Sanders proposal without $18 trillion to debt over 10 years

  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #3
The left keeps living in this fantasy that they can get something for nothing. This thinking is infantile and reckless.

Study: Sanders' Proposals Would Add $18 Trillion To Debt Over 10 Years
Not true. The increase in taxes for most people would be smaller than what they pay now for health insurance that they would no longer have to pay.

Then why would there be almost $2 trillion added to the national debt every year?
 
The left keeps living in this fantasy that they can get something for nothing. This thinking is infantile and reckless.

Study: Sanders' Proposals Would Add $18 Trillion To Debt Over 10 Years
Not true. The increase in taxes for most people would be smaller than what they pay now for health insurance that they would no longer have to pay.

Then why would there be almost $2 trillion added to the national debt every year?
The left keeps living in this fantasy that they can get something for nothing. This thinking is infantile and reckless.

Study: Sanders' Proposals Would Add $18 Trillion To Debt Over 10 Years
Not true. The increase in taxes for most people would be smaller than what they pay now for health insurance that they would no longer have to pay.

Then why would there be almost $2 trillion added to the national debt every year?
Who says, and how much stock do they hold in insurance companies?
 
The left keeps living in this fantasy that they can get something for nothing. This thinking is infantile and reckless.

Study: Sanders' Proposals Would Add $18 Trillion To Debt Over 10 Years
Do a little research on the Tax Policy Center:

Tax Policy Center Releases Flawed And Biased Analysis Of Marco Rubio Tax Cut

Even if TPC is not capable of producing a modern scoring model to analyze the Rubio plan, they can at least acknowledge that others like JCT and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) have and are constantly refining those models. TPC does not do so.

Furthermore, CBO has given a basic rule of thumb on the relationship between economic growth and taxes which TPC also failed to mention: for every additional one-tenth of one percentage point in real economic growth, tax revenues derived from this growth yield $327 billion over a decade.

====================

Plenty of negative comments about this center and their reliability.

How to pay for universal healthcare.
 
The left keeps living in this fantasy that they can get something for nothing. This thinking is infantile and reckless.

Study: Sanders' Proposals Would Add $18 Trillion To Debt Over 10 Years
Not true. The increase in taxes for most people would be smaller than what they pay now for health insurance that they would no longer have to pay.

Currently, I have to pay nothing for my health insurance. Are you saying that my taxes would be nothing?
 
Not true. The increase in taxes for most people would be smaller than what they pay now for health insurance that they would no longer have to pay.

I'll pay the higher premiums for PRIVATE insurance thst I'll use rather than lower rates for something I'll never get a value from.
 
The left keeps living in this fantasy that they can get something for nothing. This thinking is infantile and reckless.

Study: Sanders' Proposals Would Add $18 Trillion To Debt Over 10 Years
Not true. The increase in taxes for most people would be smaller than what they pay now for health insurance that they would no longer have to pay.

Then why would there be almost $2 trillion added to the national debt every year?
The left keeps living in this fantasy that they can get something for nothing. This thinking is infantile and reckless.

Study: Sanders' Proposals Would Add $18 Trillion To Debt Over 10 Years
Not true. The increase in taxes for most people would be smaller than what they pay now for health insurance that they would no longer have to pay.

Then why would there be almost $2 trillion added to the national debt every year?
Who says, and how much stock do they hold in insurance companies?

What would we spend, per person, under single payer.

That is what is needed.

Currently we spend almost 10,000 per person per year.
 
Not true. The increase in taxes for most people would be smaller than what they pay now for health insurance that they would no longer have to pay.

I'll pay the higher premiums for PRIVATE insurance thst I'll use rather than lower rates for something I'll never get a value from.

The problem is people are paying for insurance that they CAN'T use.

Who in their right mind would pay $600 a month for a plan that doesn't even cover anything until you push out an additional $3,000?
 
The problem is people are paying for insurance that they CAN'T use.

Who in their right mind would pay $600 a month for a plan that doesn't even cover anything until you push out an additional $3,000?

I'm totally against forcing people to buy insurance they don't want. I just don't believe I should be paying other people's premiums through my taxes. Including Medicare and Medicaid.
 
Not true. The increase in taxes for most people would be smaller than what they pay now for health insurance that they would no longer have to pay.

I'll pay the higher premiums for PRIVATE insurance thst I'll use rather than lower rates for something I'll never get a value from.

The problem is people are paying for insurance that they CAN'T use.

Who in their right mind would pay $600 a month for a plan that doesn't even cover anything until you push out an additional $3,000?
I would be fine with a $3000 deductible.
 
Not true. The increase in taxes for most people would be smaller than what they pay now for health insurance that they would no longer have to pay.

I'll pay the higher premiums for PRIVATE insurance thst I'll use rather than lower rates for something I'll never get a value from.

The problem is people are paying for insurance that they CAN'T use.

Who in their right mind would pay $600 a month for a plan that doesn't even cover anything until you push out an additional $3,000?

No one would. Thus, a mandate.
 
Not true. The increase in taxes for most people would be smaller than what they pay now for health insurance that they would no longer have to pay.

I'll pay the higher premiums for PRIVATE insurance thst I'll use rather than lower rates for something I'll never get a value from.

The problem is people are paying for insurance that they CAN'T use.

Who in their right mind would pay $600 a month for a plan that doesn't even cover anything until you push out an additional $3,000?

No one would. Thus, a mandate.

Yes that is the problem. You can't force people to buy an unaffordable service; thus, why I highly disagree with Democrats on their reasoning(s) for keeping Obamacare. The Democrats are completely out of control and should stop thinking about the people who sit on their lazy ass and don't contribute to healthcare but reap the few benefits from the law.
 
Not true. The increase in taxes for most people would be smaller than what they pay now for health insurance that they would no longer have to pay.

I'll pay the higher premiums for PRIVATE insurance thst I'll use rather than lower rates for something I'll never get a value from.

The problem is people are paying for insurance that they CAN'T use.

Who in their right mind would pay $600 a month for a plan that doesn't even cover anything until you push out an additional $3,000?
I would be fine with a $3000 deductible.

Example: You haven't been to the doctor in 3 years, and you've paid a total of $21,600 towards your health insurance. You've basically thrown $21,600 down the drain and haven't benefited from it since your bill will still be at a minimum $3,000 for the surgery you wanted. Please explain why you're fine with having both a high premium and deductible.
 
Because all I want is a catastrophic care policy...which means a high deductible. If you haven't been to a doctor in 3 years, that's your fault.
 

Forum List

Back
Top