The Democratic plan for a 42% national sales tax

antitox

Well-Known Member
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/the-democratic-plan-for-a-42-national-sales-tax-202549219.html

If you’re a Democrat who supports “Medicare for All,” pick your poison. You can ruin your political career and immolate your party by imposing a ruinous new sales tax, a gargantuan income tax hike or a surtax on corporate income that would wreck thousands of businesses.
This is the cost of bold plans.
Supporters of Medicare for All, the huge, single-payer government health plan backed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and several other Democratic presidential candidates, say it’s time to think big and move to a health plan that covers everyone. Getting there is a bit tricky, however. A variety of analyses estimate that Medicare for All would require at least $3 trillion in new spending. That’s about as much tax revenue as the government brings in now. So if paid for through new taxes, federal taxation would have to roughly double.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) has done voters a favor by spelling out what kinds of new taxes it would take to come up with that much money. Warren justifies many of her programs by saying all it would take is “two cents” from the wealthy. That’s a reference to her 2% wealth tax on ultra-millionaires. But Medicare for All would be so expensive that if you taxed top earners at 100%—that’s right, if you took all the income of couples earning more than $408,000 per year—you’d still fall far short. And everybody getting taxed at 100% would obviously stop working.
Okay, that won’t do it. So what will? CRFB outlined a variety of options. A 42% national sales tax (known as a valued-added tax) would generate about $3 trillion in revenue. But it would destroy the consumer spending that’s the backbone of the U.S. economy. A tax of that magnitude would be like 42% inflation, wrecking consumer budgets and the many companies that depend on them, from Walmart and Amazon to your local car dealer

Other options include a 32% payroll tax split between employers and workers or a 25% income surtax on everybody. Or, the government could cut 80% of spending on everything but health care, which would include highways, airports and the Pentagon. Or here’s a good one: Just borrow the money and quadruple Washington’s annual deficits.
The best idea might be charging every enrollee in the new program $7,500 per year, so they’d be paying directly for the coverage they’re getting. Some people pay more than that now for health care, by purchasing insurance outright or sacrificing pay raises in exchange for employer coverage. It would still be a nifty trick to propose that to voters.
The upside to these impossibly draconian scenarios is that nobody would pay anything for health care, except in the $7,500 example. And it’s possible that Medicare for All would cover health care for more people at a lower total cost than we spend now, meaning the average cost per person would go down. The problem is transitioning from what we have now to whatever Medicare for all would be. And it’s a giant problem, like crossing the Mississippi River without a bridge or a boat. The other side might look great but you’ll die before you get there.
Warren, Sanders and others tout the virtues of this magical health care program without explaining what it would cost. Sanders has at least suggested some possible ways to pay for it, including premiums paid by enrollees, a wealth tax on millionaires and income tax rates as high as 52%. Warren has been cagier, saying only that under her plan “costs” would go down for middle-class families. Under pressure to explain, Warren has pledged to come up with a financing plan soon. Now, maybe she doesn’t have to.
 

Endangered

Well-Known Member
The problem is not insurance. The problem is the cost of nedical care. One cost is drugs. The cost of a EpiPen went from just over $300 to around $700 in 2 years. Viagra costs a pharmacy $36 a pill. Generic sildenafil costs $0.19 a pill. Harvoni which is a pill for hepatitis costs $31,000 for 30 pills. The pharmaceutical market is characterized by incredible levels of greed.
I just had a colenoscopy and had to use a recovery room for less than an hour. The hospital bill was $2600 for just the recovery room.. This procedure takes less than an hour and the anesthesiologist charged $1200 plus over $300 for the drug.
A dentist told me I needed a root canal because I had a "dead" tooth. This fix takes about 1.5 hours and only costs $2500.
Cut the cost of medical procedures first and you cut the insurance premiums way, way down.
 

Carl

Well-Known Member
The problem is not insurance. The problem is the cost of nedical care. One cost is drugs. The cost of a EpiPen went from just over $300 to around $700 in 2 years. Viagra costs a pharmacy $36 a pill. Generic sildenafil costs $0.19 a pill. Harvoni which is a pill for hepatitis costs $31,000 for 30 pills. The pharmaceutical market is characterized by incredible levels of greed.
I just had a colenoscopy and had to use a recovery room for less than an hour. The hospital bill was $2600 for just the recovery room.. This procedure takes less than an hour and the anesthesiologist charged $1200 plus over $300 for the drug.
A dentist told me I needed a root canal because I had a "dead" tooth. This fix takes about 1.5 hours and only costs $2500.
Cut the cost of medical procedures first and you cut the insurance premiums way, way down.
Now that almost all the hospitals in the country are owned by profit motivated companies where to cut and how to force it?

For years I know that Blue Cross has set the amount of coverage they were willing to pay for any medical procedure. So the final determination for pricing was how much would the patient pay for the procedure. In 2004 I was already paying $8200 of the $13000 for the Blue Cross plan.

"The love of money is the root of all evil"
 

ozaprah

Well-Known Member
The problem is not insurance. The problem is the cost of nedical care. One cost is drugs. The cost of a EpiPen went from just over $300 to around $700 in 2 years. Viagra costs a pharmacy $36 a pill. Generic sildenafil costs $0.19 a pill. Harvoni which is a pill for hepatitis costs $31,000 for 30 pills. The pharmaceutical market is characterized by incredible levels of greed.
Those costs are mind staggering!
I know it's not popular here, but various models of Medicare for all in conjunction with private health are manageable, as proven around the world, and don't always equate to socialism.

Here's some costs of the same drugs in Australian Dollars in Australia (AUD= .69USD). Bear in mind all of the private costs are still making profit.

Epipen $79 (Private), $39.30 for most people on script. $5.50 (Concession card x2 pens)
Viagra $29.99 for 12. Generic $19.99 for 12 (not available on Medicare subsidy except for Veterans with specific war related disability)
Harvoni $39.30 for 1 month, $5.50 (Concession card). Cost to government $13826/ month.

In the case of Harvoni, even though the Government subsidises the difference between $13826 and $39.30, it has been calculated that the cost benefit in curing someone from Hepatitis C far outweighs the future costs of untreated hepatitis C in the community - including liver failure treatment and possible liver transplantation. As a result our Hep C cure rate has skyrocketed.

The drug costs in the US need to be addressed.
 

DanLMP

Well-Known Member
I realize the costs and difficulties of implementing a program like this pose very serious problems but to me, the bigger problem a Federally controlled health system would have is the amount of control that the Federal Government would have over my life.

It would be the "soup Nazi" on steroids.

"Don't like the way we are governing now sir? Low quality health care for you. The next cancer you get will kill you."

The Green New Deal is basically the same. A means to create a system to control all of our movements under the guise of "protecting our planet which is falling apart".

They are not trying to solve a health care crisis or save the planet, they are trying to control us.
 

Work4Peanuts

I like being just a Well-Known Member
I realize the costs and difficulties of implementing a program like this pose very serious problems but to me, the bigger problem a Federally controlled health system would have is the amount of control that the Federal Government would have over my life.

It would be the "soup Nazi" on steroids.

"Don't like the way we are governing now sir? Low quality health care for you. The next cancer you get will kill you."

The Green New Deal is basically the same. A means to create a system to control all of our movements under the guise of "protecting our planet which is falling apart".

They are not trying to solve a health care crisis or save the planet, they are trying to control us.
I was sitting in the DMV the other day for 2.5 hours, still hadn't been seen, and I leaned over to the person next to me and said "and just think, there are people who want the government to take over health care in our country." The guy next to me just laughed and shook his head.
 

antitox

Well-Known Member
I realize the costs and difficulties of implementing a program like this pose very serious problems but to me, the bigger problem a Federally controlled health system would have is the amount of control that the Federal Government would have over my life.

It would be the "soup Nazi" on steroids.

"Don't like the way we are governing now sir? Low quality health care for you. The next cancer you get will kill you."

The Green New Deal is basically the same. A means to create a system to control all of our movements under the guise of "protecting our planet which is falling apart".

They are not trying to solve a health care crisis or save the planet, they are trying to control us.
You nailed it. For example, AOC's chief of staff said that the Green New Deal is not really about climate change but changing the economic system. That's their objective with these causes.
 

vbf

Well-Known Member
I don't know how much of this foolishness will actually get implemented prior to the Rapture, if at all (before the rapture). It may get very close, though. Any time I here "single" (e.g. single payer healthcare) or "one" (e.g. OWG) or anything similar thereto that consolidates power and/or authority to one person or entity I think to myslf......yeah, it makes sense given how late in the hour we appear to be. At this point in the game, everything needs to be closing in on the ability for one person to control the buying and selling of all humans on the earth. It should come as no surprise that God is allowing this godless form of government (socialism) to begin picking up speed and acceptance here in the US because it's of its form or fashion of the control the AC will need and get after we're gone. If there's a gap in time between the Rapture and the affirming of the peace agreement that kick starts the Tribulation, this is likely when all of the socialism pieces will fall into place and the likes of AOC will believe they achieved their nirvana only to later be destroyed by the eventual leader of it.

AOC, meet AC.........O no!
 

Peggy0329

Well-Known Member
It's just like when a person gets into debt, it's hard to get out of debt. Their bills increase even though their income doesnt. They have to take on another debt to pay off the original debt. The cycle continues. In a similar way, if the government can get us financially dependant on them, it will be almost impossible to get us "un-dependent" on them.
 

InsuranceGuy

Well-Known Member
Single payer 'coverage for all' would lead to Euthanasia. Take me for example; There is no way the medical board governing National Health Care would approve me for any of my medications as I'm already considered terminal. Without a doubt, there would be a board who determines at what point treatment stops for people, whether it's Stage Four Cancer, or a very expensive surgery, this would lead to life having a value. If your medical bills are $2 million dollars (due to overpriced hospitals, pharmacy companies and doctor rates), you would be considered a drain on the system and no longer treated, or at the least, it would be made impossible for you to schedule an appointment. Life is priceless. In this case, it no longer would be. You would be a walking profit margin, nothing more. The Elderly would be the ones to lose out first, although they would also be the most likely to vote for this as they will be led to believe it will benefit them. It won't.
 

Rocky Rivera

Well-Known Member
I would be homeless if I had to pay that much in taxes. I literally would be better off not working.
Whether or not Warren or one of the Democrats win, I'm thinking of starting up a believers-only co-op where we can still buy, sell, and trade with each other. I'm hoping that when the Tribulation and the Mark of the Beast comes, it can still be of use (will leave instructions to those left behind who become believers).
 

tuco22

Member
Those costs are mind staggering!
I know it's not popular here, but various models of Medicare for all in conjunction with private health are manageable, as proven around the world, and don't always equate to socialism.

Here's some costs of the same drugs in Australian Dollars in Australia (AUD= .69USD). Bear in mind all of the private costs are still making profit.

Epipen $79 (Private), $39.30 for most people on script. $5.50 (Concession card x2 pens)
Viagra $29.99 for 12. Generic $19.99 for 12 (not available on Medicare subsidy except for Veterans with specific war related disability)
Harvoni $39.30 for 1 month, $5.50 (Concession card). Cost to government $13826/ month.

In the case of Harvoni, even though the Government subsidises the difference between $13826 and $39.30, it has been calculated that the cost benefit in curing someone from Hepatitis C far outweighs the future costs of untreated hepatitis C in the community - including liver failure treatment and possible liver transplantation. As a result our Hep C cure rate has skyrocketed.

The drug costs in the US need to be addressed.
In the United States, there is no cost benefit in curing someone from anything. You make much more money keeping them ill. For instance, with hepatitis C, liver failure means other treatments that won't be effective, but insurance mandates that they try the least effective treatments first, and if that leads to liver transplant, maybe you'll get one, maybe you won't. That's why people in the US are chronically ill with curable ailments. The costs are what make possible someone making $90,000/year for working 6 months (pharmacist at Walgreen's).
 

Peggy0329

Well-Known Member
Single payer 'coverage for all' would lead to Euthanasia. Take me for example; There is no way the medical board governing National Health Care would approve me for any of my medications as I'm already considered terminal. Without a doubt, there would be a board who determines at what point treatment stops for people, whether it's Stage Four Cancer, or a very expensive surgery, this would lead to life having a value. If your medical bills are $2 million dollars (due to overpriced hospitals, pharmacy companies and doctor rates), you would be considered a drain on the system and no longer treated, or at the least, it would be made impossible for you to schedule an appointment. Life is priceless. In this case, it no longer would be. You would be a walking profit margin, nothing more. The Elderly would be the ones to lose out first, although they would also be the most likely to vote for this as they will be led to believe it will benefit them. It won't.
Sadly I believe you're right, I think that's why the liberals are trying to desensitize us to that agenda by making the "right to die" movement a socially acceptable thing.
 
I really wonder how they plan on collecting that tax when no one will be able to buy anything? When even food becomes too expensive to buy, folks are going to try turning to "other means", leaving the left with not even nearly the money they think they will gain, and a loss of all the money they had with the current taxes.
 
Top