"Democratic Socialism" would cost 42 trillion dollars

[OSR stands with Israel]

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/8/7/17658574/democratic-socialism-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxes


and would require you to raise at least an additional 34 trillion dollars in taxes to pay for that and this is what it would require

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is also assuming there would be no economic consequences(Which there would be) due to increasing taxes like that.


oh, and by the way, do this to the size of government

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Vox has never been a fan of Bernie, and they seem to assume that the most expensive healthcare in the world will just get more expensive if we switch to another country's system.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Misleading title of course from a pathetic hack.

This comes from a left-leaning source.

Vox has never been a fan of Bernie, and they seem to assume that the most expensive healthcare in the world will just get more expensive if we switch to another country's system.

I just quoted how much you have to increase taxes by to have single payer and they also have a whole section why you just cant switch to another system as easily as you guys think you can.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

No worries. We'll just tell the GOP the money will be spent on tax cuts for the wealthy and killing brown people and they'll find it for us.

[OSR stands with Israel]

No worries. We'll just tell the GOP the money will be spent on tax cuts for the wealthy and killing brown people and they'll find it for us.

Tax Cuts at most will increase the debt by 2 trillion over the next 10 years , yours will increase it by 34 trillion with no actual way to cover that.


You guys say the far denies Science, but Socialists deny Math . There is no excuse for either but you guys also deny reality to

[Calthrina950]

Misleading title of course from a pathetic hack.

OldSchoolRepublican is a very decent poster. I'm not sure what you seek to accomplish with ad hominem attacks of this nature.

[Cowboys for Christ]

In regards to "Medicare-for-all"- aren't projected healthcare expenditures over the next 10 years greater than the projected spending for M4A (granted, under a slightly generous projection by that new libertarian study that is fueling all this talk of M4A)?

True universal healthcare is one of the main goals this country needs- nothing requires universal healthcare to be single-payer. "Medicare-for-all" is just a very easy idea and term to digest. I need to do my research on the French and German systems!

[YE]

that's 7 trillion less than what we currently spend on heath care in the United States. The only idea of those three that I don't think is fully feasible is a job guarantee. And what's wrong with a big government per se?

[TheSaint250]

I hope that more Americans read up on this research so we can fight back against mathematically unrealistic plans from AOC and Bernie and the like in a much, much stronger way than currently.

[IndustrialJustice]

... lol. Wait until you find out how much our current healthcare system will cost.

[Cowboys for Christ]

that's 7 trillion less than what we currently spend on heath care in the United States. The only idea of those three that I don't think is fully feasible is a job guarantee. And what's wrong with a big government per se?

They'll pull the plug on grandma ;_;

[Calthrina950]

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/8/7/17658574/democratic-socialism-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxes


and would require you to raise at least an additional 34 trillion dollars in taxes to pay for that and this is what it would require

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is also assuming there would be no economic consequences(Which there would be) due to increasing taxes like that.


oh, and by the way, do this to the size of government

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As to my views on this, I think that the proposals advocated by people such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are implausible, at the present time. I am not necessarily opposed to the concepts of Medicare For All or universal college education. However, until a plan is presented that is financially sustainable and bureaucratically feasible, I will not support these concepts. I would prefer that we focus on cutting back on student loan debt and shoring up Obamacare.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

How much would fascism or anarcho-primitivism cost?

[Sumner 1868]

Who cares? The US is never paying off it's debt anyway.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

No worries. We'll just tell the GOP the money will be spent on tax cuts for the wealthy and killing brown people and they'll find it for us.

Tax Cuts at most will increase the debt by 2 trillion over the next 10 years , yours will increase it by 34 trillion with no actual way to cover that.


You guys say the far denies Science, but Socialists deny Math . There is no excuse for either but you guys also deny reality to

As a nation, America spent $3.3 trillion last year on health care. And over half a trillion on higher education. That's $38 trillion over a decade. Before inflation. And you're saying we can get those same services, and more besides, for only $34 trillion with full-on democratic socialism?

[Calthrina950]

This is a very good, thoughtful article which articulates its points well; therefore, it's not surprising that some of the usual suspects attack it (and the OP) at first glance. For the record, I'm not completely opposed to many left-wing proposals - wider health coverage, expanding education opportunities, and doing something about exorbitant student debts are priorities which I think most people will agree are important. However, what's equally important is that we implement them in ways that are fiscally responsible or even fiscally realistic.

Bernie Sanders' economic plans are not either of those things, and never have been. Doubling federal taxes is a horribly construed idea, whether you like it or not. Fiscal policy proposal in the US has devolved into a tale of two extremes, both of which are unsustainable.

This is an even better summary of my views.

[HisGrace]

The "the government paying for the health care of more people than they already do and it will cost less" mantra that's been going around lately has been making me inwardly roll my eyes. If Trump claimed something like that everyone on here would rightfully laugh him out of the room. Especially when the only justification for it is vague BS like "increasing administrative efficiency". That's the Democrat's version of paying for tax cuts by "closing loopholes".  

[OSR stands with Israel]

No worries. We'll just tell the GOP the money will be spent on tax cuts for the wealthy and killing brown people and they'll find it for us.

Tax Cuts at most will increase the debt by 2 trillion over the next 10 years , yours will increase it by 34 trillion with no actual way to cover that.


You guys say the far denies Science, but Socialists deny Math . There is no excuse for either but you guys also deny reality to

As a nation, America spent $3.3 trillion last year on health care. And over half a trillion on higher education. That's $38 trillion over a decade. Before inflation. And you're saying we can get those same services, and more besides, for only $34 trillion with full-on democratic socialism?

You didn’t read the article did you


It’s 34 trillion  more

[DrScholl]

That's exactly why implementation is easier said than done. Even Vermont decided not to implement a single payer plan because it costs more than the state's annual revenue. Under a plan like that a person would go from paying private insurers for coverage to paying the government for coverage through taxes and possibly not seeing any real savings at all or incurring more taxes (from an individual standpoint).

[Zaybay]

One thing you should always check before reading is the author and site. The site is Vox which implies a left bias, but the author is a Republican, previously working for Rob Portman. And while the author does build a convincing case, they do purposely leave out information that would contradict their argument. For example, they use the urban institute a lot in their argument on how the money currently going to companies and private insurers cant be collected in tax revenue. The problem is that many other institutes, including our good old friends the Kochs, found that it would be relatively easy to do, the Urban Institute is the outlier, not the norm.

[JA]

I’d be cool with seizing 100% of profits and 100% of all incomes to ensure maximum equality of opportunity and access to necessities.

[Hammy]

Any healthcare overhaul would have to have strict regulations on healthcare costs--this is why Obamacare was such an obscene failure because it did absolutely nothing to keep a lid on what healthcare/pharma corporations can charge. It's the same reason no state will implement any sort of universal healthcare at the moment.

[GoTfan]

The "the government paying for the health care of more people than they already do and it will cost less" mantra that's been going around lately has been making me inwardly roll my eyes. If Trump claimed something like that everyone on here would rightfully laugh him out of the room. Especially when the only justification for it is vague BS like "increasing administrative efficiency". That's the Democrat's version of paying for tax cuts by "closing loopholes".  

Works quite well over here.

[JA]

The "the government paying for the health care of more people than they already do and it will cost less" mantra that's been going around lately has been making me inwardly roll my eyes. If Trump claimed something like that everyone on here would rightfully laugh him out of the room. Especially when the only justification for it is vague BS like "increasing administrative efficiency". That's the Democrat's version of paying for tax cuts by "closing loopholes".  

Works quite well over here.

That’s a a bold face lie. Republicans and FOX (I repeat myself) told me you guys are all dying while waiting in long lines for low quality health care. You wouldn’t dare suggest Cruz or Hannity lie, would you?!

[ProudModerate2]

No worries. We'll just tell the GOP the money will be spent on tax cuts for the wealthy and killing brown people and they'll find it for us.

Tax Cuts at most will increase the debt by 2 trillion over the next 10 years , yours will increase it by 34 trillion with no actual way to cover that.
You guys say the far denies Science, but Socialists deny Math . There is no excuse for either but you guys also deny reality to

Let's assume the numbers are correct.
If the Dems controlled the House, the Senate (with the same numbers that Republicans do today) and the Presidency, there would be about a near ZERO PERCENT CHANCE that such an enormous plan to increase expenditures (and taxes too!) in the amount of 42 TRILLION dollars (over ten years).

Spending an additional 42 trillion over ten years is completely inconceivable and would never work and most Dems know this.

So you are (basically) taking some ignorant story you found on the internet, about 10 giant meteors that are going to hit the Earth, all at the same time, and trying to make a "real" story out of it.
And here I thought you (Old School Rep) has some common sense (and education) about economics and budgets to tell the difference between stories that have some (at least possible) reality, and other stories that are complete bull sh*t.

This entire "$42 Trillion hogwash story" is just that .... crap.