"Democratic Socialism" would cost 42 trillion dollars

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

This is how much you would have to increase that by:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[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.

This is how much you would have to increase that by:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is extremely misleading information from a biased source. Unbiased analysis says that Medicare-for-all will cost 1.5 Trillion dollars annually (15 Trillion over a decade), and would be almost fully payed for by raising the current Medicare Payroll Tax from 2.9% to 12.5%.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

This is how much you would have to increase that by:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is extremely misleading information from a biased source. Unbiased analysis says that Medicare-for-all will cost 1.5 Trillion dollars annually (15 Trillion over a decade), and would be almost fully payed for by raising the current Medicare Payroll Tax from 2.9% to 12.5%.

Which unbiased sources say that


Also did you even read the article

[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.

This is how much you would have to increase that by:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is extremely misleading information from a biased source. Unbiased analysis says that Medicare-for-all will cost 1.5 Trillion dollars annually (15 Trillion over a decade), and would be almost fully payed for by raising the current Medicare Payroll Tax from 2.9% to 12.5%.

Which unbiased sources say that


Also did you even read the article

Here’s analysis from Sanders campaign that says it only cost 1.38 Trillion annually (13.8 Trillion over a decade) https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

This is how much you would have to increase that by:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is extremely misleading information from a biased source. Unbiased analysis says that Medicare-for-all will cost 1.5 Trillion dollars annually (15 Trillion over a decade), and would be almost fully payed for by raising the current Medicare Payroll Tax from 2.9% to 12.5%.

Which unbiased sources say that


Also did you even read the article

Here’s analysis from Sanders campaign that says it only cost 1.38 Trillion annually (13.8 Trillion over a decade) https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/.

Im sorry but that's a far more biased source than the Tax Policy Center is . This is what grade the Tax Policy Center Receives from Media bias.


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/tax-policy-center/


The tax policy center has a Center-Left Bias and their grade for factual reporting is high

[Intell]

We can afford unprofitable privatisation, wars, tax cuts for the rich and upper middle class but we can't afford universal healthcare cool story bro.

Yes, universal healthcare will cost higher taxation on the poor and the middle class, private healthcare already does for the middle class. The plan is designed for the policies of equity; and also the same bs arguments have been made for every social program since the dawn of man.

[OSR stands with Israel]

We can afford unprofitable privatisation, wars, tax cuts for the rich and upper middle class but we can't afford universal healthcare cool story bro.

Yes, universal healthcare will cost higher taxation on the poor and the middle class, private healthcare already does for the middle class. The plan is designed for the policies of equity; and also the same bs arguments have been made for every social program since the dawn of man.

You would have to double tax revenues to pay for this according to this source.


There is almost no way you can do that without at the same time, negatively affecting the overall economy

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

We can afford unprofitable privatisation, wars, tax cuts for the rich and upper middle class but we can't afford universal healthcare cool story bro.

Yes, universal healthcare will cost higher taxation on the poor and the middle class, private healthcare already does for the middle class. The plan is designed for the policies of equity; and also the same bs arguments have been made for every social program since the dawn of man.

[mvd10]

I mean, there was 1 candidate with an even more retarded and irresponsible plan than Donald Trump and that was Bernie. Bernie wouldn't try to suck up Putin and rape all American democratic institutions (big plus), but he's still an idiot. And the things the current crops of Democrats want are well to the left of Bernie's sh**t. A jobs guarantee isn't just unaffordable, it also would literally rape the labour market. Universal healthcare is a very commendable cause and I hope that the Republicans will finally drop their nihilism and also push for expanding healthcare (unlikely), but medicare for all is just a stupid and easy campaign slogan. It also ignores the fact that medicare bills for the people who currently have medicare are bound to explode (on top on America's current deficit). People have made well thought-out healthcare proposals (the purple health plan) but obviously neither party is interested in good proposals because it's f**ing America (where good ideas die a painful death in the cradle). Free college also is an empty slogan that would benefit wealthier people (cause they have enough money anyway and poor people going to college still need to pay living costs and sh**t like that). But it's an empty slogan and seven hells those Americans love empty slogans .

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

There have been more words written about Healthcare.  I see no reason why we can't have a Canadian-style healthcare system in America, except for the faux issues that are raised.

"You won't be able to choose your doctor!".  Can people do this now?  Or do they have to go to the Doctor "on the plan", assuming they have a "plan"?  When you're suddenly sick, do you go to your "Family Doctor"?  Or is he/she booked up to where you go to a walk-in clinic? 

I will never, never, never say that America has "the greatest healthcare system in the world".  Why would I say this when so many cannot access its greatness for lack of funds, and others can't access it without going bankrupt?  Go into your local ER sometime and check out the indigents there.  You can see things like people with broken bones leaving with a splint, but the bone not really set, and a "referral" to an orthopedist for a consultation that they can't pay for (let alone the cost of the treatment).  Or people with all sorts of missing teeth and gum disease that hasn't been treated and never will be.  The last time I was there, I sat across from a middle aged lady with ongoing unmanaged asthma who had come down with bronchitis that she feared had turned into pneumonia; she was treating herself with over-the-counter inhalers because she couldn't afford the costs of seeing the doctor in order to keep her prescriptions up, and she couldn't afford the prescriptions with her present cost of housing.  (She waited almost an hour before they brought her back to a room; a new privatized entity had taken over management of the ER.)  She told me that she worked 50 hours a week, but this was at two  (2) separate part-time jobs, neither of which offered health insurance.

I will say that I am not convinced that most Republicans, and even a lot of well-off Democrats, give a crap about the sick and suffering in America.  They grouse about "Medicaid", but what is that grousing saying?  Is that grousing their expressed desire to see the "welfare poor" suffer their illnesses without "costing them money" the way the working poor that don't qualify for means-tested healthcare do?  All this talk about taxes and financial responsibility; I get that, but these folks who seem to hate universal public healthcare NEVER HAVE A PLAN FOR THE UNINSURED TO RECEIVE HEALTHCARE WITHOUT BECOMING DESTITUTE.  They become defensive when they are accused of a posture of "Let 'em suffer!", or even "Let 'em die!", but, honestly, what to Ted Cruz's words imply?  Or the words of the Death and Suffering Freedom Caucus?

And I will give a shout-out to Donald Trump on this.  Trump is a guy that I believed understood that you can't have a middle class society when people are dying in the streets from lack of healthcare in great numbers, but his advocacies today are leading to just exactly that.  He knows better, but he wanted a "win" and a political alliance, so he's abandoned what he appeared to know for being buds with Jim Jordan and that other moron from North Carolina whose name escapes me now.  This is the main reason I state that I have not decided whom I will vote for in 2020 as of yet.

But, no, we don't have the greatest Healthcare system in the world.  If we provide the most up to date Rolls Royces for the government bureaucrats of Cuba, they won't have the best automobiles in the world, either.

[MasterJedi]

Do a full audit of the defense budget, you could easily find 42 trillion and probably much more to free up.

[YE]

We can afford unprofitable privatisation, wars, tax cuts for the rich and upper middle class but we can't afford universal healthcare cool story bro.

Yes, universal healthcare will cost higher taxation on the poor and the middle class, private healthcare already does for the middle class. The plan is designed for the policies of equity; and also the same bs arguments have been made for every social program since the dawn of man.

You would have to double tax revenues to pay for this according to this source.


There is almost no way you can do that without at the same time, negatively affecting the overall economy

You realize present premiums and pending on plan, out of pocket costs would not longer exist, right? So there's savings and anyone who's largely in favor of people having more money in their pocketbook should favor this...

How people even red avatars think this is unrealistic is beyond me.

[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.

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.

My uncle would be dead without the healthcare system we have here. So would my grandmother. So would my mother. That's not hyperbole either.

[Pyro]

I cannot believe proven COMMUNIST Bernard Sandanista wants to spend $500 TRILLION of my hard earned TAX DOLLARS on more OBAMA DEATH PANELS!!!

[DrScholl]

What people are missing is that all that would happen under a really expensive plan would be transference of cost. People would go from paying insurance companies to paying the government and the cost could mean taxes for lower income people who are Medicaid eligible.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Do a full audit of the defense budget, you could easily find 42 trillion and probably much more to free up.

LMAO


The use spend around 720 billion on the defense budget, Multiply that by 10 and that would equal 7.2 trillion.



So no its even close

[Zaybay]

This is pathetic.

The article posted is more and more biased the more I look at it. Not only do they assume how everything will be paid for, and then dump it all on one tax, but they also use the most expensive estimates while claiming they are from left-leaning sources.

If we went medicare for all, then the nation wont bankrupt. Sanders isnt some ideologue, if you look at all his work, he is constantly saying exactly how it would work and where the money would come from. And while it would be a bit more expensive at the beginning, as time goes on, prices would decrease.

Just because Vox wrote something doesnt mean its pro-Left, and everything is true. The article itself was written by Rob Portman's, a Republican Senator, staffer. And it shows.

The USA would not be bankrupted from the healthcare system, and if you want proof, look at the other nations of the world, and notice how none are bankrupt.

[Mr. Reactionary]

That is extremely misleading information from a biased source. Unbiased analysis says that Medicare-for-all will cost 1.5 Trillion dollars annually (15 Trillion over a decade), and would be almost fully payed for by raising the current Medicare Payroll Tax from 2.9% to 12.5%.

I like how quadrupling the tax on work is being presented as somehow being reasonable.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

Looks like Vox is just as much of a propaganda outlet than Fox at this point.

[YE]

Looks like Vox is just as much of a propaganda outlet than Fox at this point.

It's not just that. It's written by a staffer of working class savior Rob Portman who also worked for working class heroes Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio's campaign.

[Cassandra]

Just because Vox wrote something doesnt mean its pro-Left, and everything is true. The article itself was written by Rob Portman's, a Republican Senator, staffer. And it shows.

Hmm

[darklordoftech]

Why isn't anyone talking about deficit spending?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Looks like Vox is just as much of a propaganda outlet than Fox at this point.

This article is just explaining the basic math behind these proposals.


So why do you want to deny Math

[Zaybay]

Looks like Vox is just as much of a propaganda outlet than Fox at this point.

Why are you denying Math

If this were math, then it would be X+Y=Z, what is X. No information about the other 2 variables, just find X.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Looks like Vox is just as much of a propaganda outlet than Fox at this point.

Why are you denying Math

If this were math, then it would be X+Y=Z, what is X. No information about the other 2 variables, just find X.

Actually Y = Savings

Z = New Expenses