"Democratic Socialism" would cost 42 trillion dollars

[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.

Actually Y = Savings

Z = New Expenses

My point is that the article you linked leaves out many factors and information that are critical to understanding the issue, and decides to make broad generalizations on how it would work.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Vox occasionally lets right wingers write guest articles like this because that section is supposed to be non-partisan. They've posted anti-abortion editorials too.

Luckily they're identified and easy to ignore. Their own reporting is always excellent.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

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

No because a Vox writer didn't write this.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

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

No because a Vox writer didn't write this.

[ProudModerate2]

... 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.

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.

It's funny to see how Old School Republican suddenly and conveniently just ignores this key piece of information (regarding his article).
Give us your thoughts on this Old School.

[OSR stands with Israel]

... 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.

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.

It's funny to see how Old School Republican suddenly and conveniently just ignores this key piece of information (regarding his article).
Give us your thoughts on this Old School.

The numbers were gotten by Tax Policy Foundation which according to Mediabias is a Center-Left source

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

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.

What I don't find reasonable is claiming that we have the best healthcare system in the world, when so many cannot receive its care, and so many more can't receive its needed care without becoming financially destitute.  This doesn't happen in Canada or Western Europe, but it happens in this, the richest country in the World. 

This is HEALTHCARE I'm talking about, not "Free College".  People like Old School Republican, a decent enough fellow, never discuss the raw, basic issue of the fact that our pre-Obamacare system resulted in lots of folks not getting treatment and dying, and lots of others going into bankruptcy for treatment.  Obamacare, flawed and unpopular, was at least an attempt to address that.  The same pols who can shed crocodile tears over "the Holocaust of the unborn" are totally unfazed over American citizens not being able to access needed lifesaving and lifepreserving healthcare (at worst) or only being able to access it at the cost of financial destitution (at best).  What say ye about that?

[136or142]

... 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.

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.

It's funny to see how Old School Republican suddenly and conveniently just ignores this key piece of information (regarding his article).
Give us your thoughts on this Old School.

The numbers were gotten by Tax Policy Foundation which according to Mediabias is a Center-Left source

Most of the number crunching was not done by the Tax Policy Foundation and the original study this article was based on, from George Mason University, is now the Koch Brothers University.

As Barack Obama said at the time, moving to single payer given the existence of all the other government health care systems and corporate health care benefit plans would be very difficult, but it's very hard to believe it would be more expensive than the current system.  It may not be the easiest to do, and Sanders' proposal for a payroll tax to finance health care probably isn't the best approach (though obviously this is no different in practice than the health care presently provided by employers to employees) but most of the alleged problems pointed out in this article are manageable.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

When you factor in not having the hidden costs of employer-provided health insurance, it's not nearly that expensive.  It also would have the side effect of making employers less reticent about hiring older employees if they weren't saddled with the higher health care costs of the not-quite senior citizens.

[The Free North]

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

Comrade, the crop has never been better! Rush to tell the commissar. Do it quickly now. 

[Vincent]

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.

When you factor in not having the hidden costs of employer-provided health insurance, it's not nearly that expensive.  It also would have the side effect of making employers less reticent about hiring older employees if they weren't saddled with the higher health care costs of the not-quite senior citizens.

An interesting thing to do is see how much you and your employer paid for your healthcare plan in a year. This may appear on line 12 of your w-2 form with the code DD. Mine was approximately $6,700 for 2017.
 

[Badger]

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.

What I don't find reasonable is claiming that we have the best healthcare system in the world, when so many cannot receive its care, and so many more can't receive its needed care without becoming financially destitute.  This doesn't happen in Canada or Western Europe, but it happens in this, the richest country in the World. 

This is HEALTHCARE I'm talking about, not "Free College".  People like Old School Republican, a decent enough fellow, never discuss the raw, basic issue of the fact that our pre-Obamacare system resulted in lots of folks not getting treatment and dying, and lots of others going into bankruptcy for treatment.  Obamacare, flawed and unpopular, was at least an attempt to address that.  The same pols who can shed crocodile tears over "the Holocaust of the unborn" are totally unfazed over American citizens not being able to access needed lifesaving and lifepreserving healthcare (at worst) or only being able to access it at the cost of financial destitution (at best).  What say ye about that?

I say to ye America, repent! For the Lord God shall suffer his children to ignore the injunction to care for the sick and infirm for only so long.....

(Great post, btw)

[Badger]

Btw, I read an article about this study on AAD. Yes, spending woukd increase only to the extent its replacing copays, deductables, and uncovered ER treatment with more equitably  distributed payroll taxes. The authors, mindful of their sponsership, worked REAL hard to bury the true headline: Federal government NET healthcare expenditures would DECREASE by just over 2 trillion dollars. 

Not the point to folks like OSR, of course. A fine enough young lad I agree. But Lord, he's so elitist he makes Mitt Romney look like AOC.

[|˶˙ᵕ˙ )ﾉﾞ]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Versus the $20 trillion that the Republican clown artists have given us in debt over their supply side scam? The GOP couldn't balance a thrift store cash register till....let alone the entire budget of the U.S. government.