare outcomes. Anyone telling you that we can't afford universal healthcare is either badly misinformed or lying.

How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries?

How does the quality of the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries?

No thanks. We like what we have.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Lol. Ya the current mess of a system is the paragon of fiscal responsibility.

Nice deflection.

 

[vantexan]

In every real world example, comparable countries (ie first world democracies) with universal healthcare have significantly lower healthcare costs and better healthcare outcomes. Anyone telling you that we can't afford universal healthcare is either badly misinformed or lying.

How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries?

How does the quality of the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries?

Noticed they didn't show how long it takes to get an operation compared to the U.S.. They didn't show percentage of income going to taxes to pay for their system compared to U.S..

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

In every real world example, comparable countries (ie first world democracies) with universal healthcare have significantly lower healthcare costs and better healthcare outcomes. Anyone telling you that we can't afford universal healthcare is either badly misinformed or lying.

How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries?

How does the quality of the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries?

Completely disingenuous use of statistics.

Take a look at average BMI by country and you will start to understand where you went wrong.

Maybe your plan is to tax people so much they can't afford food? I guess that would help the "healthcare outcomes" by reducing obesity.

 

[Jones]

Noticed they didn't show how long it takes to get an operation compared to the U.S..

Those countries all have better healthcare outcomes, in the end that's what matters.

They didn't show percentage of income going to taxes to pay for their system compared to U.S..

Whether you pay for healthcare through taxes or premiums is irrelevant, if costs are lower then you will pay less.

 

[Jones]

Completely disingenuous use of statistics.

Take a look at average BMI by country and you will start to understand where you went wrong.

Maybe your plan is to tax people so much they can't afford food? I guess that would help the "healthcare outcomes" by reducing obesity.

You're just waving your hands around and getting red in the face .

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

You're just waving your hands around and getting red in the face .

Just calmly proving that you are completely wrong.

It's not your fault, you have been brainwashed by power hungry politicians who want to control industry.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Whether you pay for healthcare through taxes or premiums is irrelevant, if costs are lower then you will pay less.

Your use of the word 'you' is clever.

What you mean to say is you want to confiscate wealth and redistribute it in a way that you believe will lower the collective cost overall for the country.

The reality is some people will pay more through taxes than they do now through private insurers. Some will pay less.

 

[Box Ox]

Whether you pay for healthcare through taxes or premiums is irrelevant, if costs are lower then you will pay less.

Reading WSJ now. Here's how Warren wants to pay for Medicare for all:


"The Democratic candidate has outlined $20.5 trillion over 10 years in spending on health care:

• $8.8 trillion in new taxes on employers; typically excludes companies with fewer than 50 employees and people who are self-employed

• $2.9 trillion from higher taxes on large corporations

• $2.3 trillion from tougher enforcement of tax laws

• $2 trillion from additional nonretirement capital-gains taxes

• $1.4 trillion in additional revenue generated by higher take-home pay for workers under existing tax laws

• $1 trillion from an expansion of previously proposed wealth tax

• $900 billion from higher taxes on financial firms

• $800 billion in military spending cuts

• $400 billion from tax receipts from expanded legal immigration
"

Some article tidbits:


"Nearly $20 trillion in new taxes over the next decade on corporations, investors and wealthy individuals would damp business profits. Households would see their costs reduced by $11 trillion, boosting their ability to spend on other goods and services. The plan also includes immigration-policy changes that would expand the labor force and consumer base."


"Health-insurance premiums paid by employers would be converted into a new “employer Medicare contribution” to the government, starting at an amount just below what employers pay now and adjusting toward national averages over time. The smallest businesses would be exempt. Economists generally believe that workers bear the cost of such taxes, so the total economic burden of taxes on households would rise even if they have lower total costs for taxes and health care combined."


"The plan relies on aggressive assumptions about savings on administrative costs in the health system that haven’t yet been vetted by private-sector and government economists. And the net harm or benefit is likely to be the subject of interparty and partisan debate. But analysts said several features have generally clear economic implications."


"At a minimum, Ms. Warren’s plan would disrupt the health-care sector. Independent estimates have pegged the potential job losses at two million as the private health-insurance industry disappears and health providers need fewer people to manage billing."


“Some of the people currently working in health insurance will work in other parts of insurance—in life insurance, in auto insurance, in car insurance. Some will work for Medicare. And there is a five-year transition support for everyone,” Ms. Warren said in Des Moines, Iowa, on Friday. “What this is about is how we strengthen America’s middle class and how we make sure that in transitions, no one gets left behind.”

 

[Fred's Myth]

”The plan relies on aggressive assumptions about savings onadministrative costs in the health system that haven’t yet been vetted by private-sector and government economists.“

Is that the same thing as fictional facts?

 

[It will be fine]

”The plan relies on aggressive assumptions about savings onadministrative costs in the health system that haven’t yet been vetted by private-sector and government economists.“

Is that the same thing as fictional facts?

Better than trickle down theory that has been constantly proven wrong. How are those record deficits doing?

 

[Jkloc420]

Better than trickle down theory that has been constantly proven wrong. How are those record deficits doing?

jobs jobs jobs

 

[Fred's Myth]

Better than trickle down theory that has been constantly proven wrong. How are those record deficits doing?

Best compromise is to continue the trickle down system, and unionize all workers.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Better than trickle down theory that has been constantly proven wrong. How are those record deficits doing?

Nice deflection.

 

[vantexan]

Those countries all have better healthcare outcomes, in the end that's what matters.

Whether you pay for healthcare through taxes or premiums is irrelevant, if costs are lower then you will pay less.

The kind of system Dems are proposing will break the bank. Not quite the same as the countries you're showing.

 

[vantexan]

Those countries all have better healthcare outcomes, in the end that's what matters.

Whether you pay for healthcare through taxes or premiums is irrelevant, if costs are lower then you will pay less.

They also have much higher unemployment. Putting anchors on business so everyone can have healthcare ultimately drags everything down.

 

[Jones]

They also have much higher unemployment. Putting anchors on business so everyone can have healthcare ultimately drags everything down.

Not true. Some have higher unemployment, some have lower unemployment, some have about the same. If universal healthcare was a driver for unemployment then all those countries really would have higher unemployment, but that's clearly not the case.

 

[Jones]

Reading WSJ now. Here's how Warren wants to pay for Medicare for all:


"The Democratic candidate has outlined $20.5 trillion over 10 years in spending on health care:

• $8.8 trillion in new taxes on employers; typically excludes companies with fewer than 50 employees and people who are self-employed

• $2.9 trillion from higher taxes on large corporations

• $2.3 trillion from tougher enforcement of tax laws

• $2 trillion from additional nonretirement capital-gains taxes

• $1.4 trillion in additional revenue generated by higher take-home pay for workers under existing tax laws

• $1 trillion from an expansion of previously proposed wealth tax

• $900 billion from higher taxes on financial firms

• $800 billion in military spending cuts

• $400 billion from tax receipts from expanded legal immigration
"

Some article tidbits:


"Nearly $20 trillion in new taxes over the next decade on corporations, investors and wealthy individuals would damp business profits. Households would see their costs reduced by $11 trillion, boosting their ability to spend on other goods and services. The plan also includes immigration-policy changes that would expand the labor force and consumer base."


"Health-insurance premiums paid by employers would be converted into a new “employer Medicare contribution” to the government, starting at an amount just below what employers pay now and adjusting toward national averages over time. The smallest businesses would be exempt. Economists generally believe that workers bear the cost of such taxes, so the total economic burden of taxes on households would rise even if they have lower total costs for taxes and health care combined."


"The plan relies on aggressive assumptions about savings on administrative costs in the health system that haven’t yet been vetted by private-sector and government economists. And the net harm or benefit is likely to be the subject of interparty and partisan debate. But analysts said several features have generally clear economic implications."


"At a minimum, Ms. Warren’s plan would disrupt the health-care sector. Independent estimates have pegged the potential job losses at two million as the private health-insurance industry disappears and health providers need fewer people to manage billing."


“Some of the people currently working in health insurance will work in other parts of insurance—in life insurance, in auto insurance, in car insurance. Some will work for Medicare. And there is a five-year transition support for everyone,” Ms. Warren said in Des Moines, Iowa, on Friday. “What this is about is how we strengthen America’s middle class and how we make sure that in transitions, no one gets left behind.”

If you're determined to find opinion pieces claiming that universal healthcare will bankrupt us they are easy to find, but in every real world example costs are lower, not higher.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

If you're determined to find opinion pieces claiming that universal healthcare will bankrupt us they are easy to find, but in every real world example costs are lower, not higher.

Apples and oranges.