Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, January 06, 2019

Progressive House Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for a sharp tax hike on the highest incomes in order to fund a massive "Green New Deal" plan that would phase out fossil fuels by 2030, as she tries to push the political debate to the left.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Good. I like her more and more each day.

#1 | Posted by qcp at 2019-01-04 02:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 9

This will go nowhere.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-04 04:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Why not? The highest rate was there before.

#3 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-01-04 04:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Why not? The highest rate was there before.
#3 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

Wasn't that during WWII?

#4 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-01-04 04:17 PM | Reply

it was as high as 92%

www.wikiwand.com

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-01-04 04:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Wasn't that during WWII?

And for a couple decades afterwards.

It's how our government was able to build up this nation.

#6 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-04 04:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 11

By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% (on income over $1,000,000) to finance World War I.

#7 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-01-04 04:19 PM | Reply

For tax years 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% for tax years 1954 through 1963.

#8 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-01-04 04:19 PM | Reply

For the 1964 tax year, the top marginal tax rate for individuals was lowered to 77%, and then to 70% for tax years 1965 through 1981.

#9 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-01-04 04:20 PM | Reply

It's only recently that we stopped collecting taxes and let the debts rise to crushing rates.

#10 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-01-04 04:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

This is a great idea, which would work fix, rebuild and strengthen our nation.

But it won't go anywhere. The rich will use their peons in Congress to make sure it doesn't.

#11 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-04 04:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

It's how our government was able to build up this nation.
#6 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Do you not think that it was more circumstantial situations involving the world economy that brought on that prosperity post-WWII?

#12 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-01-04 04:49 PM | Reply

"Do you not think that it was more circumstantial situations involving the world economy that brought on that prosperity post-WWII?"

Even if that's the case, it's not relevant.

Here is what is relevant.

Production and wages went hand in hand from 1945 to 1975.

Then, starting around 1975, production kept going up but pay stagnated, except for the top tier of the economy.

Now, if you'd like to make an argument that the change in 1975 was because of WWII, I'd love to hear it.

But I don't see how they can be related.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-04 04:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

This will go nowhere.

#2 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Ladies and gentleman, a real stable genius's analysis right here.

#14 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-04 05:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

She's going to go nowhere with stuff like this.

Raising taxes is a good idea and NEEDS to be done. But it's not going to get done by sounding like an idiot throwing out pipe dreams.

I'll bet McCaskill read this and face palmed.

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-04 05:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Do you not think that it was more circumstantial situations involving the world economy that brought on that prosperity post-WWII?
#12 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

I think it was increased manufacturing as the MIC needed workers. Which gave people more money to spend. Which boosted profits for companies and increased revenue across the board.

The government in turn was able to build a stronger nation.

The lack of competition from most the rest of the industrialized world definitely helped us. (as you pointed out, many of these nations were rebuilding themselves.)

But with out the taxes, the money would have only gone to the rich and they would have sat on it, as they are now.

#16 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-04 06:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

She's going to go nowhere with stuff like this.
Raising taxes is a good idea and NEEDS to be done.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

it's not going to get done by sounding like an idiot throwing out pipe dreams.

Why is it a pipe dream? Because the rich own the government and are unwilling to allow their pets to raise taxes on them?

I'd prefer they eliminate all the unnecessary tax cuts the rich have received over the past 20 years, perhaps thats also a pipe dream. Perhaps the idea America can ever recover from the destruction the rich have brought upon us is all a pipe dream as well.

I'll bet McCaskill read this and face palmed.
#15 | POSTED BY JPW

Who cares what that soar loser did.

#17 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-04 06:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

She's going to go nowhere with stuff like this.
Raising taxes is a good idea and NEEDS to be done.
You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Not at all. Well, at least not if you understand what nuance is.

Why is it a pipe dream? Because the rich own the government and are unwilling to allow their pets to raise taxes on them?

And because there's enough of the electorate that isn't a billionaire who, for better or for worst, would be turned away by it as well.

You damn well know it's an untenable position.

I'd prefer they eliminate all the unnecessary tax cuts the rich have received over the past 20 years, perhaps thats also a pipe dream. Perhaps the idea America can ever recover from the destruction the rich have brought upon us is all a pipe dream as well.

As would I.

The problem, disturbingly, with far too many on the left is that they'd rather drown trying to jump the East River instead of walking across the Brooklyn Bridge.

Who cares what that soar loser did.

You guys are proving yourselves just as fickle and prone to cult of personality as the idiots on the right.

#18 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-04 06:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"it's not going to get done by sounding like an idiot throwing out pipe dreams."

Idiot?
Any tax increase is a pipe dream so long as Republicans control either side of Congress.
All the Repiblicans have signed the Grover Norquist pledge to not raise any taxes. It's an article of faith with them.

So what's really happening here is you are saying anyone who doesn't prefer the GOP status quo is selling pipe dreams.

You've made pipe dream the only alternative to the GOP reality in which taxes will never be raised*.

Which is functionally no different than drinking Grover Norquist's Kool-Aid.

*Setting aside, of course, all the ways taxes are going up for people this year in terms of the many eliminated deductions. Which will likely be fixed by Democrat leadership in the House, which enough of the GOP will grudgingly vote for in the Senate.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-04 07:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Idiot?
Any tax increase is a pipe dream so long as Republicans control either side of Congress.
All the Repiblicans have signed the Grover Norquist pledge to not raise any taxes. It's an article of faith with them.
So what's really happening here is you are saying anyone who doesn't prefer the GOP status quo is selling pipe dreams.
You've made pipe dream the only alternative to the GOP reality in which taxes will never be raised*.
Which is functionally no different than drinking Grover Norquist's Kool-Aid.

Wow. I've never seen somebody create such a giant pile of bulls---.

If you're looking to snoofify a thread, I'm not interested.

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-04 08:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I'll make it a yes or no thing then.

Is raising taxes still a no-go even if Democrats held Congress and the White House?

Are... are both parties the same on this?

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-04 08:27 PM | Reply

Is raising taxes still a no-go even if Democrats held Congress and the White House?

Still? I never said it was a "no-go".

Here's a hint, snoofy, if you want to talk to people. Listen to the words that come out of their mouths instead of putting yours there and addressing that.

Otherwise, just stay home and talk to yourself.

Are... are both parties the same on this?

I can't recall ever playing the "both parties are the same" card.

In fact, I seem to recall commenting on it as intellectually shallow and lazy.

And I know that because that's my position on it. So please address my actual comments or piss off.

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-04 08:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"if you want to talk to people. Listen to the words that come out of their mouths"

That's what I'm trying to do.

You heard some words aboug taxes, and called it a pipe dream.

Please share those words with me.

Thanks.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-04 08:39 PM | Reply

Read my post.

It's pretty clear.

If it's not, try asking questions for clarification instead of constructing the giant pile of s--- you led with.

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-04 08:41 PM | Reply

"It's pretty clear."

It's pretty clear you called something a pipe dream.

I'm just trying to figure out what specifically you are calling a pipe dream.

Clear enough?

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-04 08:49 PM | Reply

Jacking taxes to 70% in one swoop is a pipe dream.

Being completely free of fossil fuels by 2030 is a pipe dream.

#26 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-04 08:51 PM | Reply

Was landing a man on the moon seven years after Kennedy said we would a bigger or smaller pipe dream than both of those... and does the tax rate at the time factor into your answer?

You just sound like a nay-sayer.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-04 08:55 PM | Reply

What's the not-a-pipe-dream top tax rate?

Much harder question, what's the not-a-pipe-dream year we can get off fossil fuels?

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-04 09:08 PM | Reply

Was landing a man on the moon seven years after Kennedy said we would a bigger or smaller pipe dream than both of those... and does the tax rate at the time factor into your answer?

I knew you'd jump to that...

Probably because it's a cliche you know little about.

In any case, it wasn't a pipe dream at all because it had a defined goal that was limited in scope insofar as it impacted your average person.

Fully removing fossil fuels from usage in 11 years? It's a great sentiment, but you honestly can't tell me it's plausible. Even if a program similar to the manned space flight program was initiated and was successful, we'd then have the tech to better produce/utilize green energy.

But then what? Force people to turn in their cars? What of those who couldn't afford to switch? What of integration into existing infrastructure to ensure availability of power sources?

It's an entirely different animal than developing the tech and protocols to take a handful of people to and from the moon.

You just sound like a nay-sayer.

I said raising taxes is necessary did I not? I even capitalized the word "NEEDS" to make sure (so I thought...) dunces saw it.

My comments in this thread, and others in the past, aren't against the ideas. They're against the execution. The Dem tendency is to go for broke as soon as they have the clout to try it and typically they lose that clout soon after.

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-04 09:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What's the not-a-pipe-dream top tax rate?

Why not start with repealing the previous rounds of tax cuts? When people see the world isn't spontaneously combusting they may, just may, be more amenable to further rolling back other cuts.

Much harder question, what's the not-a-pipe-dream year we can get off fossil fuels?

That's not a question I can answer. I'm not familiar enough with the status of technologies required to do so.

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-04 09:12 PM | Reply

"Fully removing fossil fuels from usage in 11 years? It's a great sentiment, but you honestly can't tell me it's plausible."

I don't think it will ever be plausible without the kind of funding NASA got to fulfill Kennedy's dream.

But I don't think it will impact things in all that much of a disruptive way. Life didn't dramatically change overnight when cars were invented, but gradually over say fifty years, and there are still uses for horses.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-04 09:19 PM | Reply

I don't think it will ever be plausible without the kind of funding NASA got to fulfill Kennedy's dream.

I'm all for that (Project Mercury, Gemini and the Apollo program cost about $110 billion in today's dollars) and think that providing a time goal is useful in that regard.

I just think 2030 is far too ambitious given it's barely longer than the time frame to go to the moon.

Life didn't dramatically change overnight when cars were invented, but gradually over say fifty years, and there are still uses for horses.

It's a far different time.

Most people rely on their vehicles every day. Disruptions in that can have significant effects personally but also on a broader economic scale.

It also sounds like you don't think fossil fuels will be completely abolished, just reduced by 90%? 95%?

#32 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-04 09:32 PM | Reply

-- to fund a massive "Green New Deal" plan that would phase out fossil fuels by 2030

She's a lunatic, ignorant of math,energy-economics, and physics. Utterly absurd. You can't legislate the laws of physics no matter how much money you throw at it. If this is the Democrats future, it's bleak.

#33 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-04 10:12 PM | Reply

nullifidian has bought into the republican plan for fixing stuff:

do nothing. poo poo action. run the clock until the next disaster.

#34 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-01-04 10:21 PM | Reply

"She's a lunatic, ignorant of math,energy-economics, and physics. Utterly absurd. You can't legislate the laws of physics no matter how much money you throw at it. If this is the Democrats future, it's bleak."

See, JPW, this is what you don't want to end up sounding like.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-04 10:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It also sounds like you don't think fossil fuels will be completely abolished, just reduced by 90%? 95%?"

I don't think making the good the enemy of the perfect is how we should think about policy.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-04 10:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--do nothing.

Doing nothing is better than bankrupting the country pursuing utopian chimeras. The science and technology will be here on its own timetable, not politicians' timetable.

#37 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-04 10:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Doing nothing is better than bankrupting the country pursuing utopian chimeras."

yes, but we're not talking about trickle down your party keeps trying.

#38 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-01-04 10:46 PM | Reply

"Doing nothing is better than bankrupting the country pursuing utopian chimeras."

"And she never had dreams
So they never came true."

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-04 10:50 PM | Reply

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for a sharp tax hike on the highest incomes in order to fund a massive "Green New Deal" plan that would phase out fossil fuels by 2030, as she tries to push the political debate to the left. ~ FTA

I like it, I hope the House passes it.

yes, but we're not talking about trickle down your party keeps trying.
#38 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

Agreed, get it over with as soon as practical, is that the idea?

I don't think making the good the enemy of the perfect is how we should think about policy.
#36 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Only when its convenient to your argument. You forget your other stances on issues ..

#40 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-04 11:09 PM | Reply

"called for a sharp tax hike on the highest incomes in order to fund a massive "Green New Deal""

I'd like to see her math on that. Mine doesn't seem to balance.

#41 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-04 11:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

she'll be president one day.

#42 | Posted by ichiro at 2019-01-04 11:24 PM | Reply

Tax rates only matter to little people.

Rich people can adjust and hide income. Better to start with making the rich pay the same rate as the poor instead of the less than half they do now.

Where I live, we could eliminate fossils fuels by 2030, but why junk 10 year old cars. Ban new ICE, replace black with green power plants and we will be halfway there.

#43 | Posted by bored at 2019-01-04 11:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- I like it, I hope the House passes it.

At least put it in the party platform. Wait until voters find out they have to give up their cars in 10 years. The democrats will be macronized.

#44 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-04 11:42 PM | Reply

Can't have electric cars, batteries are made from fossil fuels.
Can't use your phones anymore cause they are made from fossil fuels.

Guess you'll have to build an underground storage for keeping food, all the storage devices are made from fossil fuels.

She's a loon and people who think different are just ignorant to the fact how many products and common everyday things we used are made from fossil fuels.

#45 | Posted by Crassus at 2019-01-04 11:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

how many products and common everyday things we used are made from fossil fuels.

Do you really think that that is what she's talking about?

Nah, it can't be that she's proposing we stop BURNING it as our primary energy source.

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-04 11:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It worked before.

#47 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-01-04 11:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"how many products and common everyday things we used are made from fossil fuels."

A lot less than everyday energy is made from fossil fuels. About 80% less, based on Danforth's numbers the other day, which showed about 80% of oil gets used for fuel, the rest elsewhere.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-04 11:57 PM | Reply

"Can't have electric cars, batteries are made from fossil fuels."

Are you using Republican Math™ again?

In the ultimate equation, electric cars use less fossil fuels.

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-04 11:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"She's a loon and people who think different are just ignorant to the fact how many products and common everyday things we used are made from fossil fuels."

Right, so if we stopped burning it, the raw materials for those products would be 5x cheaper, all things being equal.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-04 11:58 PM | Reply

"Are you using Republican Math™ again?"

I think they're using the old Goatman "One Drop" rule.

If there is one drop of fossil fuel anywhere in the supply chain, progressives aren't allowed to complain about global warming.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-05 12:00 AM | Reply

"If there is one drop of fossil fuel anywhere in the supply chain, progressives aren't allowed to complain about global warming."

Ahhh, the old "Al Gore has a higher-than-average electricity bill" crowd, who can't be bothered to compute per square foot. I know them well.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 12:05 AM | Reply

China can land on the dark side of the moon, but they can't make a ball point pen.

This fossil fuel thing will take time and money. Lots of both.

#53 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-01-05 02:47 AM | Reply

Hemp for fuel... food, medicine, clothing, construction....
turn the country into a giant hemp-fuel-range... labor intensive, too.

#54 | Posted by ichiro at 2019-01-05 03:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

but capitalist greed doesn't work without "scarcity."
so ... screw that!

#55 | Posted by ichiro at 2019-01-05 03:23 AM | Reply

Good luck with that. Dems don't even want to remove the SALT deduction from Federal income taxes (which only hits the wealthy), good luck having them tell their banking and tech masters that they will actually be expected to pay more. The look on Nancy Pelosi's face (net worth $30M) would be hysterical. The horror would probably cause her to pop a few facelift stitches as well as removing the almost perpetual look of confusion she currently sports.

#56 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-05 04:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If it's a viable plan, why the need to eliminate Paygo?

#57 | Posted by sunuvavitch at 2019-01-05 08:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Well on the plus side, at least she's not suggesting nuclear war might be necessary to stop global warming.

"Deathly Salvation

TFW nuclear war may be the only way to stop human extinction.

"An [nuclear] exchange that shuts down the global economy but stops short of human extinction may be the only blade realistically likely to cut the carbon knot we're trapped within. It would decimate existing infrastructures, providing an opportunity to build new energy infrastructure and intervene in the current investments and subsidies keeping fossil fuels alive...

Like the 20th century's world wars, a nuclear exchange could serve as an economic leveler. It could provide justification for nationalizing energy industries with the interest of shuttering fossil fuel plants and transitioning to renewables and, uh, nuclear energy. It could shock us into reimagining a less suicidal civilization, one that dethrones the death-cult zealots who are currently in power. And it may toss particulates into the atmosphere sufficient to block out some of the solar heat helping to drive global warming. Or it may have the opposite effects. Who knows?

What we do know is that humans can survive and recover from war, probably even a nuclear one. Humans cannot recover from runaway climate change. "

www.the-trouble.com

#58 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-05 08:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--Beto O'Rourke Is 'Supportive Of The Concept' Of A Green New Deal

Bob O needs to assure the left he's one of them, but that sounds pretty wishy-washy.

www.huffingtonpost.ca

#59 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-05 11:35 AM | Reply

David Dayen @ddayen (Contributor to @Theintercept, @newrepublic.)

According to the IRS, in 2016 the number of households making over $10 million was... 16,087

www.irs.gov

So to conservatives, you're recoiling at the horrors of a marginal tax increase on 16,087 in a country with 150,272,157 households.

#60 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-05 12:18 PM | Reply

"She's a loon and people who think different are just ignorant to the fact how many products and common everyday things we used are made from fossil fuels."

So, your best argument against her ideas is that it will be a big job. It will require major changes. Sooner we get started the sooner we will reach our goal. If America wants to lead the world it's time to step up and lead the world, take on big challenges that face mankind. Small minded folks like Crassus are not up to the task but some young blood now entering Congress seem not so small minded. They have the vision required.

#61 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-05 12:53 PM | Reply

"So to conservatives, you're recoiling at the horrors of a marginal tax increase on 16,087 in a country with 150,272,157 households."

They don't do math.
They just don't believe in it.
Have you ever seen an argument rooted in math from a conservative?

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-05 12:58 PM | Reply

"Have you ever seen an argument rooted in math from a conservative?"

Lots.

Oh, wait...you mean an argument rooted in actual math from a conservative?

No.

In fact, I've yet to have one call out Dubya and Cheney for purposefully reseting the fiscal sights of America, or even admit as much.

#63 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 01:01 PM | Reply

Ocasio-Cortez wants higher taxes on very rich Americans. Here's how much money that could raise.

With the help of tax experts, we produced some back-of-the-envelope estimates.

www.washingtonpost.com

#64 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-05 03:31 PM | Reply

--Ocasio-Cortez wants higher taxes on very rich Americans.

She's not going to eliminate fossil fuel use in 10 years without huge carbon taxes on everyone.

#65 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-05 03:40 PM | Reply

One of the questions I have is if raising taxes on the very rich will provide enough money to pay for all the policies she wants to implement: M4A, free college tuition, a new green deal? Her plan may raise a ton of money, but will it raise enough to pay for everything as she seems to imply it will?

#66 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-05 03:50 PM | Reply

"One of the questions I have is if raising taxes on the very rich will provide enough money to pay for all the policies she wants to implement:"

Absolutely not. Her numbers don't even cover M4A.

#67 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 03:54 PM | Reply

She wants European healthcare, but intentionally omits the fact they soak the working class with taxes to pay for it. Reality won't get her re-elected.

#68 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-01-05 04:06 PM | Reply

--She wants European healthcare, but intentionally omits the fact they soak the working class with taxes to pay for it. Reality won't get her re-elected.

She should talk to Macron and ask him how those carbon taxes worked out.

#69 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-05 04:11 PM | Reply

"She wants European healthcare, but intentionally omits the fact they soak the working class with taxes to pay for it."

But those same people won't be paying for health insurance, they'll come out with more money in their pockets and guaranteed healthcare which will cover them even if they leave their job to open a small business. People who depend on employers for healthcare are less free, myself included, than Europeans.

#70 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-05 04:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Republicans want to cut taxes on the rich.

They don't think twice.

AOC suggests raising taxes to Eisenhower era levels.

Democrats freak out about how the nation will respond.

You're all a bunch of worried morons.

So careful not to do anything to upset anyone that nothing will get accomplished.

Business as usual.

Demowussies.

#71 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-05 04:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Absolutely not. Her numbers don't even cover M4A.

#67 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Red herring -- there's plenty of money.

First and foremost is raising taxes on Americans and business that can afford higher taxes = millionaires, billionaires, and corporations making record profits.

Second ... the US healthcare system alone wastes ~ $750 billion annually on patient care that does not improve patient outcomes ... we can go back to the year 1999 and do the math and see that in the last 20 years there were tens of trillions of dollars to be recouped and spent more wisely, like paying for healthcare access for all Americans.

Doing those two things and suddenly medicare-for-all, along with free college tuition and green energy ... all become viable and self-sustaining.

#72 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-05 04:26 PM | Reply

But those same people won't be paying for health insurance, they'll come out with more money

#70 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2019-01-05 04:12 PM | REPLY

1% more, unless, like Germany they opt for private coverage which is far superior to the public option. In which case the German is spending a lot more as a % of income.

#73 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-01-05 04:26 PM | Reply

--Red herring -- there's plenty of money.

Yeah man, you can just print it.

#74 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-05 04:29 PM | Reply

Absolutely not. Her numbers don't even cover M4A.
#67 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Who cares. Raising taxes is the right decision for America's future to be better.

#75 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-05 04:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Yeah man, you can just print it.

What? You want to go back to the gold standard?

You should start by burning all the printed currency you posses.

#76 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-05 04:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"as a % of income" LOL.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-05 04:32 PM | Reply

Who cares. Raising taxes is the right decision for America's future to be better.

#75 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Exactly

#78 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-05 04:34 PM | Reply

--You should start by burning all the printed currency you posses.

I'll do that if you promise to stop burning fossil fuels.

#79 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-05 04:38 PM | Reply

"Who cares."

Reality-based folks. And the folks tasked with making the numbers work.

See if you can do it: You've got $720 Billion in revenue, and M4A that costs $30 Trillion. Go.

#80 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 04:39 PM | Reply

#80 Nationalize the health insurance companies.
Revenue just went up a lot, right?

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-05 04:40 PM | Reply

Raising taxes is the right decision for America's future to be better.

Doing the things spelled out in post # 72 ... then add to that reigning in a ridiculously bloated DoD budget -- a few trillions here, a trillions there, and suddenly we have an government that works for all Americans.

#82 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-05 04:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

M4A that costs $30 Trillion. Go.

#80 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

See post # 82 ... then see post #72 ... then see me and Clownshack at the pub tomorrow at Noon for the finer details (Nulli is buying).

#83 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-05 04:46 PM | Reply

"Nationalize the health insurance companies."

Or eliminate the middleman. It's not like the actuarial sample is too small.

#84 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 04:47 PM | Reply

"Nationalize the health insurance companies."
Or eliminate the middleman.

^
Aren't those the same thing?

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-05 04:48 PM | Reply

"Red herring -- there's plenty of money."

Not if you're only taxing the top. Not even close.

"First and foremost is raising taxes on Americans and business that can afford higher taxes = millionaires, billionaires, and corporations making record profits."

Returning the corporate rates to 35% raises $1 Trillion. Add that to the income tax increases, and cut $5 Trillion from the military...

...and you're almost a third of the way there.

Only $20.2 Trillion to go.

And that's my point: any suggestion these things will happen by only taxing the richest...doesn't add up. Literally.

#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 04:51 PM | Reply

"Aren't those the same thing?"

Not exactly.

One, you own the company, the other you've simply ended one (enormous) revenue stream.

#87 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 04:52 PM | Reply

#83

But I'm still up for the Pub.

#88 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 04:56 PM | Reply

Who is (are) the middleman (middlepersons), if not the insurers?

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-05 04:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Only $20.2 Trillion to go.

And that's my point: any suggestion these things will happen by only taxing the richest...doesn't add up. Literally.

#86 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Recouping the annual 30% of wasted healthcare ... if done the last 20 years, that's ~ $20 trillion on the high end, and over $10 trillion on the low end.

#90 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-05 04:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

She wants European healthcare, but intentionally omits the fact they soak the working class with taxes to pay for it. Reality won't get her re-elected.

#68 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Not if you can convince the electorate that savings from not paying insurance premiums result in a net gain of money in their pockets with that plan or, alternatively, that savings from lowered out of pocket costs would be a net gain.

Given the average % of income paid per year by Americans I don't think that that would be a hard sell.

#91 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-05 04:59 PM | Reply

You're all a bunch of worried morons.

So careful not to do anything to upset anyone that nothing will get accomplished.

Business as usual.

Demowussies.

#71 | Posted by ClownShack

LOL sure thing.

If you have to misrepresent a position to make a point, your argument sucks.

#92 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-05 05:00 PM | Reply

" if done the last 20 years, that's ~ $20 trillion on the high end, and over $10 trillion on the low end."

Okay, so now you're only $10-$15 Trillion short.

And that's assuming 30% is correct, and attainable overnight; we both know that's not the case.

#93 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 05:01 PM | Reply

"Who cares."

Reality-based folks. And the folks tasked with making the numbers work.

Shhhh the Dems can make it work this time. They'll have their utopia because Ocasio-Cortez is good with social media.

#94 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-05 05:03 PM | Reply

"Given the average % of income paid per year by Americans I don't think that that would be a hard sell."

True...to those who pay the full amount.

But what of the 150 million who currently pay little or nothing, usually to get better-than-average health coverage? How will you tell them they're paying more taxes for worse coverage?

From CNBC:
Employer-sponsored insurance is, by far, the the most common source of health coverage in the United States. There are an estimated 155 million people under age 65 covered by such plans.

#95 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 05:07 PM | Reply

"Given the average % of income paid per year by Americans I don't think that that would be a hard sell."

Part of the trick is your employer pays the lion's share of your health insurance cost.
Adding to the illusion is your meager contribution reduces your taxable income, so it's "good."

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-05 05:07 PM | Reply

(Nulli is buying).

No I'm not. I have to save every dime in case Cortez gets her crazy, regressive, carbon taxes implemented.

#97 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-05 05:09 PM | Reply

If you have to misrepresent a position to make a point, your argument sucks.
#92 | POSTED BY JPW

I prefer your method of throwing my hands in the air and saying, "Nothing can be done."

Don't raise taxes! That's gonna make the rich angry!

No wonder America is failing.

#98 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-05 05:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Okay, so now you're only $10-$15 Trillion short.

#93 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

There's plenty of savings from a monsterously bloated DoD budget, that'll cover it.

And that's assuming 30% is correct

#93 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Here's the low end ... resources.nationalacademies.org

Here's the high end ... www.theatlantic.com

#99 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-05 05:09 PM | Reply

"But what of the 150 million who currently pay little or nothing, usually to get better-than-average health coverage? "

Health care is pretty good, once you can get it.
The issue for us is not the quality of care itself, it's the access to care.
Things like Medicare not having a dental benefit, for example.

Having a private hospital room don't actually improve the quality of health care, it just makes the experience less unsavory.
I'm okay with people paying extra for that, but not when it comes at the cost of no bed available for those who can't pay extra for anything.

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-05 05:11 PM | Reply

"I have to save every dime in case Cortez gets her crazy, regressive, carbon taxes implemented."

Nullifidian rolls coal.

Is anyone really surprised?

:)

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-05 05:12 PM | Reply

"There's plenty of savings from a monsterously bloated DoD budget, that'll cover it."

So now you're cutting $1.5 Trillion per year from the DoD? That's more than twice their budget.
dod.defense.gov

Good God, don't tell me there's going to be a Democratic Math™ too. Republican Math™ is bad enough.

#102 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 05:13 PM | Reply

"The issue for us is not the quality of care itself, it's the access to care"

Not for the folks with good plans, paid for by their employers. Not by a long shot. For them, the issue will be much higher taxes for much lower care.

#103 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 05:14 PM | Reply

There's plenty of savings from a monsterously bloated DoD budget, that'll cover it.

#99 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF AT 2019-01-05 05:09 PM | REPLY

It's $681 billion in mandatory spending. Cut that in half, and end all discretionary spending, and you're almost up to a trillion.

#104 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-01-05 05:15 PM | Reply

While we're talking about ending all that discretionary spending, I have to point out it's the Democrats screaming about not occupying Syria forever. Kind of a mixed message there.

#105 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-01-05 05:16 PM | Reply

"No I'm not. I have to save every dime in case Cortez gets her crazy, regressive, carbon taxes implemented."

Dang.

I was going to send my portion to your favorite musician. You know, just so they'd get something from you other than lip service.

#106 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 05:16 PM | Reply

Nullifidian rolls coal. Is anyone really surprised?

I have no problem visualizing Nullifidian and Boaz jumping creeks in a 1969 Dodge Charger.

#107 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-01-05 05:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

Danforth.

Is your purpose on the DR to tell everyone not to rock the boat?

Because it seems like. Every time taxes and health insurance comes up. You're 100% against doing anything about it.

Hey. If you're worried about having to pay more taxes. I get it. No one wants to. But if it benefits everyone, as it will, I say it's worth the sacrifice.

#108 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-05 05:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Reality-based folks. And the folks tasked with making the numbers work.

Your numbers are all hypothetical.

You have no idea how much revenue can be generated by increasing taxes.

You seem worried.

So you skew the numbers. To fit your narrative.

#109 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-05 05:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You have no idea how much revenue can be generated by increasing taxes.

#109 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2019-01-05 05:39 PM | FLAG:

He's a tax professional...

#110 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-01-05 05:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

I say it's worth the sacrifice.

#108 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

And millionaires, billionaires, and corporations making record profits are going to sacrifice WAY more.

#111 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-05 05:45 PM | Reply

He's a tax professional...

And?

#112 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-05 05:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

--I have no problem visualizing Nullifidian and Boaz jumping creeks in a 1969 Dodge Charger.

Good luck keeping up in your Tesla virtuemobile.

#113 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-05 05:46 PM | Reply

- And millionaires, billionaires, and corporations making record profits are going to sacrifice WAY more.

And the working class and the poor to pay for those regressive carbon taxes.

#114 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-05 05:48 PM | Reply

If we do this wouldn't the ultra rich just flee to another country where they wouldn't get taxed so heavily. That is at least what I would probably do.

#115 | Posted by byrdman at 2019-01-05 05:48 PM | Reply

But what of the 150 million who currently pay little or nothing, usually to get better-than-average health coverage? How will you tell them they're paying more taxes for worse coverage?

Well, I suspect that would be accomplished by convincing employers to support it so they no longer have to pay for their employee's health insurance.

#116 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-05 05:49 PM | Reply

"If we do this wouldn't the ultra rich just flee to another country where they wouldn't get taxed so heavily. That is at least what I would probably do."

Congratulations, you figured out what the wall is for!

#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-05 05:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

I prefer your method of throwing my hands in the air and saying, "Nothing can be done."

Don't raise taxes! That's gonna make the rich angry!

No wonder America is failing.

#98 | Posted by ClownShack

LOL to rebut my statement of "If you have to misrepresent a position to make a point, your argument sucks" you...misrepresent my position.

Want to know why America is failing? Because the electorate is largely too damned stupid for its own good. Hence why discussions of politics revert to absurd over simplifications like your post above.

#118 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-05 05:51 PM | Reply

"If we do this wouldn't the ultra rich just flee to another country where they wouldn't get taxed so heavily."

Also, I kinda think that ship has sailed.
Allowing capital to roam freely while labor is held captive by nations is the secret sauce that makes globalization work.

#119 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-05 05:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"And the working class and the poor to pay for those regressive carbon taxes."

Then make them non-regressive, problem solved.
Give everyone a baseline carbon allowance, and let them trade.
Sound familiar?

#120 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-05 05:53 PM | Reply

If we do this wouldn't the ultra rich just flee to another country where they wouldn't get taxed so heavily. That is at least what I would probably do.

Where are they going to move to? Somalia?

Most other nations have a much higher tax rate than ours.

Plus. No one was fleeing the country when our taxes were 70%+.

To the contrary. More people were trying to come to America during those decades.

#121 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-05 05:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Not for the folks with good plans, paid for by their employers. Not by a long shot. For them, the issue will be much higher taxes for much lower care.

#103 | Posted by Danforth

Other than greater access/usage, what is the guarantee that this will be true?

Preventative treatment will help mitigate large, expensive treatments that are reactionary.

And universal coverage will mean their PCP/GP will still be "in network".

I don't deny that it will cost them more, but I'm not sure I see the angle on lower care being a foregone conclusion.

#122 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-05 05:56 PM | Reply

You have no idea how much revenue can be generated by increasing taxes.

LOL

Sure. There's no data out there at all to base rough calculations on.

You should have said "you don't know exactly how much revenue can be generated" and left it at that.

But yes, there is most definitely some idea of roughly how much. Because you know, MATH.

#123 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-05 05:58 PM | Reply

Good luck keeping up in your Tesla virtuemobile.

#113 | Posted by nullifidian

After your second or third dooby (depending on how heavy you roll 'em) you're not going to be going nearly as fast as you think.

#124 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-05 06:00 PM | Reply

Because the electorate is largely too damned stupid for its own good. Hence why discussions of politics revert to absurd over simplifications like your post above

Translation, "Nothing can be done."

You keep trying to pretend this isn't your point. But it clearly is.

It's funny how opposed you are to the idea of AOC suggesting we raise taxes.

And then turn around and blame it on the electorate.

If the idea fails, it fails. But at least she's trying. And anyone paying attention see her fighting for regular people.

As Bernie inspired her. She'll inspire others.

#125 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-05 06:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

But yes, there is most definitely some idea of roughly how much. Because you know, MATH.
#123 | POSTED BY JPW

Not really, not until after the fact, and even then you have no idea why. As the TAXes go up so will avoidance, and also evasion, in a non-linear fashion.

If it was just a "MATH" equation every expert wouldn't have a different opinion, or model, government spending and revenue would be easy.

Your MATH, is at best a guess given some fantasy static MODEL of the world for what is really a complex adaptive system.

In the end we can't seem to collect more then ~20% of GDP, the question then should be is it a fair system, seems pretty reasonable to me.

#126 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-05 06:11 PM | Reply

There's no data out there at all to base rough calculations on.

You should have said "you don't know exactly how much revenue can be generated" and left it at that.

But yes, there is most definitely some idea of roughly how much. Because you know, MATH.

Yea. Exactly: "Your numbers are all hypothetical.

You have no idea how much revenue can be generated by increasing taxes."

Having a rough idea isn't the same as knowing.

Which is why he didn't rebut. Because it is, as I said, hypothetical.

It's Saturday. You should drink a beer and relax. Arguing semantics is something for a Tuesday night when your lab mouse dies and you need to get out some anger and frustration.

#127 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-05 06:16 PM | Reply

Translation, "Nothing can be done."

You keep trying to pretend this isn't your point. But it clearly is.

God you're an idiot.

NO. IT'S. NOT.

It's funny how opposed you are to the idea of AOC suggesting we raise taxes.

And then turn around and blame it on the electorate.

My first post on the thread states quite clearly that raising taxes "NEEDS" to be done. Even in CAPS so IDIOTS would see it.

If the idea fails, it fails. But at least she's trying. And anyone paying attention see her fighting for regular people.

As Bernie inspired her. She'll inspire others.

Yeah, she is fighting for the people. I applaud that.

As I've stated elsewhere on this thread, it isn't those ideas I take issue with.

It's the starry eyed, naive manner in which she's going about trying to enact them. A path that all but guarantees she will fail.

#128 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-05 06:22 PM | Reply

Not really, not until after the fact, and even then you have no idea why. As the TAXes go up so will avoidance, and also evasion, in a non-linear fashion.

If you actually read the exchanges going on you would know that the quoted post was rebutting another poster's assertion that enough revenue might be raised to cover the costs of the proposed policies.

As such, yes you can calculate using MATH what the upper possible revenue amount could be.

All you've done is add another reason as to why the original assertion was absurd.

#129 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-05 06:24 PM | Reply

And?

#112 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2019-01-05 05:46 PM

I'd defer to his opinion on the math over yours. Most people will.

#130 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-01-05 07:10 PM | Reply

"Danforth. Is your purpose on the DR to tell everyone not to rock the boat?"

No. My purpose is to point out Democratic Math should be more realistic than Republican Math.

For example, one of the suggestions was to cut the defense budget by twice what it is now. Realistic, or not?

#131 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 07:18 PM | Reply

"Other than greater access/usage, what is the guarantee that this will be true?"

1) Taxes will have to go waaaay up
2) Roughly half the people have better-than-average health insurance
3) My bet is the 155 million makes up a large chunk if that better-than-average number
4) Even less-than-average, when it's free, will be better for some than paying A LOT MORE for slightly better coverage.

#132 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 07:29 PM | Reply

"Because it seems like. Every time taxes and health insurance comes up. You're 100% against doing anything about it. "

On the contrary; I'm all for doing something...just not doing it blindly. And DEFINITELY not by invoking some voodoo numbers.

So far, none of the math I've seen comes close to paying for M4A.

Nor does anyone--including me--have an answer regarding how to convince folks to give up better health care, and pay more, so others can get the same coverage they'll get.

#133 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 07:35 PM | Reply

"You have no idea how much revenue can be generated by increasing taxes. "

I was using YOUR numbers, sport.

If you wanted the answer to be yes, why didn't you pretend some larger numbers? Even your best estimates couldn't pay for it.

#134 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 07:37 PM | Reply

Allowing capital to roam freely while labor is held captive by nations is the secret sauce that makes globalization work.
#119 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Allowing capital to roam free depresses wages in developed nations. Allowing labor and capital to roam free will lead to the immediate death of the Western ideal as the socials systems would be so overrun and wages would plummet given the huge influx of cheap labor. It is basically the same as our current issue with illegal immigration but on steroids. This is what the Democrats are fighting for currently with their open borders nonsense.

#135 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-05 08:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

1) Taxes will have to go waaaay up

Define "waaaay".

And how does that increase compare to what is currently shelled out in premiums, out of pocket expenses ect?

2) Roughly half the people have better-than-average health insurance

That would be the definition of average, no? LOL

3) My bet is the 155 million makes up a large chunk if that better-than-average number

Should be just about all of it, especially since a good portion of those likely represent the primary holder.

4) Even less-than-average, when it's free, will be better for some than paying A LOT MORE for slightly better coverage.

#132 | Posted by Danforth

Sure.

But none of that explains why it's a guarantee that quality of service would fall that far.

Unless payments reeeeaaalllly dropped out and people stopped going into medicine under that system wouldn't this stabilize payment? Instead of having really low lows mixed with really really high highs to make up for the lows, wouldn't you potentially have consistency?

#136 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-05 10:48 PM | Reply

This is what the Democrats are fighting for currently with their open borders nonsense.

#135 | Posted by nobiasposter101

Dude, change your name.

Because all you have is right wing -------- noise.

And a giant helping of intellectual dishonesty to spew that trash with a name like that.

#137 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-05 10:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"And how does that increase compare to what is currently shelled out in premiums, out of pocket expenses ect?"

Even if it's less, there will be some big winners, and some big losers. On the list of big losers are the middle, upper-middle, and upper class workers with employer-paid health insurance.

"That would be the definition of average, no? LOL"

Exactly. Therefore, with M4A (roughly) half the folks with employer coverage will get worse coverage. And be taxed through the nose for it. Of course employers will be thrilled, but will they contribute the same amount to the M4A fund as they paid for employee coverage, simply out of the goodness of their hearts?

"Should be just about all of it, especially since a good portion of those likely represent the primary holder."

I was being kind and cautious. But I agree with your analysis more.

"none of that explains why it's a guarantee that quality of service would fall that far."

Well, mainly because the country couldn't afford, say, Congressperson healthcare for all. Besides...do you know anyone on Medicare?

But let's say it doesn't fall to the 50th percentile, let's say it averages out at 70th percentile coverage. That's still 30% on the top who won't have free, high-end coverage anymore.

"wouldn't you potentially have consistency?"

Absolutely. But try selling "consistency" to the folks who currently have better than what you're offering. And don't forget to let them know it's going to cost A LOT more than they're currently having to pay. Now, you might suggest employers be forced to pay workers what they would've paid for health insurance, but the former is taxable income, whereas the latter isn't.

#138 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 11:11 PM | Reply

"Define "waaaay"."

Current annual revenues are $3.3 Trillion.

We're going to need $3 Trillion a year for M4A.

You do the math.

#139 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 11:15 PM | Reply

issue with illegal immigration but on steroids. This is what the Democrats are fighting for currently with their open borders nonsense.

#135 | POSTED BY NOBIASPOSTER101 AT 2019-01-05 08:55 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1

Only cons use that term.

#140 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-01-05 11:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"On the list of big losers are the middle, upper-middle, and upper class workers with employer-paid health insurance."

Three groups you don't want against you in this fight.

Also, we all know there are going to be multiple campaigns waged by other losers in the equation. Harry and Louise will seem quaint by comparison. Meanwhile, pols in DC will be watching through a different lens: particular districts in which those companies reside, and how that lines up with the next election.

#141 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 11:22 PM | Reply

Current annual revenues are $3.3 Trillion.

We're going to need $3 Trillion a year for M4A.

You do the math.

#139 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

America's annual GDP is ~ $18 trillion.

Between higher taxes on the rich and their corporations, to include taxing the trillions of dollars in profits hidden in overseas tax-free zones ... recouping the annual ~ $750 billion in healthcare waste ... reeling in the bloated annual DoD budget of ~ 700 billion ... and just simply not spending money on dumb things like war ...

See ... plenty of money for medicare-for-all, free college tuition, and even a new green economy = all self-sustaining once established.

#142 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 08:35 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

""On the list of big losers are the middle, upper-middle, and upper class workers with employer-paid health insurance."
Three groups you don't want against you in this fight."

They just need to understand that when we have Medicare for all they are due for a pretty nice raise in pay. Perhaps we should legislate that into the bill that everyone receiving healthcare insurance from their employer would have their wages raise by the exact amount of the savings their employers gains. I think that would greatly improve the support for Medicare for all. The employers might object but really it wouldn't be actually costing them a dime. It would just redirect compensation from insurance to wages.

#143 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-06 09:35 AM | Reply

"Absolutely. But try selling "consistency" to the folks who currently have better than what you're offering."

I actually do understand your point, I have the best health insurance of anyone I know. I was hospitalized several years ago and I didn't have to pay a dime. However, most of Europe and Canada have managed to "sell" universal healthcare to their populations, there is no reason we couldn't here. Sure, there will be increased taxes but not as much as healthcare premiums. Sure, it won't be perfect but we won't have people dying because they can't access healthcare. The benefits outweigh the costs in an obviously large way, America is ready for it and is beginning to demand it. Smart politicians will ride this wave. The Republicans will lose more and more supporters as Americans realize that they will happily watch them die to save a small amount of tax dollars.

#144 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-06 09:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"See ... plenty of money for medicare-for-all..."

You're full of schitt.

Show me your full equation. How are you going to get to $3 Trillion per year? So far, even taking ALL the extremes from the numbers you proffered, you're not even 2/3rds of the way there.

#145 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 10:05 AM | Reply

"...to include taxing the trillions of dollars in profits hidden in overseas tax-free zones."

Oh, so now unicorns and fairies have been brought in.

How many pipe dreams will you be employing for this fantasy?

#146 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 10:07 AM | Reply

"They just need to understand that when we have Medicare for all they are due for a pretty nice raise in pay. "

That's not how the equation works.

If there is ANY chance of the equation balancing, all the monies now paid for employee health coverage will have to end up in the payment pot.

#147 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 10:11 AM | Reply

Oh, so now unicorns and fairies have been brought in.

How many pipe dreams will you be employing for this fantasy?

#146 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

President Eisenhower had a 90% tax rate and used it to pay for things America needed.

Ike was a real person.

You need to free your mind.

#148 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 10:29 AM | Reply

Show me your full equation. How are you going to get to $3 Trillion per year? So far, even taking ALL the extremes from the numbers you proffered, you're not even 2/3rds of the way there.

#145 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

see post # 148

#149 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 10:30 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"President Eisenhower had a 90% tax rate and used it to pay for things America needed."

That code had deductions out the yang. NO ONE paid taxes at a 90% effective rate.

"You need to free your mind."

You need to find an equation that works. So far, you're zero-for-everything. You can't even make it work when you assume all waste goes away overnight, and trillions hidden overseas suddenly get honestly declared and become taxable.

#150 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 10:34 AM | Reply

"see post # 148"

I did. You still fail at math.

#151 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 10:35 AM | Reply

You still fail at math.

#151 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

And you fail to comprehend that Eisenhower was a real person.

#152 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 10:41 AM | Reply

You need to find an equation that works. So far, you're zero-for-everything. You can't even make it work when you assume all waste goes away overnight, and trillions hidden overseas suddenly get honestly declared and become taxable.

#150 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Did you say something?

Anyone else here on the DR hear a noise?

Must be mice in the walls ~

Tiny whining for tiny solutions.

#153 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 10:43 AM | Reply

"And you fail to comprehend that Eisenhower was a real person."

So...basically you've got nothing left but senseless comments. I guess when math fails you, anything goes.

I'll have to update my nomenclature: not only do we have Republican Math™, where 2.6% is "more than 10%", but now we have PinchMath™, where all medical waste is a thing of the past, all hidden monies are magically declared, trillions of new taxes are enacted...

...and the equation still doesn't balance.

#154 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 10:46 AM | Reply

"Tiny whining for tiny solutions."

Awwww, isn't that cute?

Pinch can't do math, so he thinks it must be my fault.

#155 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 10:48 AM | Reply

Pinch can't do math, so he thinks it must be my fault.

#155 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

If you can't make something happen with an annual $18 trillion budget, then maybe you still with playing tiddlywinks with yourself.

I get it -- you can't manage a lemonade stand.

You need to calm down and take a seat. The real leaders of the country will tackle these problems and enact the solutions.

#156 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 10:53 AM | Reply

If you can't make something happen with an annual $18 trillion GDP, then maybe you stick with playing tiddlywinks with yourself.

I get it -- you can't manage a lemonade stand.

You need to calm down and take a seat. The real leaders of the country will tackle these problems and enact the solutions.

#157 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 10:55 AM | Reply

"If you can't make something happen with an annual $18 trillion GDP"

Revisit your math. I've been using YOUR numbers, and it still doesn't add up.

"I get it -- you can't manage a lemonade stand."

I've run a successful business for over 30 years. And I was a Trustee of a multi-billion dollar pension and health fund, where we HAD to balance the equation. Meanwhile, you can't add.

Any more potshots from the kiddie corner?

#158 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 11:04 AM | Reply

"The real leaders of the country will tackle these problems and enact the solutions."

Well, you certainly won't be at the table.

You're the guy who wants to go to war without knowing the enemy, the terrain, or a path to victory.

#159 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 11:07 AM | Reply

You're the guy who wants to go to war without knowing the enemy, the terrain, or a path to victory.

#159 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Wrong, chucklehead ... www.drudge.com

I've run a successful business for over 30 years. And I was a Trustee of a multi-billion dollar pension and health fund, where we HAD to balance the equation. Meanwhile, you can't add.

Any more potshots from the kiddie corner?

#158 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

An annual $18 trillion GDP allows plenty of wiggle room, do the math.

Dr. Don Berwick has long pointed out that there's already too much money in the U.S. Healthcare system, and like anything it's just a matter of how it's spent ...

www.usatoday.com

Largely absent from the current health-care debate in Washington is one astonishing number:

We waste fully one-third of our medical care dollars, about $1 trillion out of $3 trillion annually, according to a paper by Donald Berwick and Andrew Hackbarth that was published in The Journal of the American Medical Association.

After practicing medicine for almost 40 years, including 20 in health policy, I've become convinced that to achieve adequate, affordable health care for all Americans, the cost of care must be reduced.

Attacking cost, of course, is politically unpopular. The savings might make providers and companies less profitable, and businesses lobby heavily. So how do we go after that $1 trillion in waste? Here are four suggestions:

1. Take a big chunk out of the $192 billion spent on overtreatment.

2. Permit Medicare to consider cost in evaluating what to pay for, which is currently illegal.

3. Reform Medicaid with similar efficiencies.

4. Give patients more incentives to do their share.


Your healthcare resume ain't all that ...

There's plenty of money -- all it takes to do this, and to pay for medicare-for-all, is political will.

Today is the NFL playoffs, watch a ballgame and relax -- me and Dr. Berwick got this.

#160 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 11:31 AM | Reply

"Your healthcare resume ain't all that ..."

I served on health committees for 15 years before my peers decided to trust me with their plans. Meanwhile, what do you do at the VA...sweep? You're certainly not in the comptroller's office.

"An annual $18 trillion GDP allows plenty of wiggle room, do the math."

I did. Anything approaching reality requires you to double current taxes. Meanwhile, follow your own advice: even if all the fantasy numbers came through, you're not even in the ballpark. Do you actually believe ANY of the numbers you've proffered adds up to $3 Trillion a year?

"There's plenty of money"

Another proud flunkee from elementary school math.

#161 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 11:37 AM | Reply

Here are your assumptions:

All wasteful medical procedures will vanish overnight.
Doctors will stop suddenly making medical errors.
All money hidden overseas will magically be declared.
Folks who have free, high-end coverage will agree to have their taxes jacked up to get worse care.
Employers will happily pay workers what they would've paid for coverage, and that money won't be considered taxable income.
Opposition to these ideas doesn't exist, so no campaigns will be launched against it.
Taxes will nearly double.

And with all that, your equation STILL doesn't add up.

#162 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 11:48 AM | Reply

#161 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I'm a front-line clinician, and I certainly don't sit on my ass ruminating inanities out loud in board meetings while patting myself on the back with self-imposed accolades.

Any clinician in healthcare that's worth a crap intuitively knows that less is more ...

Dr. David B. Nash: Connect Ourselves and Our Communities -- Full Presentation
www.youtube.com
[1:41:42]

Dr. David B. Nash Q & A and the challenge of population health
www.youtube.com
[21:02]

The two above links are two hours worth of learning, get back to me when you know something.

#163 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 11:50 AM | Reply

5. Allow Medicare to negotiate for lower drug costs.
6. Allow Americans to buy drugs from other nations.
7. Penalize drug manufacturers who manufacture larger quantities of Opioids than they can substantiate prescriptions for.
8. Penalize anyone with prison who rips off Medicare and start with incarcerating Rick Scott.

#164 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-06 11:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"get back to me when you know something."

What a riot.

Your math doesn't add up, and it's STILL my fault.

How about this: show your entire equation, once. ALL of it. Let's tote up, and see where you're being realistic, and where you're riding unicorns.

$3 Trillion a year. Show me the money.

#165 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 11:58 AM | Reply

"I'm a front-line clinician"

Ooooh, a collector of urine specimens. Wow.

"I certainly don't sit on my ass ruminating inanities out loud in board meetings"

So paying for it is an inanity? You're digging deeper with every post.

That's because no one would take you seriously. But it's telling: you believe paying for it is an inanity.

In the board meetings, the equation MUST balance. Show me a balanced equation, and you'll get a seat at the adult's table.

I won't be holding my breath.

#166 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 12:01 PM | Reply

$3 Trillion a year. Show me the money.

#165 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Why don't you email Dr. Berwick telling him to show you the money -- he'll probably tell you to go piss up a rope.

#167 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 12:03 PM | Reply

"Why don't you email Dr. Berwick telling him to show you the money"

I'll take that as a no, you don't have a balanced equation.

Back to the kiddie table for you!

#168 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 12:04 PM | Reply

Ooooh, a collector of urine specimens. Wow

Lame

Why should I explain what I do?

You wouldn't last a half a day walking in my shoes.

#169 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 12:05 PM | Reply

I'll take that as a no, you don't have a balanced equation.

Back to the kiddie table for you!

#168 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Whatever you say, GoatFart.

#170 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 12:06 PM | Reply

"You wouldn't last a half a day walking in my shoes."

So now you're down to bullschitt statements?

I guess when you have nothing, that's all you've got.

#171 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 12:07 PM | Reply

"Whatever you say, GoatFart."

How many posts are you planning without showing a balanced equation?

#172 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 12:08 PM | Reply

I guess when you have nothing, that's all you've got.

#171 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I've posted links backing up everything I say.

All you got is circular talking points.

Dr. Nash ... post #163 ... less typing more learning, lemming.

#173 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 12:10 PM | Reply

"I've posted links backing up everything I say."

And none of them add up. Remember, I've been using YOUR numbers.

"Dr. Nash ... post #163 ..."

I'm not interested in wasting two hours of my time. Show the numbers of the balanced equation if you have them. You're still batting .000.

#174 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 12:25 PM | Reply

"All you got is circular talking points."

Typical, for someone with nothing. What part of your math doesn't add up don't you understand?

Screw the kiddie table, you deserve the dunce corner.

#175 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 12:26 PM | Reply

You're still batting .000.

#174 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

My batting average is 18 trillion dollars.

With 3 trillion dollars worth of ribbies ...

And with a 30% on-base percentage.

You're in paralysis thru analysis mode -- being a hopelessly inert and indecisive egg-head doesn't get the job done.

#176 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 12:30 PM | Reply

I'm not interested in wasting two hours of my time.

#174 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Willfully remaining ignorant is not a virtue.

#177 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 12:32 PM | Reply

I'm not interested in wasting two hours of my time.

#174 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Being lazy is also not a virtue.

#178 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 12:33 PM | Reply

I'm not interested in wasting two hours of my time.

#174 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Football starts in 30 minutes, go watch a ballgame and relax.

Me, Dr. Nash, Dr. Berwick, Dr. Kizer, Dr. Waechter, got this and will fix what ails US Healthcare.

#179 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 12:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

... add Dr. Leape to the above list.

#180 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 12:36 PM | Reply

"being a hopelessly inert and indecisive egg-head doesn't get the job done."

Neither does being a math idiot. You'd be laughed out of the boardroom.

"Willfully remaining ignorant is not a virtue."

My irony meter just pegged. You haven't even admitted your equation doesn't balance.

"Being lazy is also not a virtue."

Then hop to it; show me the equation.

But if you think I'm going to waste two hours to watch someone YOU think has the math right, you're even loonier than you seem.

#181 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 12:36 PM | Reply

"You're in paralysis thru analysis mode"

When I asked what part of your math doesn't add up you didn't understand, i never guessed it would be ALL OF IT.

Are you going to proffer an actual equation, or are you sticking with PinchMath™?

#182 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 12:38 PM | Reply

show me the equation.

#181 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

$18 trillion annual GDP

There's your equation, doofus.

It's just a simple matter of what America spends it money on.

Now go fondle your protractor.

#183 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 12:42 PM | Reply

"$18 trillion annual GDP There's your equation, doofus."

FAIL.

"It's just a simple matter of what America spends it money on."

Nonsense. It's a matter of doubling the tax revenue. Unless you've got $3 Trillion in cuts to propose.

You should look up the first rule of holes.

#184 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 12:45 PM | Reply

"Now go fondle your protractor."

All I've asked for is your math. You clearly can't even do that.

#185 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 12:46 PM | Reply

Danforth and Pinch demonstrate what is wrong with Progressives today. They seem to care more about winning arguments than solving problems.
To me the goal is Medicare for all but the path is preserving Obamacare and its protections for pre-existing conditions, insurance company profits and the mandate for everyone to buy in. How we progress past this I don't have an easy answer but I think we will and the right will kick and scream all the way until the day they have a serious illness and it saves their life.

#186 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-06 12:56 PM | Reply

"They seem to care more about winning arguments than solving problems."

Nonsense. I'm trying to solve the problem too. I'm simply being realistic about the numbers, and the realities on the ground.

If you were really interested in solving the problem, you'd want to see how the numbers worked as well. For example, one of Pinch's suggestions was we cut $1.5 Trillion annually out of the DoD's $720 Billion annual budget.

Does that math worry you, or not?

#187 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 01:00 PM | Reply

Danforth and Pinch demonstrate what is wrong with Progressives today.

#186 | POSTED BY DANNI

I'm not a progressive or a liberal, and I'm not a conservative either ... I don't care about ideology, though I freely admit that liberals have better ideas and solutions and are almost always on the right side of history.

This argument shows what's wrong with Democrats and liberals like Danforth ... getting bogged down in details as many Democrats and liberals often do, something Republicans and conservatives NEVER do.

We're the richest country in the world, yet we argue over things like foodstamps and prividing access to healthcare for all Americans ... that's both pathetic and shameful, period.

With a will there's a way, and there's no will.

#188 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 01:22 PM | Reply

"getting bogged down in details as many Democrats and liberals often do"

Yeah...details like how are you planning on paying for this? and how will you convince 100 million people to pay more to get less?.

If you believe these are just minor "details", you're an idiot.

#189 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 01:30 PM | Reply

"yet we argue over things like foodstamps and prividing access to healthcare for all Americans "

Well, I'm ready to tackle the problem.

Let's start with your math. Do you have an equation, or is "we're the richest country in the world" your sum total?

#190 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 01:32 PM | Reply

"With a will there's a way, and there's no will."

Nonsense. I have the will, I'm simply asking you to show us the way. So far, you've got nothing but fantasies and tap dancing.

#191 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 01:34 PM | Reply

To me the goal is Medicare for all but the path is preserving Obamacare and its protections for pre-existing conditions, insurance company profits and the mandate for everyone to buy in. How we progress past this I don't have an easy answer but I think we will and the right will kick and scream all the way until the day they have a serious illness and it saves their life.

#186 | POSTED BY DANNI

You're right in the regard that poor healthcare quality and wasted healthcare expenditures that add up to hundreds of billions of dollars annually is a tragedy ...

The solutions are rooted in reducing costs while improving quality, where they come together in how we create value ... vimeo.com

The 7:53 vimeo link with Dr. Kizer is about the most distilled and concise explanation of what needs to happen that I can find.

#192 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 01:35 PM | Reply

"We're the richest country in the world, yet we argue over things like foodstamps and prividing access to healthcare for all Americans ... that's both pathetic and shameful, period."

I don't disagree. Priorities. Nutrition and Healthcare should come before tax cuts for the rich. When tax cuts are passed as an excuse to cut food stamps and/or healthcare we have turned into a nation that needs psychological counseling. Having the biggest military in the world while some of our citizens can't afford food or healthcare makes this a nation not worth fighting for.

#193 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-06 01:43 PM | Reply

Yeah...details like how are you planning on paying for this? and how will you convince 100 million people to pay more to get less?.

If you believe these are just minor "details", you're an idiot.

#189 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Congress has all the info, there's nothing to debate.

But I get it, there's money to be had ... the politicians, their donors, and even the media, all make GIANT mountains of money on people's ignorance over arguments like "how to pay for Medicare-for-all".

You could do the same in rejecting the BS that's handed to you, but you're too prideful to change.

#194 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 02:00 PM | Reply

"but you're too prideful to change."

Project much?

#195 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 02:29 PM | Reply

"Congress has all the info, there's nothing to debate."

More tap dancing.

But I get it: you can't admit your numbers don't work.

#196 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 02:33 PM | Reply

I get it: you can't admit your numbers don't work.

#196 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Spoken like a retrograde conservative who would rather pay their millionaire and billionaire campaign donors with trillions of dollars of free taxpayer money ... instead of using the wealth from the richest country in the world to help working and middle-class Americans.

Tell us, what's it like being a Quisling for the Plutocrats?

When the pitchforks come out, you'll be exposed like the brainiac Nulli at an Ala-Damn-Bama cracker-fest.

#197 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 02:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yeah...details like how are you planning on paying for this?

We should cut taxes on the rich again.

Thanks for all your effort on this thread Danforth.

Really hammering the "nothing can be done" narrative.

So. Since nothing can be done. Why bother.

Let's also apply this attitude towards global warming, school shootings, our dwindling economy, white supremacy...

Danforth has done the math. He knows everything. Should have just ended the thread when he said no to any taxes on the rich.

#198 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-06 02:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Tell us, what's it like being a Quisling for the Plutocrats?

He gets paid well for it.

Every tax season.

#199 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-06 02:56 PM | Reply

"Spoken like a retrograde conservative who would rather pay their millionaire and billionaire campaign donors with trillions of dollars of free taxpayer money"

Oh, for Christ's sake. Produce an equation that works. Anything else is just admitting you can't.

#200 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 02:59 PM | Reply

#199

Feel free to step up to the adult's table.

Show us YOUR equation, and show Pinch how it's done.

#201 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 03:00 PM | Reply

Show us YOUR equation,

No. Dan. You've convinced me.

Nothing can be done. Plus. We don't want to anger the rich.

They are our superiors.

I can't wait to vote party line Republican in 2020.

Thanks for showing me the error of thinking about everyone instead of just the rich, Dan.

#202 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-06 03:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"No. Dan. You've convinced me."

IOW, you know the numbers don't add up as well, but you're too much of a chikenschitt to admit it.

"Really hammering the "nothing can be done" narrative."

On the contrary. I'm all for it. Just show us how it can be done, based on the numbers.

"We don't want to anger the rich. "

There are over 100 million folks with employer coverage who will be affected. If you think the rich are the only ones you'll anger, you're headed to the kiddie table with Pinch.

"Thanks for showing me the error of thinking about everyone instead of just the rich, Dan."

Thanks for your complete surrender to bullschitt, Clown.

#203 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 03:12 PM | Reply

There are over 100 million folks with employer coverage who will be affected.

National healthcare wouldn't replace employer coverage?

I'm learning more and more.

By the way Dan. Have you ever shown your math? Like real numbers.

Cause you already know everything. So. It shouldn't be difficult to prove.

#204 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-06 04:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There are over 100 million folks with employer coverage who will be affected. If you think the rich are the only ones you'll anger, you're headed to the kiddie table with Pinch.

#203 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Screw the rich -- and those with employer coverage are part of the Leapfrog Group representing over 150 of America's largest employers providing employer based coverage ...

And guess what?

It was the purchasers and buyers of healthcare, like the Leapfrog Group, who were demanding something to be done about the rising costs of healthcare and were lobbying Congress, with the result being Obamacare.

You can click here ... www.youtube.com 17:45 thru 19:45 ... and click here ... www.youtube.com 24:00 thru 30:10 ...

And speaking of the Leapfrog Group, they have all the info about US healthcare as Congress has = poor quality, medical error, and why healthcare costs continue to rise (see first link starting at 16:05).

None of this is BS -- you and the 100 million or so with employer based coverage are ALREADY paying for both the uninsured and for the ~ $ 750 billion in annual healthcare waste.

Medicare-for-all is not just viable, it's necessary.

#205 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 04:28 PM | Reply

By the way Dan. Have you ever shown your math? Like real numbers.

Cause you already know everything. So. It shouldn't be difficult to prove.

#204 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Danforth is more worried about the math affecting the quarterly dividend notices for millionaires and billionaires and their corporations already making record profits.

#206 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 04:40 PM | Reply

Oh, for Christ's sake. Produce an equation that works. Anything else is just admitting you can't.

#200 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Up thread there are numerous posts showing where there's "money" to pay for Medicare-for-all.

When George W. Bush justified his tax cuts, he didn't wait literally until money was in the bank ... Clinton balanced the budget with projected surpluses to 2010 and beyond, and effing Dubya simply pissed it all away during his two disastrous terms in office.

Like I said, conservatives and Republicans don't get bogged in details, they just do it -- like George W. Numbnuts doling out the free taxpayer money to rich Republican donors via his 2 Bush Tax Cuts on money that was projected as surplus.

Don't overthink Medicare-for-all, there's plenty of money.

#207 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 04:48 PM | Reply

"Up thread there are numerous posts showing where there's "money" to pay for Medicare-for-all."

Then it should be easy to put all of your numbers in one post. Go ahead.

#208 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 04:52 PM | Reply

Then it should be easy to put all of your numbers in one post. Go ahead.

#208 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I'm not your valet, you do it.

#209 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 04:53 PM | Reply

"National healthcare wouldn't replace employer coverage?"

Yes it would. And that's the problem. Oh for chrissakes, I feel like I'm talking to a class of kindergartners.

#210 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 04:54 PM | Reply

You think you know the answers, but you can't even articulate the questions.

#211 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 04:55 PM | Reply

"I'm not your valet, you do it."

You're not lazy, you're just a liar. The numbers DON'T add up, and you just don't have the nads to admit it.

#212 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 06:28 PM | Reply

How to pay for Medicare-for-all

theweek.com

Medicare-for-all sounds great, but how do we pay for it?

In a normal country, the answer would be simple -- just raise taxes.

But in the United States, health care is so outlandishly expensive that the simple solution is anything but. Where Austria or Finland would be assured that a modest tax hike could (and did) cover everyone, America has to grapple with a bloated health-care sector eating up over 17 percent of GDP -- nearly 5 points (or about $1 trillion) greater than Switzerland, the second-most expensive country.

As Jon Walker argues, this reality forces Medicare-for-all advocates into one of two basic choices, neither of them easy:

1. Swallow the huge costs, shove through a really big tax hike, and hope that people will understand the taxes-for-premiums swap.

2. Try to cut costs, and keep the tax increase modest, but tempt the wrath of the medical lobby.

Some tax increases are certainly inevitable. But the second choice is by far the best, on grounds of both practical policy and politics.

Now for the final accounting.

If we start with that 5 point GDP gap (or $1 trillion) between the U.S. and Switzerland in annual health-care spending, drugs and administration cuts get us about 2 points (that $390 billion from above).

As I noted above, it's hard to say how much waste and fraud will cover with any certainty, but I would venture it would be about 2 points ($400 billion) at a minimum.

In my view, a national Medicare-for-all plan should make up the remaining difference in tax increases and actually aim for an overall spending goal of 1 point of GDP higher than Switzerland.

(This is an arbitrary choice, but it's trying to strike a balance between cutting a hard bargain and setting realistic goals. A bit more revenue will grease the policy skids.)

Government health-care spending through direct programs and tax expenditures already accounts for about $7,000 per person. Assuming that can all be captured and redirected, that leaves about $650 per person -- or $210 billion total -- in more revenue to bring us up to 13.3 percent of GDP.

The existing progressive 2.9-3.8 percent Medicare payroll tax brings in $260 billion, so another payroll tax of 2-3 percent ought to carry that easily.

Alternatively, we could add a new income tax surcharge, or some mechanism to force the rich to pay more. The point is that is a modest, easily achievable tax.

This new revenue might not be enough at first, requiring some initial borrowing, but any remaining budget gaps will be made up through the price cuts and audits outlined above.

Of course, we won't know for sure how much we can save until we start really trying, and all these estimates are very rough.

But it basically has to be the case that America can wring out enough waste and bloat to have merely "the world's most expensive health-care system by a small margin" instead of our current wild outlier status.


See next post ...

#213 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 07:26 PM | Reply

... conclusion ...

How to pay for Medicare-for-all

theweek.com

This finally brings me to the politics.

Pressing down hard on costs provides a corresponding benefit -- the ability to offer a really, really good plan for cheap.

Instead of providing a tax increase about as big as current premium payments and cost-sharing -- about $28,000 on average for a family of four, which would be an enormous payroll tax of perhaps 10-25 percent -- it would be a meager little tax.

Virtually every non-rich person would come out way ahead, creating a gigantic constituency for the new program instantly.

People would be slavering for that kind of coverage.

Meanwhile, the wildly dysfunctional health-care sector would finally be put in something approaching a rational order, removing a major drain on wages and productivity.

The medical lobby has helpfully clarified the issue by coming out guns blazing against Medicare-for-all sight unseen.

The way to get over that obstacle is by offering a spectacular benefit to the rest of the population, something that would mean permanent high-quality coverage plus significant extra take-home pay.

Selling that benefit hard, whipping up energy and demand around it, and assailing those who would stop it might just carry Medicare-for-all over the finish line.

The medical lobby will kill Medicare-for-all if they can, and the best way through is to bulldoze it.


As I've said all along, if there's a will there's a way. It just takes simple political will.

And no BS talking point about the "numbers not adding up".

#214 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 07:27 PM | Reply

70% of Americans now support Medicare-for-all -- here's how single-payer could affect you
www.cnbc.com

Regular Americans intuitively understand that the US healthcare system is crap in need of reform.

#215 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 07:35 PM | Reply

#213, #214

Some good ideas in there. Also some huge pitfalls, and a 9-figure mistake.

One aspect that took me a while to find: folks will lose their current coverage. Expect a lot of blowback.

But the real ringer was this:
"The way to get over that obstacle is by offering a spectacular benefit to the rest of the population, something that would mean permanent high-quality coverage plus significant extra take-home pay. "

So better coverage for everyone, including an un-named "spectacular benefit", for lots cheaper costs? That's exactly what Trump promised.

No one knew health care was so complicated.

#216 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 07:44 PM | Reply

New Study Shows Medicare for All Would Save US $5.1 Trillion Over Ten Years

www.commondreams.org

I told you so.

#217 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 07:45 PM | Reply

"70% of Americans now support Medicare-for-all"

That's a mirage; 70% support the idea of Medicare for all.

Reality will be much different. The other side hasn't even begun to stockpile powder.

And according to the article, the big losers---besides folks with high-end care, and/or coverage with little cost---are doctors, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and medical personnel.

But not to worry...there's a "spectacular benefit" on the way, AND a raise!

BTW...did you notice the cost for the spectacular benefit didn't end up in the final equation?

#218 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 07:48 PM | Reply

No one knew health care was so complicated.

#216 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Medicine is complicated, understanding that US healthcare is dysfunctional and wasteful is easy to understand.

So, reducing waste and eliminating the dysfunction saves huge amounts of money ... money used to sustain it -- again, not hard.

#219 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 07:49 PM | Reply

And according to the article, the big losers---besides folks with high-end care, and/or coverage with little cost---are doctors, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and medical personnel.

#218 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Me being civil service, douchebag Trump already nixed the planned pay raise ...

I would tell my private sector counterparts, "welcome to the club".

#220 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 07:55 PM | Reply

- "70% of Americans now support Medicare-for-all"

Meaningless. I can't count the times I've seen California initiatives start out with huge favorable numbers only to lose on election day.

#221 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-06 07:56 PM | Reply

"Would Save US $5.1 Trillion Over Ten Years"

Not up front, that's for sure. And there's still the issue of folks with great coverage paying more to get less.

Also, that's assuming all the amount now paid for employer coverage will end up in the payment account. Good luck with that.

"I told you so."

You also claimed YOUR numbers above balanced the equation. It's hard to believe anything you say.

#222 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 07:59 PM | Reply

Meaningless. I can't count the times I've seen California initiatives start out with huge favorable numbers only to lose on election day.

#221 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Gays in the military, legalized pot ... we've seen this movie before.

Just a matter of time, hopefully in our lifetimes.

#223 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 08:00 PM | Reply

"Medicine is complicated"

Yeah, I know.

The line was a joke. Google it if you need.

#224 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 08:01 PM | Reply

"Just a matter of time, hopefully in our lifetimes."

Oh, it will happen. I guarantee it. But it won't be due to altruism, it'll be because that's all the country can afford.

We'll get there, but it doesn't do us any good to pretend the road will be smooth. Knowing what it will actually cost, and identifying the biggest hurdles, are just the beginning.

#225 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 08:03 PM | Reply

You also claimed YOUR numbers above balanced the equation. It's hard to believe anything you say.

#222 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You kept whining about "the numbers" like a retrograde free market obstinate conservative on the rag.

US healthcare is an outlier in planet Jupiter sized amounts of waste and dysfunctional inefficiency ...

Raise taxes on the rich and tamp down hard on the waste ... it takes political will, but it's still very doable -- and it's the right thing to do for America.

#226 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 08:05 PM | Reply

"Raise taxes on the rich"

The equation doesn't work that way. Taxes will be raised on EVERYONE.

"US healthcare is an outlier in planet Jupiter sized amounts of waste"

Well, thank God you're the first one who thought of reducing waste.

"You kept whining about "the numbers""

Because you kept lying about what you had already posted.

Go on, prove me wrong: show where YOU posted numbers before #213 that pay for the $3.2 Trillion per year.

#227 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 08:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Single payer is too big a change, but a public option will quickly shrink the for-profit health care companies to what they ought to be; providers of supplemental insurance for people who decide they want to pay extra for supplemental insurance.

#228 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-06 08:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Well, thank God you're the first one who thought of reducing waste.

Because you kept lying about what you had already posted.

Go on, prove me wrong: show where YOU posted numbers before #213 that pay for the $3.2 Trillion per year.

#227 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Ridiculous

I've posted hundreds of times the Dr. Kizer videos up thread ... same with the IOM link about where the money is going, up thread ... same with the Atlantic link about the $750 billion annually in waste, up thread ...

I've also posted hundreds of times how medical error is the third leading cause of death in America ...

You must've been busy shaving your palms those hundreds of days I posted all that.

Bro, stop digging.

#229 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 08:19 PM | Reply

Go on, prove me wrong: show where YOU posted numbers before #213 that pay for the $3.2 Trillion per year.

#227 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Post # 99 ... www.drudge.com

Post # 160 ... www.drudge.com

Post # 163 ... www.drudge.com

Post # 205 ... www.drudge.com

The other week you were crying about me posting Dr. Kizer lectures explaining all this ... remember?

#230 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 08:28 PM | Reply

#227 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2019-01-06 08:09 PM | REPLY | FLAGGED NEWSWORTHY BY ANDREAMACKRIS

too funny

#231 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 08:58 PM | Reply

#230

Sorry, those numbers don't add up.

FAIL.

#232 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 09:19 PM | Reply

AOC tonight on 60 Minutes when asked how she will pay for all her proposed policies:

"No one asks how we're going to pay for this Space Force," she said, referring to Trump's proposed new branch of the U.S. military. "No one asked how we paid for a $2 trillion tax cut. We only ask how we pay for it on issues of housing, healthcare and education."

"How do we pay for it? With the same exact mechanisms that we pay for military increases for this Space Force. For all of these -- ambitious policies."

www.bloomberg.com

#233 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-06 09:46 PM | Reply

Sorry, those numbers don't add up.

#232 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Posts # 213 and # 214 clearly show Medicare-for-all isn't about numbers.

But you prefer to align youself with liars like the Heritage Foundation's senior putz, Stephen Moore ...

Under Democrats' Medicare for all idea 157M people would lose health insurance

www.dallasnews.com

Pathetic

#234 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 10:03 PM | Reply

- "No one asks how we're going to pay for this Space Force," she said,

In other words, she ducked and deflected. Not surprising.

#235 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-06 10:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Posts # 213 and # 214 clearly show Medicare-for-all isn't about numbers."

Especially if you get to ignore one of the main hurdles, and make a 9-figure mistake.

But I stand by my claim: before #213, your numbers did NOT add up. They still don't, completely, but you're at least a lot closer.

"But you prefer to align youself with liars like the Heritage Foundation's senior putz, Stephen Moore "

GFY. Steven Moore is the dumbest human on the face of the earth. And that's not the first time I've posted that sentence on the DR.

What you don't realize is I'M ON YOUR SIDE. I just know you're nowhere near prepared for battle. It wasn't until I challenged you that you FINALLY did some homework.

#236 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 10:09 PM | Reply

"In other words, she ducked and deflected. "

Well, by all means, chime in. How ARE we going to pay for Space Force?

#237 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 10:10 PM | Reply

"No one asks how we're going to pay for this Space Force," she said, referring to Trump's proposed new branch of the U.S. military.

"No one asked how we paid for a $2 trillion tax cut.

We only ask how we pay for it on issues of housing, healthcare and education."

"How do we pay for it?

With the same exact mechanisms that we pay for military increases for this Space Force.

For all of these -- ambitious policies."


She obviously read my post #188 ... www.drudge.com

and post #207 ... www.drudge.com

Nice ~

#238 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 10:11 PM | Reply

""No one asked how we paid for a $2 trillion tax cut. "

That's because it's all newly borrowed money.

#239 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 10:12 PM | Reply

"No one asked how we paid for a $2 trillion tax cut."

She's wrong to say that no one asked how to pay for Trump's tax cut, so I'm not sure why she said that. Plenty of people asked and plenty of people warned us that Trump and the GOP were lying when they said the tax cut would not only pay for itself but actually cut down on the deficit. Did she somehow miss all those discussions? I would have thought she would have wanted to be part of them.

#240 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-06 10:17 PM | Reply

It wasn't until I challenged you that you FINALLY did some homework.

#236 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Liar, I've been talking about the 30% amount of wasted healthcare on this website for years.

Whether it's called Obamacare, single payer, Medicare-for-all, don't matter ... there's plenty of money to pay for all Americans to have access to healthcare.

You're the one who argues about meaningless details, just like conservative lackeys like Stephen Moore.

Hey, I hear Stephen Moore saying no way we can raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires and corporations already making record profits ... you two should get a room.

#241 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 10:21 PM | Reply

"Danforth has done the math."

Yes. And you haven't.

Funny how that works.

#242 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 10:21 PM | Reply

"Liar, I've been talking about the 30% amount of wasted healthcare on this website for years."

I'm talking about the $32 Trillion. It wasn't until you realized your numbers didn't add up, that you finally went looking for someone else's equation.

"You're the one who argues about meaningless details"

Good God. Just when I thought you were starting to learn, it's back to the kiddie table for you.

"Hey, I hear Stephen Moore saying...:

Well, if you'd prefer to wear the dunce cap in the corner, be my guest.

#243 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 10:24 PM | Reply

She's wrong to say that no one asked how to pay for Trump's tax cut, so I'm not sure why she said that. Plenty of people asked and plenty of people warned us that Trump and the GOP were lying when they said the tax cut would not only pay for itself but actually cut down on the deficit. Did she somehow miss all those discussions? I would have thought she would have wanted to be part of them.

#240 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Spoken like a naively sincere liberal and Democrat who mistakenly thinks the media and Republicans play by honorable rules.

Wake up.

If fact checking meant anything, Trump would've been impeached and jailed on Day 1.

#244 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 10:26 PM | Reply

I'm not naïve. Just wondering how AOC missed those discussions or is choosing to lie about them.

#245 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-06 10:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Danforth has done the math."

Yes. And you haven't.

Funny how that works.

#242 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

That was Clownshack being sarcastic to you, doofus.

And your laughable misinterpretation is exactly what a doofus like Stephen Moore would do.

#246 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 10:31 PM | Reply

I'm not naïve. Just wondering how AOC missed those discussions or is choosing to lie about them.

#245 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

The media does everything it can to set the narrative between goalposts that they the media decides on ...

If the media did it's job, it'd have long ago connected the dots on how conservative and Republican ecomonic policies have slowly crushed working and middle-class Americans for the last 40 years ... www.drudge.com

So why are you bothered by her decision to play Republican rules, that are tacitly reinforced by an unfocused media bent on setting the parameters of debate?

I think it's great she said what she said.

America is the richest country in the world with an annual GDP of ~ $18 trillion ... Republicans have been looting the US Treasury for decades, time to aim some of that money toward working and middle-class Americans.

#247 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 10:47 PM | Reply

"That was Clownshack being sarcastic to you, doofus."

I know. My response was sarcastic as well.

"a doofus like Stephen Moore"

Aww, still butt-hurt from being embarrassed all thread? Maybe this will help:
www.target.com

#248 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 10:49 PM | Reply

Aww, still butt-hurt from being embarrassed all thread? Maybe this will help:
www.target.com

#248 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Whatever you say, GoatFart.

#249 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 10:51 PM | Reply

"an annual GDP of ~ $18 trillion"

Based on that, can you identify the error in the article you referenced in the #213/#214 posts?

I'll give you a hint: it's a 9-figure mistake.

#250 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 10:51 PM | Reply

"Whatever you say, GoatFart."

Ahhh, the tears of the defeated.

Whine on!

#251 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 10:52 PM | Reply

Ahhh, the tears of the defeated.

Whine on!

#251 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

When the pitchforks come out, you'll have to answer why you're a Quisling for the Plutocrats.

I'll be sure to buy you your kneepads for your birthday.

#252 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 10:55 PM | Reply

"I'll be sure to buy you your kneepads for your birthday."

I'm sure you know where to find the best ones.

And I'll buy you a calculator. God knows you need one.

#253 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 10:57 PM | Reply

I'm sure you know where to find the best ones.

And I'll buy you a calculator. God knows you need one.

#253 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

The best kneepads are sold at Mar-a-Lago, just ask Trump.

And my calculator shows that rich douchebags and their record profit making corporations can afford higher taxes ... and my same calculator says there's plenty of money in the world's richest country to pay for everyone's healthcare.

Not, hard.

#254 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 11:03 PM | Reply

"What you don't realize is I'M ON YOUR SIDE. I just know you're nowhere near prepared for battle."

He doesn't believe you because you aren't telling him what he wants to hear. Plus, he doesn't believe there is going to be a battle. Instead he tells others to wake up and calls them naïve.

#255 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-06 11:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He doesn't believe you because you aren't telling him what he wants to hear. Plus, he doesn't believe there is going to be a battle. Instead he tells others to wake up and calls them naïve.

#255 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Here you go ...

The Pitchforks Are Coming ... For Us Plutocrats
www.politico.com

Q: how many times have I posted this?

A: one jillion times

And as Chris Rock once said, "If poor people knew how rich rich people are, there would be riots in the streets."

When the pitchforks come out, I know whose side I'll be on.

#256 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 11:12 PM | Reply

"he doesn't believe there is going to be a battle."

If you can't name the five biggest challenges, you shouldn't be at the adult's table.

#257 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 11:13 PM | Reply

"Not, hard."

Posts the guy who clearly finds proper punctuation too hard.

#258 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 11:15 PM | Reply

"When the pitchforks come out, I know whose side I'll be on."

The math idiots?

#259 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 11:16 PM | Reply

In this country we use votes, not pitchforks. And you have to be able to recognize that not everyone agrees with you and that vyou will need to persuade them to your side and in some cases, Gawd forbid, even compromise on how quickly you might accomplish your goals.

Calling people who support most of what you support quislings of the other side helps your cause not at all.

#260 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-06 11:16 PM | Reply

If you can't name the five biggest challenges, you shouldn't be at the adult's table.

#257 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

If you don't understand what doctors Berwick, Kizer, Nash, Wachter, Leape, all who are healthcare quality and safety experts ... say about the US Healthcare system, then you should not be working in healthcare.

Try sticking to things you know, like scratching your nutz.

#261 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 11:19 PM | Reply

"If you don't understand what doctors Berwick, Kizer, Nash, Wachter, Leape, all who are healthcare quality and safety experts ... say about the US Healthcare system, then you should not be working in healthcare."

Yak yak yak. Their numbers didn't add up either. Lots of unicorns and fairy dust, and lots of pretense...like the idea 30% of health care is going to vaporize overnight, and--miracle!--just the wasteful portions. in fact, EVERY assumption made by the only posts referring to actual numbers chose every rosy scenario they could, and even then, it didn't completely add up.

Speaking of, have you found the 9-figure error yet, or is that above your pay grade?

#262 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 11:37 PM | Reply

In this country we use votes, not pitchforks. And you have to be able to recognize that not everyone agrees with you and that vyou will need to persuade them to your side and in some cases, Gawd forbid, even compromise on how quickly you might accomplish your goals.

Calling people who support most of what you support quislings of the other side helps your cause not at all.

#260 | POSTED BY CORKY

Healthcare is one-sixth of our nation's economy -- why settle for crap that's also the 3rd leading cause of death in America, when we can have real healthcare for everyone?

And worrying about rich Plutocrats is flat-out ridiculous.

Republicans aren't afraid to shake the very pillars of the nation to get what they want ... Democrats timidly try to set the parameters of debate with facts and reason ... guess who's been winning the last 20 years?

I agree with most of what you have to say, but healthcare is a life and death issue ... and considering that America is in it's SECOND Gilded Age, America simply cannot continue on this path of obscene wealth inequality ...

Eventually poor people will get desparate, literally ... people need to think about what that means and the consequences it could entail.

#263 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 11:38 PM | Reply

"If you can't name the five biggest challenges"

Go ahead, Pinch...let's hear your list.

#264 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 11:39 PM | Reply

"If you can't name the five biggest challenges"

Go ahead, Pinch...let's hear your list.

#264 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You have two fingers picking your nose, one finger in your ear, and two more fingers stuck up your dress ... that's five big challenges.

Congrats, now wash your hands before touching other people with your nasty meat hooks.

#265 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 11:48 PM | Reply

Great. I gave you a chance to move to the adult's table, and you wet your diaper.

My apologies for expecting better.

#266 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 12:01 AM | Reply

like the idea 30% of health care is going to vaporize overnight, and--miracle!

#262 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Spoken like a good liberal and Democrat who relies on logic and reason...

And back during the Bush-43 era, Republicans didn't wait for Clinton era projected balanced budgets to literally hit the US Treasury's coffers ... they simply took the projected trillions of taxpayer dollars and gave it to their rich campaign donors via 2 Bush Tax Cuts.

Dubya did it again with another trillion dollar giveaway to Big Pharma with Medicare Part D.

Money for single-payer? There's plenty of money -- Democrats, if they're serious, can just take it and make single-payer happen.

#267 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-07 12:02 AM | Reply

"Spoken like a good liberal and Democrat who relies on logic and reason..."

Well, then go on record. The assumptions pretend ALL wasteful procedures will vanish overnight. Do you actually believe that?

#268 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 12:05 AM | Reply

"There's plenty of money"

The examples you gave were based on digging debt holes.

Is that the way your healthcare payments are going to be addressed as well?

#269 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 12:07 AM | Reply

Well, then go on record. The assumptions pretend ALL wasteful procedures will vanish overnight. Do you actually believe that?

#268 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I believe you're a tower of giggly jello too timid to make meaningful change in America.

But I bet you're a REAL dynamo in the board room.

#270 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-07 12:08 AM | Reply

#270

Once again, you've wet your diaper instead of addressing an honest question.

Feel free to wallow in your urine.

G'night.

#271 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 12:13 AM | Reply

Once again, you've wet your diaper instead of addressing an honest question.

Feel free to wallow in your urine.

G'night.

#271 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Feel free to sleep in your bed of soft puddin' and jello ...

Goodnight, don't let the bedbugs bite -- and instead of counting sheep, count the bottom-line profits of the quarterly dividend notices for multi-millionare healthcare CEOs and executives.

#272 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-07 12:19 AM | Reply

The difference between Republicans and Democrats ...

Only Republicans get to impeach (Bill Clinton, Hillary before the '16 election).

Only Republicans are patriotic (Kerry swift-boat campaign, Obama and birtherism, pretty much any Democrat since 1980).

Only Republicans get to place activist judges on the SCOTUS (Scalia, Thomas, Beer Keg Kevin).

Only Republicans can have abortions and access to healthcare -- speaks for itself.

Only Republicans get to say they cut taxes (Obama's 2009 Stimulus was 40% tax cuts).

And, finally, only Republicans get to spend trillions upon trillions of taxpayer dollars -- on war and on making the rich richer.

And the media makes this all worse by creating ...

"a situation where audiences are permanently upset, agitated and they're addicted to content that is just going to make them angrier"

www.drudge.com

Wake up people.

#273 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-07 06:49 AM | Reply

90% tax rates? You really think someone is going to accept having to give away 90 cents to every dollar they keep?
75% tax rates? So if someone makes $1.00, they only get to keep 25 cents? You think that is fair?

#274 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 09:21 AM | Reply

Because the US tax laws were written for the benefit of the one percent, we peons at the bottom get beat down year after year. My suggestion? Confiscatory tax rates on ALL levels of income over, say, one million dollars. Two million? Pick a number.

Another possible solution is to "need" fewer dumb consumer products. I refuse to buy a zirconium-encrusted tweezers!

#275 | Posted by john47 at 2019-01-07 09:24 AM | Reply

90% tax rates? You really think someone is going to accept having to give away 90 cents to every dollar they keep?
75% tax rates? So if someone makes $1.00, they only get to keep 25 cents? You think that is fair?

#274 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 09:21 AM

We have explained how marginal tax rates work several times. Are you thick, or are you messing with us? You get to keep the first million. Then you pay 25 percent on the next million. Then fifty percent on the next million. The ninety percent rate ought to kick in at about 10 million. Don't want to pay taxes? How about donating a few million to charities. As a major donor, you could be implementing policy for liberal charities!

#276 | Posted by john47 at 2019-01-07 09:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Are you thick, or are you messing with us?" - #276 | Posted by john47 at 2019-01-07 09:29 AM

He's not smart enough to mess with us.

So that leaves "thick."

#277 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-07 09:42 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

90% tax rates? You really think someone is going to accept having to give away 90 cents to every dollar they keep?
75% tax rates? So if someone makes $1.00, they only get to keep 25 cents? You think that is fair?

#274 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 09:21 AM

I don't think a 70% tax rate on the highest earners is a burden.

Keep in mind we have a GRADUATED tax system. So they don't pay 70% on all income. I think she proposed it would be applied to income in excess of $20 Million/year.

We also used to truly tax capital gains at a high rate - keep in mind this is income without adding value.

#278 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-01-07 10:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"We also used to truly tax capital gains at a high rate - keep in mind this is income without adding value." - #278 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-01-07 10:01 AM

Following WWII, the three (3) highest gains in the GDP were 1950 (8.7%), 1951 (8.0%) and 1955 (7.1% - source).

These were years when the top marginal tax rate was 90%.

It was also a time when the National Debt, accrued from the spending on the New Deal and WWII, was being paid off.

What American wouldn't want to return to such prosperity?

#279 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-07 10:08 AM | Reply

We also used to truly tax capital gains at a high rate - keep in mind this is income without adding value.
#278 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE

I can understand high taxes on stocks and other financial assets, but how about lower capital gains tax on real estate?

#280 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-01-07 10:16 AM | Reply

90% tax rates? You really think someone is going to accept having to give away 90 cents to every dollar they keep?
75% tax rates? So if someone makes $1.00, they only get to keep 25 cents? You think that is fair?

#274 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2019-01-07 09:21 AM

The nature of progressive tax rates is such that the highest rate only applies to excessive income. Everybody pays the same rates. People earning 7 figure salaries get the same rates as people earning minimum wage. both pay 10% on their first $9,525. Both pay 37% on any income over $500,000. only a handful of individuals have ever done anything that created more than $1 million in value for a corporation. Most people who get paid extremely high salaries do very little actual work while those whose work creates the most value seldom get paid for the value they provide. Example. I wrote a piece of software that saves a former employer 2-3 hours per job setup time on jobs that they run 15-20/day. Thats a savings of 30-60 man hours per day in positions that pay $20-25/hr Annual savings for the company: $156,000-$390,000/year. I got a $2,000 raise for it. 3 people who used to spend all day doing nothing except setup these jobs were reassigned to other new projects that were backlogged prior to my work.

#281 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-01-07 10:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Finally I understand Democrats .....

Cooper: "You lie about stuff and don't use facts."

AOC: "You are missing the forest for the trees. There are people more concerned about being precisely and factually correct than about being morally right."

#282 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-07 10:53 AM | Reply

"Finally I understand Democrats ..... Cooper: "You lie about stuff and don't use facts." - #282 | Posted by Andre a mattress at 2019-01-07 10:53 AM

A year of unprecedented deception: Trump averaged 15 false claims a day in 2018

[snip] Trump began 2018 on a similar pace as last year. Through May, he generally averaged about 200 to 250 false claims a month. But his rate suddenly exploded in June, when he topped 500 falsehoods, as he appeared to shift to campaign mode. He uttered almost 500 more in both July and August, almost 600 in September, more than 1,200 in October and almost 900 in November. In December, Trump drifted back to the mid-200s.

Perhaps you would be better served understanding Republicans.

#283 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-07 11:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#282 Context matters:

Anderson Cooper: One of the criticisms of you is that -- that your math is fuzzy. The Washington Post recently awarded you four Pinocchios --

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Oh my goodness --

Anderson Cooper: -- for misstating some statistics about Pentagon spending?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they're missing the forest for the trees. I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

Anderson Cooper: But being factually correct is important --

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: It's absolutely important. And whenever I make a mistake. I say, "Okay, this was clumsy." and then I restate what my point was. But it's -- it's not the same thing as -- as the president lying about immigrants. It's not the same thing, at all.

www.cbsnews.com

#284 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-07 11:22 AM | Reply

Danforth,

I truly applaud your patience.

On topic....why is this woman being treated with such reverence by the MSM?

The Democratic Party needs to demonstrate that it's a serious party - serious in a way that truly counters the boorish and ignorant claims of Trump and his supporters. But if the MSM is going to glorify a naive woman who is totally out of her league (at least right now) then she looks like the other side of Trump's coin (minus the offensive comments, of course).

Let's face it: Republican math is Republican math (H/T- Danforth for that term, although I don't know how to put that little "TM" after it) regardless of who is using it.

#285 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-07 11:26 AM | Reply

"know how to put that little "TM" after it"

With my MacAir™, it's Option-2.

I actually discovered it by making a mistake.

#286 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 11:30 AM | Reply

"I actually discovered it by making a mistake." - #286 | Posted by Danforth™ © 2019-01-07 11:30 AM

#287 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-07 11:36 AM | Reply

Let's face it: Republican math is Republican math (H/T- Danforth for that term, although I don't know how to put that little "TM" after it) regardless of who is using it.

#285 | Posted by JeffJ

Starting 2019 off strong with some 2018-esque jeffj false equivalency classics.

Repubs propose spending and have NO ONE pay for it.

Dems propose spending and have rich people pay for it.

See? Totally the same thing! If you're desperate to pretend.

#288 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-07 01:42 PM | Reply

Like when he posted that bit about immigrants costing more in safety net resources without looking at how much immigrants provide to safety net resources.

He thought that was both fair and insightful.

#289 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-07 01:49 PM | Reply

"Dems propose spending and have rich people pay for it."

$720 Billion to pay $3 Trillion.

#290 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 01:50 PM | Reply

AOC scares these confederates more than a Che Guevara / Hillary Clinton hybrid.

#291 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 01:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Effective rates vs. marginal rates. Learn the difference then lets discuss. Danforth is the only one who picks up on this.

#292 | Posted by taxman at 2019-01-07 01:55 PM | Reply

"...glorify a naive woman who is totally out of her league..."
#285 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

With how terrified the right is of her, its obvious that she is not "out of her league". If she was out of her league, conservatives wouldn't be so desperately trying to slander her.

Clearly political savviness is not a trait you exhibit.

#293 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 01:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"But if the MSM is going to glorify a naive woman who is totally out of her league (at least right now)"

She's the same age as Paul Ryan when he became a Congressman.

Your MSM called him a genius.

You didn't question it.

Because in your mind, you were every bit as critical of Paul Ryan as you are of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

#294 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-07 02:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

90% tax rates? You really think someone is going to accept having to give away 90 cents to every dollar they keep?
75% tax rates? So if someone makes $1.00, they only get to keep 25 cents? You think that is fair?

#274 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 09:21 AM

Actually, yes, bozo. That is fair. Perhaps you need to work on your definition of "fair"?

If I have 10 billion dollars and I give to my country 90% how much do I have left?

90 percent of 10 billion is 9 billion dollars.

10-9 = 1 billion (actual) dollars

You still have 1 billion dollars left and you still get to keep making more of it because you are making America prosper and everyone around you prosper..

But, how much do I REALLY have left? ALL of it.

The 9 billion I just put back into my country is not gone. It just made my life better. And the General Welfare of America also gets better.

And I will make another billion dollars next year that I will not have enough time in my life to spend.

#295 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-01-07 02:02 PM | Reply

"Dems propose spending and have rich people pay for it."

$720 Billion to pay $3 Trillion.

#290 | Posted by Danforth

Which is still more responsible leadership than saying magical nonexistent economic growth will pay for it.

#296 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-07 02:04 PM | Reply

Effective rates vs. marginal rates. Learn the difference then lets discuss. Danforth is the only one who picks up on this.

#292 | POSTED BY TAXMAN

Well, look who's back!

And not surprisingly bringing up a good point about effective vs marginal rates.

#297 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-07 03:22 PM | Reply

With how terrified the right is of her, its obvious that she is not "out of her league". If she was out of her league, conservatives wouldn't be so desperately trying to slander her.
Clearly political savviness is not a trait you exhibit.

#293 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

Terrified? Too funny.

I don't have a problem with her. I think it's cool that someone so young won a congressional district.

What I was poking fun at was the MSM hoisting her on a pedestal when she hasn't accomplished much of anything yet.

#298 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-07 03:24 PM | Reply

What I was poking fun at was the MSM hoisting her on a pedestal when she hasn't accomplished much of anything yet.

#298 | Posted by JeffJ

The MSM isn't "hoisting" her as part of a liberal plot. They are profit driven. Covering strongly liked or hated politicians is the way to do that.

She's on TV a lot because a lot of people like/hate her. Not because she's being FORCED on you for some nefarious reason.

#299 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-07 03:26 PM | Reply

Starting 2019 off strong with some 2018-esque jeffj false equivalency classics.
Repubs propose spending and have NO ONE pay for it.
Dems propose spending and have rich people pay for it.
See? Totally the same thing! If you're desperate to pretend.
#288 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Your binary view of things impairs your reading comprehension. I'd offer clarification to my comment, but I doubt you'd bother reading it objectively.

"Republican Math" is a term that Danforth created. It's along the lines of "Vernon's calculator" if you have been around long enough to have heard that term.

#300 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-07 03:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I didn't say she was being "forced" on anyone. I could care less about how the MSM lionizes her. I just think it's humorous and somewhat beclowning of themselves.

#301 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-07 03:28 PM | Reply

I don't think the mainstream media puts her on a pedestal. If anything i've seen more articles full of fact-checking every syllable that comes from her mouth and scrutinizing her proposals (like this one) than i have the opposite.

#302 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-07 03:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Dianna E. Anderson 🏳️‍🌈
@diannaeanderson
·
Jan 4

okay so a lot of (rich, white) folks are freaking out about what a 70% tax rate on the wealthy would look like and they're scared about it and ---- (even though it's literally what rich baby boomers already dealt with).

SO LET'S DO THE MATH.

Post WWII, the tax rate peaked at 94% on annual income over $200,000 ($3mil in 2018 dollars). In the decades following, it dropped to a marginal tax rate of 70% of all income over 200k/annually (again, 2-3mil in today's dollars, depending on year).

Here's a thing a lot of folks don't understand: we have a tax system in the US that only taxes money above the "bracket."

So, say the cut off for a particular percentage is 250k and you made 254k last year. The entire thing wouldn't be taxed at the higher rate. Just the 4k.

So this doesn't mean that all rich people would suddenly have to give up 70% of their income. Thanks to the way tax brackets work, they would only be taxed at the rate for the money above the cut off. So it isn't a 70% flat tax -- which the GOP are depending on you misunderstanding.

I and other regular joes who don't break six digits on our annual income would never be affected by this. It's literally adding additional marginal tax rates at higher percents for the much higher income earners.

(keep in mind, we had our largest periods of growth and economic stability when we taxed the rich like this).

#303 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-07 03:34 PM | Reply

I don't have a problem with her.
--JeffJ

She's naive.
She's totally out of her league.
--Also JeffJ

Ohhh I get it.
You're her.

#304 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-07 03:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I didn't say she was being "forced" on anyone. I could care less about how the MSM lionizes her. I just think it's humorous and somewhat beclowning of themselves.

#301 | Posted by JeffJ

Yeah the press covering someone that people are interested in. How clownish. They should spend all their time terrorizing people about imaginary mexican terrorists instead.

#305 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-07 03:45 PM | Reply

With how terrified the right is of her, its obvious that she is not "out of her league". If she was out of her league, conservatives wouldn't be so desperately trying to slander her.
Clearly political savviness is not a trait you exhibit.

#293 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES: I agree with Funny Flag for this one as if you check around different blogs and comments after articles you will find we are laughing at her, not terrified at all. If anyone is terrified it would be the 'old fossil' dems currently in the House.

#306 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-01-07 04:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If anyone is terrified it would be the 'old fossil' dems currently in the House.

#306 | Posted by MSgt

Got any in mind specially or just "all" of them?

THIS is Nancy Pelosi's Moment in History.

Neither you nor I knw how this will end.

But, as for me? I was a bit concerned at first but when I saw how she confronted and "handled" Humpy my concerns evaporated immediately.

Like her or not. Nancy has got this. And she is good enough.

Enjoy!

#307 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-01-07 04:50 PM | Reply

#306 | POSTED BY MSGT

"we are lauighing at her"

Nervous laughter, huh?

"not terrified at all"

The collective ------------ you kids have been committing for a few days say that is a lie.

#308 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 04:51 PM | Reply

- If anyone is terrified it would be the 'old fossil' dems currently in the House.

The DNC is terrified she's going to drag the party so far left that it will cost them in 2020. She's a gift to the GOP.

#309 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-07 04:53 PM | Reply

The DNC is terrified she's going to drag the party so far left that it will cost them in 2020.

The GOP don't seem to have any problem with dragging the party to the right. All their efforts have actually caused the nation to shift to the right. More so now than ever since Donnie, "Bankrupt the nation", has appointed conservative lunatics to the judicial system.

But, heaven forbid a democrat actually have some liberal ideas to put forth. Not a chance! Dems are too worried about how they'll be received by the nation.

She's a gift to the GOP.

She's a gift to the future of our nation as more and more Americans are seeing someone actually fighting for them. It's a refreshing change from politicians who fight for their pocketbooks.

#310 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-07 05:23 PM | Reply

I don't have a problem with her.
--JeffJ

She's naive.
She's totally out of her league.
--Also JeffJ

Ohhh I get it.
You're her.

#304 | Posted by snoofy

The way you rock, nonstop
Girl, you got the chops
Flip flop, she bop, self-taught
You look so hot

The boys wanna be her !
The girls wanna be her !

He WANTS to be her, too!

#311 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-01-07 05:27 PM | Reply

Ocasio-Cortez is apparently our "Mockingjay".

She is a symbol of what the Capital loves to hate.

She is the Girl on Fire!

#312 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-01-07 08:33 PM | Reply

The 'Green New Deal' isn't just ambitious --- it's insane
Read more at
www.jewishworldreview.com

#313 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-08 09:02 AM | Reply

Phuc the 1%. Tax the crap out of them like it was 1951!

#314 | Posted by getoffmedz at 2019-01-08 10:46 AM | Reply

#314 | POSTED BY GETOFFMEDZ

Hater ...

#315 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-08 10:58 AM | Reply

#315 - Only Russians like you!

#316 | Posted by getoffmedz at 2019-01-08 11:10 AM | Reply

Y'all realize the rich can move and take their money with them? Basicly that is what happened earlier while Obama was in. Corporate profits stayed off shore.

#317 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-01-08 12:41 PM | Reply

Y'all realize the rich can move and take their money with them?

Where would they move to? Name one other country which provides the safety and comfort America provides its rich. Also. Make another nation with taxes lower than America's. We have the lowest taxes. Even if we raised the amount we tax the rich, we'd still have the lowest taxes of any modern nation.

Basicly that is what happened earlier while Obama was in.

Really? The rich moved and took their money with them? Who? Where did they move to?

Corporate profits stayed off shore.

That's been going on for decades. I consider it theft. But most Republicans view it as acceptable greed.

#318 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-08 12:46 PM | Reply

Danforth,

I truly applaud your patience.

#285 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Danforth is wrong, and you're just a right-wing crackpot.

You two should get a room.

Danforth and JeffJ, talk about one of the more gross-out one night stands.

#319 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-08 08:56 PM | Reply

Danforth,
I truly applaud your patience.
#285 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Yea, patience of a Saint, to simply repeat, "It can't be done, because I said so!" and "It's math!" (while not providing any math).

The only thing Dan has said which I agree with is; people getting rich off the current system own our government, therefore, nothing can be done.

#320 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-08 09:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"(while not providing any math)."

Hey doofus, I was using the math Pinch provided.

Did his equation balance to you?

"The only thing Dan has said which I agree with is; people getting rich off the current system own our government, therefore, nothing can be done."

Which I never said, nor do I believe.

#321 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 09:02 PM | Reply

Clownshack

Try selling the entirety of the UAW workers that single payer is so great they will pay more and get less. Try it.

You too, Loaf. Please. Drive to Detroit and make that argument.

#322 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 09:03 PM | Reply

"Danforth is wrong"

YOU LIE.

But I get it: I embarrassed you too much for your snowflake fee-fees.

#323 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 09:04 PM | Reply

What's amazing to me is that you two are going to battle with a staunch supporter and advocate of single payer - Danforth.

#324 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 09:05 PM | Reply

"advocate of single payer "

Damn straight. It WILL be cheaper in the long run.

All I've posted about are hurdles, being realistic, and math.

#325 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 09:07 PM | Reply

Yea, patience of a Saint, to simply repeat, "It can't be done, because I said so!" and "It's math!" (while not providing any math).

The only thing Dan has said which I agree with is; people getting rich off the current system own our government, therefore, nothing can be done.

#320 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

I'm sure JeffJ can steer Danforth toward some sweet ball coddling and pole polishing gigs for the 1% ... Jeff being the right-winger with the connections and all.

Just don't ever say to raise taxes on the rich.

#326 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-08 09:14 PM | Reply

#326

Great stuff to say to a teammate, who returned with the scouting report on the other side.

So...are you planning to win with that type of treatment for folks who want the same goal??? If so, the guy in charge with fighting us will have the easiest job in the world.

#327 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 09:18 PM | Reply

Danforth,

My biggest issue with single payer is math. I have other issues as well but it's something I strongly oppose because of our current debt, deficit trajectory and future unfounded liabilities. Until our populace is forced to actually pay for what we currently have plus our future obligations I cannot support massive new spending.

Bail out and plug the holes of this ship and then I'd be willing to entertain single payer.

#328 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 09:28 PM | Reply

" it's something I strongly oppose because of our current debt"

Then you should support it. In the long run, it's cheaper.

"Until our populace is forced to actually pay for what we currently have..."

STFU. You just supported borrowing an additional $2.3 Trillion. If you'd've come out against it before it passed, you might have an ounce of credibility on the subject.

#329 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 09:31 PM | Reply

#329

Nice. I guess I should put you in the same camp as Loaf in terms of having an honest discussion. --.

#330 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 09:46 PM | Reply

Nice. I guess I should put you in the same camp as Loaf in terms of having an honest discussion. --.

#330 | Posted by JeffJ

Did you not support Trump's "tax reform"?

#331 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-08 09:51 PM | Reply

"an honest discussion."

What a laugh.

You're pretending you actually care about the deficit...suddenly. If you had a scintilla of concern, you had your chance.

#332 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 09:51 PM | Reply

"Did you not support Trump's "tax reform"?"

Of course he did.

And the day after it passed, he caught Mitch McConnell's concern.

#333 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 09:52 PM | Reply

For all Danforth's talk about math, he never posts any to disprove the efficacy of single payer. If it's as simple as he likes to make it sound, it should be equally easy to post reliable, fact-checked numbers that prove it.

#334 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-08 09:58 PM | Reply

#331

Initially. And then once I looked at the nitty gritty I thought it was mostly a steaming pile. I love the SALT cap and the reduction in the corporate tax rate. Most of the rest of it sucks.

#335 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 09:58 PM | Reply

Is Snoofy spoofing Danforth's account?

#336 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 10:00 PM | Reply

Pretending to care about the deficit after they pass a massive tax cut is on Page 1 of the GOP handbook, or the GOP Royal Scam book if you saw the article Bayviking posted.

#337 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-08 10:01 PM | Reply

Joe,

That's because Danforrh supports single payer. He just happens to be honest about the political hurdles of getting it done and he dispels the Utopian claims of its results due to math.

#338 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 10:02 PM | Reply

Gal,

At the federal level the GOP clearly does not care about deficits at all.

#339 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 10:03 PM | Reply

dispels the Utopian claims of its results due to math.

Then he should post his own math. That's how numbers-based debates work. I've posted two studies on the topic. If the math is so "utopian" there should be easily accessible studies to the contrary. So let's see them, or drop the condescension.

#340 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-08 10:09 PM | Reply

At the federal level the GOP clearly does not care about deficits at all.

Until a Democrat is the president...

#341 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-08 10:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"For all Danforth's talk about math, he never posts any to disprove the efficacy of single payer."

Oh FFS, have you had your head in the sand for all these years? I've been SCREAMING that single payer is the way to go, PERIOD. It cheaper, and it's better. In the aggregate.

HOWEVER, there will be winners, and there will be losers, and if Democrats don't admit and address that issue, they'll be losers on this issue.

The math has to balance. The hurdles have to be identified. Plans to counteract what is definitely coming our way must be developed.

Folks are pissed off at me because I can actually add up all of Pinch's numbers and admit that, so far, they don't work without a lot of very strained assumptions.

I'm not saying it's impossible; I've never said it's impossible. But trust me: It's more difficult that you're pretending. If anyone believes the current 70% approval rating itself guarantees passage, they're delusional.

#342 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 10:12 PM | Reply

Joe,

Claiming single payer will produce a series of winners and losers with the end result being a net positive is one thing. Proclaiming it will deliver near Utopian results is quite another thing.

#343 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 10:12 PM | Reply

#342 Still no math. Hilarious.

#344 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-08 10:13 PM | Reply

"At the federal level the GOP clearly does not care about deficits at all."

Well, since at the state level they have to balance their budgets, that would be 100% of the time.

#345 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 10:14 PM | Reply

#341

Correct, Clown. In my lifetime the closest thing we've achieved to fiscal sanity has been with a Dem POTUS and a GOP House.

#346 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 10:16 PM | Reply

"Still no math. Hilarious."

Still flunks macro. Pathetic.

Tell us Joe...will the folks with the best plans in America have to settle for a lesser plan, yes or no?

Question two: do you realize that answer is a macro dial, yes or no?

#347 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 10:17 PM | Reply

#345

Really?

Compare contrast Illinois and Indiana.

#348 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 10:18 PM | Reply

Danforth, you gave an example of your MIL on Medicare not being able to have as many doctors to chose from as someone on private insurance, but if M4A was in place, wouldn't all doctors have to take it?

#349 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-08 10:18 PM | Reply

" In my lifetime the closest thing we've achieved to fiscal sanity has been with a Dem POTUS and a GOP House."

And then the GOP Potus and the GOP House reset America's fiscal sights.

And you voted for them, again and again.

#350 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 10:18 PM | Reply

#347 Still no math.

Here's 205 pages of math concluding that M4A could reduce overall health expenditures by 10%.

www.peri.umass.edu

If you don't like it, it's time to post your own math, or STFU.

#351 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-08 10:19 PM | Reply

Danforth,

To be fair, Joe is right. You've produced no math.

#352 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 10:19 PM | Reply

"Tell us Joe...will the folks with the best plans in America have to settle for a lesser plan, yes or no?"

I'm not sure they would if the bought the best supplemental insurance plan to go along with it.

#353 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-08 10:19 PM | Reply

"if M4A was in place, wouldn't all doctors have to take it?"

No. Not unless the laws are changed. Boutique insurance plans (and doctors who cater to it) would flourish.

#354 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 10:20 PM | Reply

#350

Drop the childish vote shaming.

I voted third party for POTUS in ‘16 and on top of that I'm not a single issue voter.

#355 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 10:21 PM | Reply

Experts: Medicare-For-All Is Viable And Would Save The Gov't Billions Annually

mavenroundtable.io

#356 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-08 10:21 PM | Reply

Gal,

My wife works for the University of Michigan health system. They are public and have to take all-comers. St Joes down the road is private and they can pick and choose. Both provide excellent care.

#357 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 10:23 PM | Reply

"No. Not unless the laws are changed. Boutique insurance plans (and doctors who cater to it) would flourish."

But most doctors and hospitals would take it. Right now folks with good employer plans don't always have a choice as to the doctors they see. My friend, for example, who needs a kidney transplant can't go to the facility he would like to because it is not "in network".

#358 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-08 10:25 PM | Reply

"But trust me: It's more difficult that you're pretending. If anyone believes the current 70% approval rating itself guarantees passage, they're delusional."

On this I agree with you.

#359 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-08 10:27 PM | Reply

"To be fair, Joe is right. You've produced no math."

I feel like I'm teaching pre-schoolers. I'm talking about the f^cking CONCEPTS. The numbers follow the concepts.

If I point out all the money we currently pay for ALL healthcare is planned for the communal pot, plus new taxes, that's because EVERYONE estimating this has said as much. If I point out some employers pay MORE, for HIGHER quality plans, it follows that HIGHER quality plans cost MORE.

By default, if we all get the same plan, some will get BETTER than folks have today, and some will get WORSE.

Since the BETTER plans will get WORSE coverage, yet still be expected to pay MORE than average, it might upset them. If you SUBTRACT money to make it fairer for them, you will have to ADD money somewhere else to make the equation balance. If EVERYONE has to pay MORE taxes, you are literally asking tens of millions of people to pay MORE to get LESS.

Now...is there anyone who doesn't understand BETTER v WORSE, MORE v LESS, or ADD v. SUBTRACT???

Whatever the f^cking numbers are, they tell the exact same story.

#360 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 10:31 PM | Reply

The numbers follow the concepts.

Then post the numbers, mathless wonder.

#361 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-08 10:34 PM | Reply

If EVERYONE has to pay MORE taxes, you are literally asking tens of millions of people to pay MORE to get LESS.

The obvious converse being that hundreds of millions will get MORE.

It's time to cater our policy to the majority, not a loudmouthed entitled minority.

#362 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-08 10:36 PM | Reply

"Experts: Medicare-For-All Is Viable And Would Save The Gov't Billions Annually"

That's absolutely true.

Now...how do we get there, and are we aware of the hurdles that await us? Can we identify the winners and losers, and try to convince the losers it's in everyone's best interest, even if not theirs. And how will we counteract the barrage coming at us from hospitals, doctors, nurses, other health care workers, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and their families?

And that's before the political considerations (which I agree are schitt but they're there) of what companies will be hurt the most, and what congressional districts are those companies in?

BTW, you may think the last part is superfluous, but we have to prepare for the possibility this may take more than one Congressional session.

#363 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 10:37 PM | Reply

Then post the numbers, mathless wonder.

#361 | Posted by JOE

What exactly do you expect to see?

#364 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-08 10:37 PM | Reply

#360 Danforth

I get all of that and agree with it.

I took a swipe at you purely out of retaliation.

It's annoying, isn't it?

#365 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 10:39 PM | Reply

"The obvious converse being that hundreds of millions will get MORE."

I don't disagree.

What I'm pointing out is the groups against this have VERY deep pockets.

#366 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 10:41 PM | Reply

#362 Joe

Hundreds of millions will get more? How many hundreds of millions? The population of this country is roughly 330 million.

#367 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 10:41 PM | Reply

What exactly do you expect to see?

Math.

#368 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-08 10:41 PM | Reply

Hundreds of millions will get more? How many hundreds of millions? The population of this country is roughly 330 million.

If only tens of millions meet the nebulous group Danforth seems to obsess over, that leaves hundreds of millions on the other side. Simple "math." :)

#369 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-08 10:42 PM | Reply

"Then post the numbers, mathless wonder."

I understand: you don't get macro, and you don't understand conceptual math.

Put in any numbers you want; the result is the same: the folks with the deepest pockets in America will be told they will have to pay more to get less.

Do you understand that concept, or not?

#370 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 10:44 PM | Reply

#363

Please- anyone pushing for single payer address that post.

Let's deal in reality.

#371 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 10:44 PM | Reply

Joe,

85% of people with employer funded plans are happy with what they have and a big chunk of that group is blue collar folks and public employees. It's not just a small Uber wealthy cabal that will pay more to get less. Not by a long shot.

#372 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 10:48 PM | Reply

What exactly do you expect to see?

Math.

#368 | Posted by JOE

No, you're just trolling.

Or you don't understand it conceptually and don't have any expectations of what it will show.

#373 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-08 10:49 PM | Reply

I understand

No you don't.

I posted a lengthy study that concludes M4A will cost less than the current system, even taking into account the increased demand for services it will create. You don't just get to scream "the numbers don't work!" without posting your own numbers.

Bring the Math™, or STFU.

#374 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-08 10:52 PM | Reply

No, you're just trolling.
Or you don't understand it conceptually

Wrong on both counts, cheerleader. Read the study.

#375 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-08 10:53 PM | Reply

"Put in any numbers you want; the result is the same: the folks with the deepest pockets in America will be told they will have to pay more to get less."

Yeah, and it's not a concept they are gonna be used to since the GOP keeps cutting taxes for them. How will the average Janes and Joes fair? If they will mostly do better and there are millions more of them than Mr. and Mrs. Deep Pockets, then the goal is to convince them and get their support. DP will never get on board.

#376 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-08 10:54 PM | Reply

#375

Joe,

Are you not aware that these guys actually agree with the numbers in the study you linked in terms of a net cost savings?

#377 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 10:57 PM | Reply

So the only objection is that other people will object?

If that's the only reason not to pursue M4A i'd say we're in great shape.

#378 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-08 11:01 PM | Reply

For those who don't understand conceptual math, here is an example:

Jim Workman is an engineer, and gets a no-cost (to him) high-end family insurance plan from his employer costing his employer $20,000. Let's say average family plans cost $12,000.

That $20,000 is counted in the amount folks pay every year for health costs. All the estimates of how to pay for M4A start with assuming all the money paid by all the employers ends up in a communal pot. All estimates also admit MORE taxes will also be needed, on top of all the money currently paid for employer plans.

If we get M4A, it won't be as good as the high-end plan, since higher-end plans cost MORE, and all the estimates have been for a Medicare-level plan, which is LESS.

If Jim's boss has to pay $20K for a $12K-value plan, he might feel cheated, and rightly so. If Jim has to pay MORE taxes to boot, he'll definitely feel cheated.

If, however, Jim's boss only has to pay $12K, the money SUBTRACTED from the $20K will have to be ADDED somewhere else in the equation for it to balance, in the "MORE taxes" column.

If Jim's boss raises his wages $8K, that's taxable money, so Jim pays ~$2K MORE in taxes, in addition to the MORE taxes needed to implement M4A.

If you can convince Jim and his deep-pocket friends to pay thousands more in order to get a plan worth thousands less, you'll win.

#379 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 11:05 PM | Reply

Jim Workman is an engineer, and gets a no-cost (to him) high-end family insurance plan from his employer

Jim Workman is a minority. We don't have to convince him.

#380 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-08 11:08 PM | Reply

Joe,

Think about how hard gay marriage has been. It affected almost nobody's personal lives yet it faced huge opposition. Try telling millions of union workers that their hard fought benefits are going away and that their taxes will be increased so they can receive less.

#381 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 11:09 PM | Reply

"I'm not saying it's impossible; I've never said it's impossible."

It sure sounds like you think it is:

"I wish I had good news. Frankly, the annual price tag of $3.2 Trillion stunned me, particularly knowing annual US revenue is right around $3.3 Trillion."

#382 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-08 11:09 PM | Reply

Jim Workman's 26 year old neighbor just died because he couldn't afford insulin. Guess what matters more than Jim Workman's coziness?

#383 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-08 11:12 PM | Reply

Jim Workman and his allies will fight tooth and nail against it. The backlash will be bigger than what ACA garnered in town halls in ‘10.

#384 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 11:13 PM | Reply

Jeff, I think you'd be surprised to learn how few union workers even have "low cost" plans, let alone the "no cost" plan Danforth likes to throw around like candy.

#385 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-08 11:15 PM | Reply

The ACA was demonized as a "socialist medicine" budget buster despite its modest, private-sector-oriented reforms. Dems' biggest mistake was not realizing they would be castigated as marxists regardless of what they did and not going for something better.

#386 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-08 11:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I posted a lengthy study that concludes M4A will cost less than the current system"

And did it talk about winners and losers in the meantime?

#387 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 11:19 PM | Reply

Joe,

I live in Michigan and have friends and relatives who are both blue collar and public workers. Their plans are excellent.

I get the macro argument for single payer. Please understand that plenty of middle class folk will take a hit if this conversion were to be real.

#388 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-08 11:20 PM | Reply

Personally, while I preferred M4A, I thought it was a bridge too far, which is one reason why I voted for HRC, who wanted to fix Obamacare and expand Medicare to include folks as young as 55. I hoped getting more people onto Medicare would increase its popularity among older people who aren't yet at retirement age and who also tend to vote. One of the groups who will be hit hardest if pre-existing conditions coverage is rolled back is people 55 to 65. Medicare also has the advantage of being portable. If you lose your job or stop working for some reason, you can still get Medicare as long as you can pay the monthly premiums.

#389 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-08 11:20 PM | Reply

"Jim Workman is a minority. We don't have to convince him."

In that case, the guy running the campaign against you will have the easiest job on the planet.

#390 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 11:21 PM | Reply

"eff, I think you'd be surprised to learn how few union workers even have "low cost" plans, let alone the "no cost" plan Danforth likes to throw around like candy."

I was a Union worker who had a low cost plan, for decades. My wife currently has a low cost plan.

I deal with 500 tax clients each year, and see what is paid on their behalf for health insurance.

S Corps are make it easy to set up "no cost" plans.

You're talking out your ---.

#391 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 11:24 PM | Reply

"and expand Medicare to include folks as young as 55."

There's a great idea, and a perfect way to ease in without massive overnight disruption.

#392 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 11:25 PM | Reply

"If you can convince Jim and his deep-pocket friends to pay thousands more in order to get a plan worth thousands less, you'll win."

See, this is where I'd like to see some figures. How many people are getting these wonderful plans? I thought the whole beef with Obamacare is that people didn't like the coverage they were getting even with it? People complaining the premiums and deductibles were too high. Now we are being told all those some people are happy with those plans and are going to fight tooth and nail to keep them? This does not compute.

#393 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-08 11:26 PM | Reply

Wrong on both counts, cheerleader. Read the study.

#375 | Posted by JOE

Don't pull a corky.

If you've read it, paraphrase it as your argument.

#394 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-08 11:27 PM | Reply

"Guess what matters more than Jim Workman's coziness?"

Your desire to fleece him.

#395 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 11:27 PM | Reply

"How many people are getting these wonderful plans?"

The 50 million highest-paid workers, and their families.

#396 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 11:28 PM | Reply

Jim Workman's 26 year old neighbor just died because he couldn't afford insulin. Guess what matters more than Jim Workman's coziness?

#383 | Posted by JOE

Price controls on pharmaceuticals?

#397 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-08 11:30 PM | Reply

"The 50 million highest-paid workers, and their families."

So who exactly were the people complaining about Obamacare and protesting and voting against Democrats after it was passed?

#398 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-08 11:41 PM | Reply

I was a Union worker who had a low cost plan, for decades. My wife currently has a low cost plan.
I deal with 500 tax clients each year, and see what is paid on their behalf for health insurance.

Wow, that makes 502 people, all of whom can afford to see a tax advisor. Certainly a representative sampling of the nation!

#399 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-08 11:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If you've read it, paraphrase it as your argument.

So intellectually lazy people like you and Danforth can cherry-pick? No thanks. If you want to be ignorant, enjoy yourself.

#400 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-08 11:56 PM | Reply

The 50 million highest-paid workers,

The 50 million highest paid people in America all have low to no cost insurance? Citation needed.

Define low cost insurance. Citation needed there as well.

There are only 130 million full-time employed Americans. I provide citations for my claims. You posit that a full 38% of them have low to no cost insurance? Citation sorely needed.

I guess if you just keep barfing out flexible, undefined terms to suit your argument no citations will be forthcoming?

#401 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-09 12:03 AM | Reply

I guess if you just keep barfing out flexible, undefined terms to suit your argument....
#401 | POSTED BY JOE

This is known as DanforthMath™ ...

#402 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-09 12:07 AM | Reply

"The 50 million highest paid people in America all have low to no cost insurance? Citation needed."

First, I didn't say "all" of them. Certain mileages will vary.

I'll be happy to keep records during the upcoming tax season and let you know, but I'm talking from years of experience seeing these numbers, ever since "DD" became an entry on the W-2.

#403 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 12:19 AM | Reply

"This is known as DanforthMath™"

From the posted who wouldn't know math if it bit him on the ass.

#404 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 12:19 AM | Reply

"There are only 130 million full-time employed Americans. I provide citations for my claims. You posit that a full 38% of them have low to no cost insurance?"

No. Some of them have families. Did you miss that factor in your macro math? Oh, I forgot...you don't understand macro, or concepts like MORE and LESS.

As a test: if 100% of folks have health insurance, what percentage have better-than-average?

#405 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 12:25 AM | Reply

So intellectually lazy people like you and Danforth can cherry-pick? No thanks. If you want to be ignorant, enjoy yourself.

#400 | Posted by JOE

Intellectually lazy is demanding somebody take the time to read several hundred pages or else you've won!

But hey, if you need the win tonight I'll throw you a bone.

#406 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-09 12:33 AM | Reply

First, I didn't say "all" of them.

You said "The 50 million highest-paid workers, and their families" are getting these wonderful plans. If you mean something else, say something else.

Some of them have families. Did you miss that factor in your macro math?

Families were mentioned in your original statement and I didn't miss any of that.

If 100% of folks have health insurance, what percentage have better-than-average?

We've gone from "no-cost, high end" plans, to "low cost" plans, to "above average" plans. Let me know when you're done scooting around.

#407 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-09 12:44 AM | Reply

Intellectually lazy is demanding somebody take the time to read several hundred pages or else you've won!

If someone posts a study and you discount it without even reading it, yes, that is the definition of intellectually lazy. I've already told you what the study concludes. If you want to see how they got there, read it. It even has a table of contents.

#408 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-09 12:46 AM | Reply

Wow. You're going full corky, faux condescension and all.

I'm wondering if you even read it, given you can only state what's said in the abstract and are dodging any chance to expound on that broad over view.

#409 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-09 12:55 AM | Reply

"The 50 million highest-paid workers, and their families" are getting these wonderful plans. If you mean something else, say something else."

It should be "50 million of the highest paid workers". I didn't mean to suggest it was a bold, thick line, with an exact cutoff, but frankly, I thought it was an concept everyone would understand.

#410 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 01:11 AM | Reply

"Families were mentioned in your original statement and I didn't miss any of that."

You did in your response to me. You cited ONLY full time workers, and didn't count their families. You missed it, regardless what you're trying to claim now.

"We've gone from "no-cost, high end" plans, to "low cost" plans, to "above average" plans. Let me know when you're done scooting around."

Once again, the question goes over your head. If you don't understand that AT LEAST 33% of the insured have better-than-average coverage, you need to back to a rudimentary statistics class.

I'm just trying to gauge what concepts you understand, and what concepts you don't. So far, everything falls in the "don't" column.

#411 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 01:16 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

" I've already told you what the study concludes. "

Yes. It concludes there's enough money. It completely avoids the subject of winners and losers, which is what we're talking about.

#412 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 01:18 AM | Reply

It completely avoids the subject of winners and losers, which is what we're talking about.

If all we're concerned with are the winners and losers. Then there's no discussion to be had.

As most conservatives, republicans, and capitalists will agree, screw the losers. It's their own fault. Their fate is in their own hands and the fact they're "losers" is their own fault, probably from being lazy.

So. Our only concern is the winners and they're all doing fine. After all. They're winners and they built it all by themself.

We should reward the winners by cutting all taxes on them. Let the losers take care of themselves.

Survival of the fittest. Cull the population.

#413 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-09 03:22 AM | Reply

I'm wondering if you even read it, given you can only state what's said in the abstract and are dodging any chance to expound on that broad over view.

I have read it. I'm not going to read it to you. What is your specific question about the study?

#414 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-09 08:22 AM | Reply

If you don't understand that AT LEAST 33% of the insured have better-than-average coverage

I can understand that. I'm just wondering where it comes from, when earlier you were talking about "no-cost, high end plans," and then later about "low cost plans," and now about "above average plans." Are you afraid of all of these groups? Which bogeyman is our conversation about?

Is it your suggestion that Medicare is merely "average," such that anyone with an "above average" (still undefined) plan who is pushed onto Medicare would be upset about it? If so, then why are VA, Medicare and Medicaid rated higher by patients than any other form of healthcare in America as i posted upthread?

#415 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-09 08:25 AM | Reply

It should be "50 million of the highest paid workers". I didn't mean to suggest it was a bold, thick line

So where is your citation for the claim that 50 million American workers are offered "low cost" insurance? How do you define "low cost?"

#416 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-09 08:27 AM | Reply

Is this ridiculously repetitive thread still going on? What a bunch of OCD cases.

#417 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-09 08:31 AM | Reply

Is this ridiculously repetitive thread still going on? What a bunch of OCD cases.

#418 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-09 08:31 AM | Reply

"Is this ridiculously repetitive thread still going on? What a bunch of OCD cases." - #417 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-09 08:31 AM

"Is this ridiculously repetitive thread still going on? What a bunch of OCD cases." - #418 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-09 08:31 AM

Speaking of OCD cases...

"It was a horror show. twitter.com" - Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-09 08:50 AM
"Would you buy a used car, or anything else, from these clowns? static.pjmedia.com" - Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-09 01:34 AM
"pbs.twimg.com The crypt keeper and elvira. Gomez and Mortica. That wasn't suitable for younger viewers." - Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-09 01:27 AM
Same as it ever was...

Same as it ever was...

#419 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-09 09:25 AM | Reply

"If all we're concerned with are the winners and losers. Then there's no discussion to be had. "

Again...that makes the campaign against our goals a cakewalk.

#420 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 09:30 AM | Reply

"So where is your citation for the claim that 50 million American workers are offered "low cost" insurance?"

It's based on my own experience, not only of the half-dozen years I've seen W-2s with "DD" on them, and discussed it with clients, but also my decades serving on health committees (since the late 80s) and my time as a Trustee of a health insurance plan.

"How do you define "low cost?""

Plans with relatively small deductible (say, $500-$1000, v the $6200+ of an HSA), relatively smaller annual out-of-pocket cap (say, $2000 v the $7500 of my most recent HSA). and premiums either mostly or fully paid for by the employer.

How do YOU define it?

#421 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 09:37 AM | Reply

It's based on my own experience

So in your own experience of serving 500 people a year, you've arrived at the conclusion that 50 million Americans have low cost insurance? That's convenient.

How do YOU define it?

I'm not the one making unsupported claims about tens of millions of people. I don't have to define it. I'm asking you to fleah out your atatement; i'm not doing it for you.

#422 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-09 10:00 AM | Reply

Still waiting for a response to

Is it your suggestion that Medicare is merely "average," such that anyone with an "above average" (still undefined) plan who is pushed onto Medicare would be upset about it? If so, then why are VA, Medicare and Medicaid rated higher by patients than any other form of healthcare in America as i posted upthread?

#423 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-09 10:01 AM | Reply

"So in your own experience of serving 500 people a year, you've arrived at the conclusion that 50 million Americans have low cost insurance? "

Of course. It's called sampling. And I'm aware of the anomalies; I know that, as you pointed out, these are people who can afford to go to a preparer, so there's already bias. But I see folks from 4 figures of income to 7 figures of income, every year. It's a wide swath.

In addition, it just makes logical sense. If I see high income folks with the highest amounts on 12DD again and again and again, it starts to sink in: employed folks with higher incomes, in general, have higher end plans than poorer folks.

"I don't have to define it."

So I guess you can't improve on mine. Got it.

#424 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 10:45 AM | Reply

"why are VA, Medicare and Medicaid rated higher by patients than any other form of healthcare in America as i posted upthread?"

In some cases--probably enough to skew the numbers--this is the only coverage they've known their entire adult life. And not paying for a benefit increases the satisfaction v. paying for it, wouldn't you say?

But if you were really worried about a homogeneous sample, you've found it.

#425 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 10:47 AM | Reply

"How do you define "low cost?""
Plans with relatively small deductible (say, $500-$1000, v the $6200+ of an HSA), relatively smaller annual out-of-pocket cap (say, $2000 v the $7500 of my most recent HSA). and premiums either mostly or fully paid for by the employer.

If this is your criteria, why do define Medicare as "average" in comparison?

#426 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-09 12:25 PM | Reply

Medicare premiums: $135.50 per month
Deductible: $185 per year
80% reimbursement without supplemental insurance
Top notch AARP/United Healthcare supplement available for around $250 per month with no in-network vs out-of-network restrictions

#427 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-09 12:29 PM | Reply

"How do you define "low cost?""
Plans with relatively small deductible (say, $500-$1000, v the $6200+ of an HSA), relatively smaller annual out-of-pocket cap (say, $2000 v the $7500 of my most recent HSA). and premiums either mostly or fully paid for by the employer.

And you are saying 50 million workers (and their dependents) have plans like this. The rest of Americans have average plans like Medicare or below average plans.
Do you have some statistics on this? Link?

#428 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-09 12:38 PM | Reply

"And not paying for a benefit increases the satisfaction v. paying for it, wouldn't you say?"

Well, I think the Medicare recipients who do pay something would be dissatisfied somewhat with their average plans.

#429 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-09 12:41 PM | Reply

I'd also like to see the stats on how many people are covered by the high quality plans. 100 million? 150 million? Do you think about half the country is covered by high quality insurance and the other half by average, below average or no insurance?

#430 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-09 12:56 PM | Reply

#430 Don't expect verifiable numbers from Mathless Wonder. He's just talking from "personal experience."

#431 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-09 01:37 PM | Reply

Here are some figures I found:

"During 2016, the U.S. population overall was approximately 325 million, with 53 million persons 65 years of age and over covered by the federal Medicare program. The 272 million non-institutional persons under age 65 either obtained their coverage from employer-based (155 million) or non-employer based (90 million) sources, or were uninsured (27 million). Approximately 15 million military personnel received coverage through the Veteran's Administration. During the year 2016, 91.2% of Americans had health insurance coverage."

en.wikipedia.org

It looks like almost half the population is covered by employer-based insurance. What percentage of that is high quality insurance? I can't find any stats on that. As I mentioned earlier, if coverage for pre-existing conditions is rolled back, that will change the equation. High quality insurance that you can only use when you aren't seriously ill isn't much of a bargain.

#432 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-09 03:53 PM | Reply

"If this is your criteria, why do define Medicare as "average" in comparison?"

Mainly for the 80% coverage, and the reduction in doctor choices.

"Do you think about half the country is covered by high quality insurance and the other half by average, below average or no insurance?"

Well, 155 million are covered by employer plans. It follows that the highest paid folks get the best plans, and that certainly reflects what I see all the time with my clients. I took a conservative number (1/3rd) and then rounded down to 50 million for my better-than-average claim.

#433 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 04:09 PM | Reply

"He's just talking from "personal experience.""

Yes, every day in my practice, for years. I also saw it in my decades on health committees, and as a health plan trustee.

What am I supposed to do...ignore what I've seen and learned so you don't feel stupid?

#434 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-09 04:11 PM | Reply

"I took a conservative number (1/3rd) and then rounded down to 50 million for my better-than-average claim."

That means 275 million have average, less than average or no insurance. The voters within that group are the ones M4A advocates need to convince.

#435 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-09 04:56 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort