US presidential election 2020:Winner?

[Jimbeaux]

kowalski655 said:

Paying $8K less in premiums and $2K in taxes seems like a win to me..or am I wrong?

Edited by kowalski655 on Monday 24th February 20:29

I would say you are wrong as the taxes would have to be quite higher imo.

[jimmyjimjim]

And what the middle classes understand well are the two laws of taxation -

1. Paying taxes for the rich is largely voluntary. They either hire a better tax lawyer than the government to avoid it (and they pay more than the government, their lawyers are better), offshore it until the tax regime changes, or otherwise put their money out of reach.
2. The poor don't pay taxes. They don't have the money to do so.

That leaves the middle classes. They got hit by Obamacare the first time and will be very shy of getting stuck a second time.

[Jimbeaux]

jimmyjimjim said:

And what the middle classes understand well are the two laws of taxation -

1. Paying taxes for the rich is largely voluntary. They either hire a better tax lawyer than the government to avoid it (and they pay more than the government, their lawyers are better), offshore it until the tax regime changes, or otherwise put their money out of reach.
2. The poor don't pay taxes. They don't have the money to do so.

That leaves the middle classes. They got hit by Obamacare the first time and will be very shy of getting stuck a second time.

That is a pretty good general analogy.

[Jimbeaux]

jimmyjimjim said:

And what the middle classes understand well are the two laws of taxation -

1. Paying taxes for the rich is largely voluntary. They either hire a better tax lawyer than the government to avoid it (and they pay more than the government, their lawyers are better), offshore it until the tax regime changes, or otherwise put their money out of reach.
2. The poor don't pay taxes. They don't have the money to do so.

That leaves the middle classes. They got hit by Obamacare the first time and will be very shy of getting stuck a second time.

That is a pretty good general analogy.

[anonymous-user]

The majority in decent middle class jobs get healthcare as part of their salary package. They don't see the cost as something they pay, so a tax rise on their take home will be seen as a big increase, even if the overall cost to business drops.

The people who understand the real cost of healthcare tend to be in poor paying jobs or the small business self employed. It's not unusual for the SME owner to be made bankrupt due to a health issue, but in the USA the bankruptcy laws are very different to here, so they will be back up and running straight away, assuming they aren't suffering an illness that stops that being possible.

It's a very different tax, legal and social care system out there.

[jimmyjimjim]

jimbeaux, wasn't there an interview with Obama post Trump, where he flat out admitted that the affordable care act was going to cost most people more, but "we knew that wouldn't sell the bill so we lied"?

[Jimbeaux]

jimmyjimjim said:

jimbeaux, wasn't there an interview with Obama post Trump, where he flat out admitted that the affordable care act was going to cost most people more, but "we knew that wouldn't sell the bill so we lied"?

I am not certain who but some official was supposedly overheard on an open mike saying something to that effect. Not saying they “lied” but that if we were very up front about it, it would not have passed.

ETA: Here is what you are talking about. Scroll down for Gruber video:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/11...

Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 25th February 00:04

[jimmyjimjim]

Yes, i think that's what I remembered, thanks - strange how the mind plays tricks on you; I remembered it as Obama despite him being too much of a politician to admit such a thing.

[unrepentant]

jsf said:

The majority in decent middle class jobs get healthcare as part of their salary package. They don't see the cost as something they pay, so a tax rise on their take home will be seen as a big increase, even if the overall cost to business drops.

The people who understand the real cost of healthcare tend to be in poor paying jobs or the small business self employed. It's not unusual for the SME owner to be made bankrupt due to a health issue, but in the USA the bankruptcy laws are very different to here, so they will be back up and running straight away, assuming they aren't suffering an illness that stops that being possible.

It's a very different tax, legal and social care system out there.

People go bankrupt even with employer provided health insurance. The vast majority of those who work in the private sector have high deductible plans with big deductibles, co-pays and high prescription costs. For a family of 4 the deductible is often over $6k on top of the premiums and the cost does not stop there. After the deductible is met they still pay a portion, usually 20%. Add in prescriptions and someone on low pay ( say $40-50k) can quickly get into trouble even with health insurance.

There is also no transparency. When you have a procedure you often have no idea what it will cost until you get the bill.

[RDMcG]

I think that this piece in The Washington Post today fairly accurately summarizes the voter dilemma right now, which is that a vote for Sandera is ultimately a vote for Trump:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/24...

[Jimbeaux]

RDMcG said:

I think that this piece in The Washington Post today fairly accurately summarizes the voter dilemma right now, which is that a vote for Sandera is ultimately a vote for Trump:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/24...

I have been warning folks to watch for the media to turn on Sanders. He was their darling until it has become evident that he will lose to Trump, now all of a sudden they have negative points coming out as if they didn’t know them before. They will pivot to trying to make Bloomberg, Biden, or Pete look like the choice.

[jimmyjimjim]

unrepentant said:

People go bankrupt even with employer provided health insurance. The vast majority of those who work in the private sector have high deductible plans with big deductibles, co-pays and high prescription costs. For a family of 4 the deductible is often over $6k on top of the premiums and the cost does not stop there. After the deductible is met they still pay a portion, usually 20%. Add in prescriptions and someone on low pay ( say $40-50k) can quickly get into trouble even with health insurance.

There is also no transparency. When you have a procedure you often have no idea what it will cost until you get the bill.

Exactly that. And other the last few years, the middle classes have seen their deductibles and co-pays rise, with their coverage falling. At the same time they've seen largely stagnant pay, with little to non-existent pay rises - with employers showing that the money is largely going into increased employer contributions.

They don't have to be geniuses to attribute that to the affordable healthcare act, either rightly or wrongly - perception is key.

So, with one candidate pushing healthcare for all, it also doesn't take a genius to work out how they'll vote.

I can go down my friends list in facebook and predict with about 90% accuracy how people will vote. Even those who have been vocal about the orange tt are starting to go silent which, mixed metaphors aside, speaks volumes.

[JagLover]

kowalski655 said:

Paying $8K less in premiums and $2K in taxes seems like a win to me..or am I wrong?

There is no vast amount of money that is going to be coming from the evil corporations and the rich. I am sure more money can be found from them, but if it is it will be swallowed up by the vast costs of the "green new deal" and free college tuition.

So if the cost of healthcare don't go down the average middle income household will need to pay the same in tax as the currently do in premiums. As pointed out above the latter is often a disguised cost as well as it comes via their employer .

[ZX10R NIN]

Jimbeaux said:

I have been warning folks to watch for the media to turn on Sanders. He was their darling until it has become evident that he will lose to Trump, now all of a sudden they have negative points coming out as if they didn’t know them before. They will pivot to trying to make Bloomberg, Biden, or Pete look like the choice.

I have to disagree the DNC & Media have been attacking Bernie for over a year now, the DNC doesn't like him because the corporate Democrats can see their campaign contributions going up in flames as Bernie will wrestle the Corporations grip from around the Governments throat, which was what Trump promised but he turned on it's head once he came to power.

With Bernie they know it'll happen which is why there are some many negative Bernie OP eds.

[unrepentant]

JagLover said:

kowalski655 said:

Paying $8K less in premiums and $2K in taxes seems like a win to me..or am I wrong?

There is no vast amount of money that is going to be coming from the evil corporations and the rich. I am sure more money can be found from them, but if it is it will be swallowed up by the vast costs of the "green new deal" and free college tuition.

So if the cost of healthcare don't go down the average middle income household will need to pay the same in tax as the currently do in premiums. As pointed out above the latter is often a disguised cost as well as it comes via their employer .

Companies already pay the lions share of premiums so the sensible way to fund single payer healthcare would be to put a tax on businesses equivalent to what they are currently spending on insurance and a commensurate tax on individuals.

You than remove insurance companies from the equation, they made around $25 billion in profit last year but their cost would be many times that. That is a big black hole of cost that delivers zero in the way of medical benefit. You then allow Medicare and Medicaid providers to negotiate with drug company's as the NHS and every other major service supplier does and that will reduce drug prices. You also throw away the chargemaster and have transparent, negotiated costs for medical services. That may mean that "non profit" hospitals have to pay their desk jockey CEO's a bit less than the $4 or 5 million they currently earn but that's show business.

Once you've done all that the cost of healthcare falls dramatically and becomes affordable as it is in all other western countries. If we have to pay a little extra tax then so what? The knowledge that a serious illness is not going to bankrupt you will help to cushion the blow.

Just as in the UK, those who wish to pay extra and have private care of the BUPA kind should still be free to do so.

[Jimbeaux]

ZX10R NIN said:

I have to disagree the DNC & Media have been attacking Bernie for over a year now, the DNC doesn't like him because the corporate Democrats can see their campaign contributions going up in flames as Bernie will wrestle the Corporations grip from around the Governments throat, which was what Trump promised but he turned on it's head once he came to power.

With Bernie they know it'll happen which is why there are some many negative Bernie OP eds.

You may not realize but Trump’s largest cumulative contributions came from small individual donations.
Your argument, however, has validity as well. I just personally disagree with it.

[ZX10R NIN]

Jimbeaux said:

You may not realize but Trump’s largest cumulative contributions came from small individual donations.
Your argument, however, has validity as well. I just personally disagree with it.

We don't have to agree just to have enough respect for one another to be able to understand & appreciate different opinions

For me personally I believe the biggest threat to the everyday person is Corporatism (capitalism or socialism is inconsequential doesn't matter) as Corporations will back both sides with campaign contributions which leads to them getting government policies that benefit (go figure) them by backing both sides they get bipartisan support on these policies.

Also all these big corporations love socialism when it bails them out but then loves capitalism when it means they can pay Minimum wage so that their workers need to lean on the government to help them to get to a level so they can get to a Living wage standard & then they don't pay any taxes either so they win all ways from Sunday.

A friend explained it in a simple sentence which is "they socialise the loss & privatise gain"

[Jimbeaux]

ZX10R NIN said:

We don't have to agree just to have enough respect for one another to be able to understand & appreciate different opinions

For me personally I believe the biggest threat to the everyday person is Corporatism (capitalism or socialism is inconsequential doesn't matter) as Corporations will back both sides with campaign contributions which leads to them getting government policies that benefit (go figure) them by backing both sides they get bipartisan support on these policies.

Also all these big corporations love socialism when it bails them out but then loves capitalism when it means they can pay Minimum wage so that their workers need to lean on the government to help them to get to a level so they can get to a Living wage standard & then they don't pay any taxes either so they win all ways from Sunday.

A friend explained it in a simple sentence which is "they socialise the loss & privatise gain"

Now that is an interesting take. Differentiating between capitalism and corporatism.
Most probably run those together; I did.

[Jimbeaux]

Dem debate in South Carolina coming up tonight. Expect an all out assault On Sanders. Bloomberg has been raining money on the airwaves attacking Sanders. If Sanders makes it through Super Tuesday, (3 March), he will be on his way. If it’s close, the slug fest will get worse. 3 March is either were the moderates close in on Bernie or he pulls away.

[Jimbeaux]

California Congressman Ro Khanna, Co-chair for the Sanders campaign said the Sanders plan is more like the Scandinavian or Tiawanese plan. He stated that Sanders does not want an NHS model as that would cause too long of a wait for services. I’m don’t know enough about that to know if that is true.