"Democratic Socialism" would cost 42 trillion dollars

[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".  

Works quite well over here.

I wasn't making any comment on how well it would work, just that it wouldn't cost less money than just providing minimal health care for the elderly and some poor people, as is frequently being claimed these days.

[Beet]

I like that part in The View where Meghan McCain asks them to name one country where socialism has actually worked, and Joy Behar (?) just starts listing every Scandinavian country she can think of off the top of her head.

[darklordoftech]

Did anyone ask Dubya how he was going to pay for the Department of Homeland Security, invading Iraq, Medicare Part D, and TARP? Did anyone ask Nancy Reagan how her husband was going to pay for incarcerating potheads?

Nobody is ever going to punish the U.S. government for its debt, so why not deficit spend?

[Calthrina950]

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

This sounds like communism. While I do think income inequality is one of the most serious issues in our country today, as is corporate greed, I also don't think that seizing everyone's assets and income would be a democratic move.

[darklordoftech]

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

This sounds like communism. While I do think income inequality is one of the most serious issues in our country today, as is corporate greed, I also don't think that seizing everyone's assets and income would be a democratic move.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/thats-the-joke

[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

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.

I’m not talking about Main Stream dems just Bernie Dems and how their plans are mathematically almost impossible.

[Progressive Pessimist]

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).

This is my concern with many of these idealistic policies too. I support them in theory, but I think they should be implemented in the most realistic and practical way possible. It's something that needs to be considered more by politicians that run on these issues.

[Zaybay]

Love that when Rob Portman's staffer uses one institutes numbers, which are the exception when compared, everyone takes its as Gospel.

[Yank2133]

Of course the total cost is unrealistic. But I do find it hilarious how the right suddenly cares about the cost of things when comes to the left's policy proposals.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

[Calthrina950]

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

This sounds like communism. While I do think income inequality is one of the most serious issues in our country today, as is corporate greed, I also don't think that seizing everyone's assets and income would be a democratic move.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/thats-the-joke

I didn't mean this as a joke. Or are you saying that his comment is the joke? Either way, his proposal is extreme, in my view.

[darklordoftech]

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

This sounds like communism. While I do think income inequality is one of the most serious issues in our country today, as is corporate greed, I also don't think that seizing everyone's assets and income would be a democratic move.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/thats-the-joke

I didn't mean this as a joke. Or are you saying that his comment is the joke? Either way, his proposal is extreme, in my view.

I was saying that his comment is the joke. I doubt Anarcho-Tolkienism is actually a communist.

[Miss J]

You're right.  It is unrealistic and it would require Americans to give up a big share of their earnings in order for the services they'd buy privately to be administered by the state (which could wind up creating more headaches).

But what do Conservatives do in power?  Every policy they make is to expand the wealth of people at the top end of society.  The Conservatives don't know a thing about fiscal responsibility or how to balance a budget.

First of all, the four year college thing for everybody after high school is a complete waste of money.  They'd all be better off getting jobs starting in high school first.  Enough liberal arts and more job preparation.  College should not feel like a necessity, it should be something you decide to do later in life when you know for sure that you want that specific career.  It's extremely expensive - and it's overall value should begin to be questioned as its tuition rates skyrocket.

Throwing money at a problem isn't going to fix it.

[Dr. MB]

Full Communism, which I advocate, would cost the lives of millions of imperialist Zionist pigs and vile Kulak exploiters. However, it will be good for hundreds of millions of workers and oppressed people as we brutally expropriate the exploiters.

Full communism ain't worth it.

[darklordoftech]

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/08/02/40-senate-democrats-join-gop-send-717-billion-military-spending-bill-trumps-desk

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Full Communism, which I advocate, would cost the lives of millions of imperialist Zionist pigs and vile Kulak exploiters. However, it will be good for hundreds of millions of workers and oppressed people as we brutally expropriate the exploiters.

wth?

[Mr. Smith]

You're right.  It is unrealistic and it would require Americans to give up a big share of their earnings in order for the services they'd buy privately to be administered by the state (which could wind up creating more headaches).

But what do Conservatives do in power?  Every policy they make is to expand the wealth of people at the top end of society.  The Conservatives don't know a thing about fiscal responsibility or how to balance a budget.

First of all, the four year college thing for everybody after high school is a complete waste of money.  They'd all be better off getting jobs starting in high school first.  Enough liberal arts and more job preparation.  College should not feel like a necessity, it should be something you decide to do later in life when you know for sure that you want that specific career.  It's extremely expensive - and it's overall value should begin to be questioned as its tuition rates skyrocket.

Throwing money at a problem isn't going to fix it.

It does more than cutting it away ever will, and hoping that somehow, people will become superhuman and miraculously manage to do more with less, even though insufficient funds was part of the problem in the first place.

And it does more than doing nothing.

[dead0man]

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

can't tell if serious....

[Dwarven Dragon]

I'm against single payer for purely ideological reasons regardless of its cost. As far as something more liberal than ObamaCare but less liberal than Single Payer, I'll wait for actually relevant analysis based on real bills introduced in the 117th Congress (2021-23), rather than silly clickbait like this article.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'm against single payer for purely ideological reasons regardless of its cost. As far as something more liberal than ObamaCare but less liberal than Single Payer, I'll wait for actually relevant analysis based on real bills introduced in the 117th Congress (2021-23), rather than silly clickbait like this article.

This article is not clickbait ,


Its very detailed

[Landslide Lyndon]

Vox has never been a fan of Bernie

That's because they analyze his proposals as if they were serious and not the red meat drivel they really are.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Vox has never been a fan of Bernie

That's because they analyze his proposals as if they were serious and not the red meat drivel they really are.

You do realize that we spend 4.5 times as much per capita on healthcare as Greece and have a lower life expectancy?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Vox has never been a fan of Bernie

That's because they analyze his proposals as if they were serious and not the red meat drivel they really are.

You do realize that we spend 4.5 times as much per capita on healthcare as Greece and have a lower life expectancy?

You realize that's totally irrelevant with what we are talking about. 

[Adam Griffin]

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

It's $34 trillion more in federal spending; not $34 trillion more in meaningful expenses. You're acting as if people will still be paying for private sector health insurance + paying for Medicare as well. Your argument is built on the premise of "it's better for the American people to spend trillions more via private payments than to save trillions by paying for the service via taxes because 'big spooky government'" (and because you presumably also realize that progressive taxation will be required for it to work).

And of course, all of this research (and, to be fair, most of the proponents of the idea and the friendlier elements in the debate themselves) leaves out one crucial component: a single-payer system without aggressive price controls above and beyond what minuscule ones exist in the current Medicare program would make it a relatively worthless endeavor. Any serious debate about single-payer needs to include the reality that price freezes on Day 1 have to occur, followed by an absolute reduction in the aggregate healthcare costs by 3-4% per year over a 10-year period.

When and if such measures are pursued to bring our costs in line with the rest of the developed world, even this milquetoast argument falls apart. And to those who will fret over "disruption" or whatever, the long-term reality of putting thousands of dollars per year back in the pockets of every single American will have a far greater positive economic impact than any of the drawbacks.

[Greatblueheron]

This study is Establishment Democratic bulls**t, that is designed to make Democratic voters not vote for Sanders in the 2020 Democratic primaries. The truth is that Medicare-for-all will be payed for by a increased Medicare payroll tax on employers and employees, while Free College will be payed for by a Financal Transaction Tax. This proves that in reality the fearmongering of the Establishment Democrats and Conservative Republicans that Social Democracy will bankrupt America is total Bulls**t.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Vox has never been a fan of Bernie

That's because they analyze his proposals as if they were serious and not the red meat drivel they really are.

You do realize that we spend 4.5 times as much per capita on healthcare as Greece and have a lower life expectancy?

You realize that's totally irrelevant with what we are talking about. 

This is a discussion of healthcare costs. We have the most expensive healthcare in the world, and certainly not the best outcomes. We're doing something wrong.