Posted on 11/04/2019 7:54:38 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Elizabeth Warren says her plan will result in "everyone get[ting] the care they need, when they need it, and nobody goes broke." It appears that senators, such as Ms. Warren, are excused from the worst effects of Medicare.
I have a friend with a chronic back problem that needed an operation. She got a run-around from her Medicare program for years and finally paid $13,000 to have the operation done privately. My parents were briefly resident in a Medicare nursing home. It was terrible, with demented people wandering around screaming, etc. When they moved to a non-Medicare nursing home, the difference was between a zoo and a 4-star hotel. The cost was only marginally higher. However, doctors declined to visit the patients in the nursing home because the reimbursement was extremely low under Medicare. If you go to a medical facility that mostly deals with seniors, such as an eye clinic, you will find assembly-line medicine: long waits and brief visits to the doctor.
If you have a problem with a private insurance company, it is feasible to sue it, and the company fears that. If you have a problem with Medicare, forget about it. You're dealing with a giant government bureaucracy that is very difficult to sue and that will deal with you in its own sweet time. I know of a case where an appeal was not answered for years. You may be dead long before you get satisfaction.
In Britain, everyone who can possibly afford it has private insurance and has nothing to do with the National Health Service. In the U.S., every effort is made to force seniors to enroll in Medicare Part A. They are denied Social Security if they refuse to enroll.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The article states:
“In Canada, they have what amounts to Medicare for All. You may have to wait months to get a C.T. scan or years to get a knee replacement. It is illegal to bypass the system by paying a private doctor. People with serious medical problems routinely go to the United States to get medical care, paying from their own pockets.”
Someone familiar with the Canadian system educate me please — I thought PRIVATE DOCTORS are now allowed.
Boy government health care for all sounds like a death sentence for some.
Cancer loves being told to wait 2 to 4 months for an appointment.
Sometimes that’s all the time it needs.
I have three letters for Ms. Warren: D M V!
(HAT TIP FOX NEWS)
In case Warren’s mind-boggling $52 trillion “free” health care plan is hard to wrap your head around, these figures put it in perspective.
Total annual U.S. corporate profits: $2.08 trillion
Combined net worth of the world’s 2,153 billionaires: $8.7 trillion
Total U.S. national debt: $22.9 trillion
Total value of the U.S. stock market: $32.3 trillion
Total value of all U.S. homes: $33.3 trillion
Total spending on health care in the United States from 1960 to 2017: $59.6 trillion
How much revenue (taxes) the U.S. government has received in its history: $76.7 trillion
Total world combined GDP: $86.6 trillion
How much the U.S. government has spent in its history: $91.7 trillion
Rationing saves billions, that's the dirty little secret that makes single payer mathematically "work".
“I have three letters for Ms. Warren: D M V!”
I have two words for her. One is a verb the other a pronoun!
Political campaigns have nothing to do with knowledge or truth. It’s all about who can make the best sounding promises.
Lieawatha doesn’t think beyond the end of her nose.
Or who looks better on TV.
When this ditzy woman does away with all private medical insurance, surely that will include all members of the federal government. They should no longer exempt their cushy tax-payer funded healthcare plan.
The author misses the whole point by a mile, the Libs will promise anything to get elected and in power to implement their secret agenda. The Libs do not care about the details of their 'programs' because the program is just a vehicle to get elected. Once in power then the Libs will do what they really want. Look at ObamaCare, all the promises (keep your Doctor, keep your Insurance, etc.) and then they released the details after it because law.
Want an example... Grubergate! Jonathan Gruber said "He said this obfuscation was needed due to "the stupidity of the American voter" in ensuring the bill's passage. Gruber said the bill's inherent "lack of transparency is a huge political advantage" in selling it."
Oh, bye the way if you want to respond to this post, please ask permission and I will take your request under consideration...…….. ;)
For months, Warren's opponents and a few curious media types have been wondering how she is going to pay for $20 trillion in new taxes in this nation-altering scheme. Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner prepared a helpful list.
Healthcare payroll tax: $8.8 trillion.
This is supposed to be levied on employers to pay for healthcare for everybody, but economists have long concluded that such taxes inevitably get passed on to workers, which would include the middle class.
Wealth taxes: $3.75 trillion.
Warren has spent much of her campaign campaigning on a surtax on those with over $50 million in wealth. As part of her healthcare proposal, she wants to charge billionaires an extra 6%.
Investment tax: $2 trillion.
This would make the top 1% of households pay a tax on investment gains each year, regardless of whether they actually realized those gains by selling those investments for a profit.
Foreign earnings tax/tax on foreign firms: $1.65 trillion.
This would raise taxes on American companies’ foreign profits and tax foreign companies based on their domestic sales.
Asset depreciation tax: $1.25 trillion.
This would make companies deduct the depreciation of investments as they depreciate, rather allowing them to do it all at once.
Repealing Trump's tax cuts would supposedly net $1 trillion. A "real" corporate profits tax. A tax on financial transactions. A "big banks" tax. Not only does this pie-in-the-sky funding scheme rely on dubious — some would say, "dishonest" — number crunching, it self-evidently breaks her promise not to raise middle-class taxes.
Peter Suderman of Reason points out the fallacy that the new "healthcare payroll tax" wouldn't sock it to the middle class.
Right now, Warren's plan says, employers spend about $9 trillion a decade on health insurance coverage. Her plan aims to move the private spending onto the federal budget. Under her proposal, large employers who currently pay for health coverage would be required to pay a comparable amount (equivalent to 98 percent of what they pay now, adjusted for the number of workers they employ) in order to help finance Medicare for All.
Warren shies away from calling this a tax, and she even claims "we don't need to raise taxes on the middle class by one penny to finance Medicare for All." Instead, she refers to it as an employer Medicare contribution, under which companies "would send payments to the federal government for Medicare."
"Medicare contribution" or "tax." What's the difference?
But there is a commonly accepted term for a plan that requires companies to send payments to the federal government in order to finance government programs. That word is tax. And that is essentially what this is—a nearly $9 trillion payroll tax (or, perhaps, a head tax with some small-business carve outs). It is thus hard to see this as anything other than a massive middle-class tax hike.
In addition, Warren is advancing the fantasy that $2.3 trillion can be recovered by better tax collection and fighting tax fraud. Tax policy expert Richard Rubin observed:
Warren and her team are relying on a compliant media and other allies to hide her tax hike. That $9 trillion payroll tax is not coming from the super-rich or the undeserving wealthy. It won't bleed billionaires or stick it to the upper class. That "head tax" will fall squarely on the shoulders of the American worker. And Warren's shameful dishonesty is more than political posturing. It's an assault on the middle class.
In some ways, Warren's plan amounts to a list of technically sophisticated magic asterisks. It is as much an attempt to obscure the economic and political feasibility of passing and implementing a single-payer health care plan as a good-faith attempt to describe what it would practically require.
Yet in another way, it reveals something about both Warren and the economic reality of single-payer: Despite running a campaign based on wonky academic credentials and detail-oriented policy chops, Warren has, until now, repeatedly refused to directly answer questions about precisely how she would finance Medicare for All and whether she would foist new taxes on the middle class. Turns out she didn't dodge the question because the answer was complex or hard to explain. She dodged it because the answer was so simple it could be expressed in a single word: yes.
Donald Trump won't have to convince very many people that electing Elizabeth Warren president would be a calamity for the country.
This promise of "free" medical care will resonate with the family without medical insurance.
A family of four making 40k a year struggling to make it will buy this message of free stuff.
Has Warren really thought about her tax plan? Of course she has! The plan has passed her one and only filter: Will it probably get me more votes?
Some pundits say that this plan will sink Warren. I disagree. The average Joe on the street doesn’t care about the Federal deficit. He might not even know what that phrase means. Instead, he wants something for nothing.
I think Warren will get past this little bump in the road just fine.
She knows the suckers took the bait on Obamacare and they will be happy to take it again chumps never learn.
This statement is misleading and incorrect.
You are automatically signed up for Medicare Plan A (inpatient care) when you turn 65. You don't have to sign up for it. It is mandated. But it is also free. No premium is extracted from your Social Security check as it is for Plan B (outpatient care). You will not be denied your Social Security if you don't utilize Medicare Plan A.
I have Medicare Plan A because it was mandated when I turned age 65. But I don't use is because I am a military veteran and go the VA hospital for inpatient care.
I refused Medicare Plan B (outpatient care) because I get my outpatient care at the VA as well. That way they don't take $120 out of my SS check for something I done need or use.
Again the statement in the article is incorrect.
I find it funny on how their plans are all isolated from each other. So 52T for Medicare for all (whatever that means). The new taxes on the “rich” to pay for it. Ok fine...Now, what about free education are the rich going to pay for that with taxes that go beyond the new Medicare for all taxes? Then there is child care for all...again, paid for by the rich. Same questions, are these paid for by additional taxes? Then you want to rejoin Paris accord. That is obviously going to slow down oil industry if actually implemented. Then, green New deal, what’s the cost and who will pay? With every new announcement she reveals the pay does and they are always the same. Is she just reusing the same money over and over? That doesn’t work. Any one plan in isolation may be argued but as a whole it’s just an obvious lie.
Medicare costs money. I think the Canada plan is free.
Elizabeth Warren doesn’t have to explain how her plan could be funded or how it would work. All she has to do is say that the only reason we don’t now have a system which immediately provides everyone all the medical services they want at no noticeable cost to themselves is because of bad people doing bad things for bad motives.
She will take medical care/products - and college education, daycare, whatever - out of the hands of the bad people and put it in the hands of the good people: herself and those who vote for her.
It’s a brilliant approach. No matter what happens, any blame can still directed at the bad people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.