Bernie Sanders: We Will Raise Taxes On Anyone Making Over $29,000 To Fund Government Health Care

[Rigby5]

Medicare is one of the most successful programs in the whole country, with admin costs less than 10% that of private health care. The only reason Medicare is not better is that it does not hire its own doctors and nurses directly, like the VA does, and would be even more efficient.

Medicare to go broke three years earlier than expected ...

https://www.politico.com › 2018/06/05 › medicare-outlook-2026-625908
Jun 5, 2018 - Medicare's hospital trust fund is expected to run out of money in 2026, three years earlier than previously projected, the program's trustees said ...

If the military isn't going to go broke, Medicare isn't either.

Bad news Buckwheat.. they're both going to go broke unless the way government operations are conducted drastically changes for the better.

Contrary to popular delusion resources aren't infinite, even in the good ole US of A.

"If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." -- Herbert Stein

I see no one demanding higher taxes to pay down the 23 Trillion. If we are going to go down I would prefer doing it by helping people as opposed to needlessly blowing people up.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

{...
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
...}

The founders did intend for states to do most of the social services, but increases in mobility made that impractical.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Inflation is not the cause of increased health care costs.
Health care costs are rising at over twice the rate of inflation.
Health care costs are rising due to insurance companies deliberately creating prepaid medical monopolies that prevent people from being able to shop around and get reasonable prices.

That's only part of the root cause (and a small part of it), the majority of the price increase goes back to good old SUPPLY AND DEMAND, namely supply isn't keeping up with accelerating demand, in part because the consumer has been decoupled from the COST (leading to over consumption) and in part because the citizenry is FAT, SICK AND NEARLY DEAD due to poor lifestyle choices (diet and exercise).

If we keep going the way we're going with our lifestyle choices, health care costs due to treatment of chronic diseases and lost productivity will be so high that the nation will be bankrupt no matter what "system" of health insurance we adopt.

Regardless of whether the 3rd party decoupled the consumer of the costs and consequences of their life style, or whether it decoupled them from being able to contest pricing or quality of services, clearly 3rd party, prepaid, health care, has totally and completely failed.
It is not working and can not be fixed without getting rid ot the third party.
And the third party is the insurance company, which adds nothing and greatly takes away.
It is not even the profits they skim that is the worst, but the vast overhead they add in administrative costs for all their required paperwork for claims.

Likely we should switch from a pre-paid system of premiums, to where government underwrites guarantees medical loans you post pay, after you get medical services. That way payments could be based on ability to pay and people below poverty level have their medical loans forgiven.

You're missing the point... it CANNOT be "fixed" by changing who pays and how the bills get paid, it can only be fixed by altering the trajectory of the demand for health care services which involves Americans changing their eating and exercise habits (aka lifestyle) along with re-coupling consumption with actual COST of consumption.

If you don't fix the root causes of accelerating demand our health care costs coupled with the loss of productivity brought about by chronic disease will BANKRUPT the United States and effectively destroy the productive economy.

All this BS about bickering over who handles insurance and what "system" we should adopt is just an exercise in rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

We are 23 Trillion in debt. When do we hit bankruptcy? If we do not have to pay for bombs and bailouts, why do we have to pay for healthcare?

Almost all of the national debt is defense spending.
Most of our annual budget is defense once you include things like VA and GIBill costs.
The national debt still includes SDI, Desert Storm, the invasion of Iraq, etc.
There is essentially no social services in the national debt.
There will be some when SS temporarily short falls by 10% or so, but nothing significant yet.

Almost all of the national debt is defense spending.

You misspelled "entitlement spending".

 

[Rigby5]

First of all, anyone claiming that single payer or public health care takes control of anyone's health care, is just lying.
The whole rest of the civilized world has single payer or public health care, and no where has government taken control.
You can still buy whatever private health care you want in any nation.
All public or single payer does is provide a minimal medical safety net, to break private monopoly and ensure there is at least SOME competition, to bring down prices.

You could do the same thing by allowing hospitals and doctors to advertise their prices and services. Paying cash, by allowing Health Savings Accounts, is another way to lower cost.

The best way to lower cost is simply to get the government out of the business of regulating health care and let the market establish the price.

I trust a company trying to put out a quality product at a competitive cost in a competitive market a lot more than I trust a government bureaucrat with my health care.

Absolutely

Ridiculous.
Without government regulation, everything since the Industrial Revolution would be a monopoly you could not afford unless you were very wealthy.
It would be a return to feudalism, with company towns and private security armies like Pinkerton busting heads of anyone trying to do anything like form a union.
Do you not understand that unregulated capitalism always reverts to feudalism and slavery?

I grew up in the coal fields of West Virginia. Unions were needed back in that time. Not so much anymore.

If you think we don't need unions or government regulation of greedy corporations, then you have not seen things like software sweatshops like Microsoft, Google, FaceBook, etc.

 

[Weatherman2020]

An entire thread of Leftards justifying raising taxes on people making $14/hr. Wowzers.

 

[dblack]

That's only part of the root cause (and a small part of it), the majority of the price increase goes back to good old SUPPLY AND DEMAND, namely supply isn't keeping up with accelerating demand, in part because the consumer has been decoupled from the COST (leading to over consumption) and in part because the citizenry is FAT, SICK AND NEARLY DEAD due to poor lifestyle choices (diet and exercise).

If we keep going the way we're going with our lifestyle choices, health care costs due to treatment of chronic diseases and lost productivity will be so high that the nation will be bankrupt no matter what "system" of health insurance we adopt.

Regardless of whether the 3rd party decoupled the consumer of the costs and consequences of their life style, or whether it decoupled them from being able to contest pricing or quality of services, clearly 3rd party, prepaid, health care, has totally and completely failed.
It is not working and can not be fixed without getting rid ot the third party.
And the third party is the insurance company, which adds nothing and greatly takes away.
It is not even the profits they skim that is the worst, but the vast overhead they add in administrative costs for all their required paperwork for claims.

Likely we should switch from a pre-paid system of premiums, to where government underwrites guarantees medical loans you post pay, after you get medical services. That way payments could be based on ability to pay and people below poverty level have their medical loans forgiven.

You're missing the point... it CANNOT be "fixed" by changing who pays and how the bills get paid, it can only be fixed by altering the trajectory of the demand for health care services which involves Americans changing their eating and exercise habits (aka lifestyle) along with re-coupling consumption with actual COST of consumption.

If you don't fix the root causes of accelerating demand our health care costs coupled with the loss of productivity brought about by chronic disease will BANKRUPT the United States and effectively destroy the productive economy.

All this BS about bickering over who handles insurance and what "system" we should adopt is just an exercise in rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

We are 23 Trillion in debt. When do we hit bankruptcy? If we do not have to pay for bombs and bailouts, why do we have to pay for healthcare?

Almost all of the national debt is defense spending.
Most of our annual budget is defense once you include things like VA and GIBill costs.
The national debt still includes SDI, Desert Storm, the invasion of Iraq, etc.
There is essentially no social services in the national debt.
There will be some when SS temporarily short falls by 10% or so, but nothing significant yet.

Almost all of the national debt is defense spending.

You misspelled "entitlement spending".

The Federal Budget in 2018: An Infographic | Congressional Budget Office

 

[Rigby5]

Doctors make more money under public health care than they do under private insurance.
That is because over half the current overhead for running a medical practice is hiring the huge staff needed to fill out all the insurance paperwork. We are talking about tens of billions wasted.
Also the corporate layers currently skimming are removed, such as the insurance companies and the large medical corporations that have bought up all the medical providers, into monopolies.

Without insurance companies dictating which doctors you have to see, then you have a wider range of choice, so you need fewer doctors and can just keep them more busy.

Another advantage of public health care that people do not realize, is that private insurance often is not taken by out of state providers or in other countries. Travelers do not realize they are not covered at all. And all those prepaid insurance premiums are useless and lost if you change jobs.

Wrong. Providers and doctors are paid less with government patients; typically they only get 2/3 of what they bill out. That's why some are refusing new Medicare and Medicaid patients. It's also why when you see medical facilities close down, it's in lower income neighborhoods where most of the patients are government patients. There is nowhere to recoup those losses.

So how do they recover that lost money? Simple, they increase prices, and private insurance ends up paying the loss. Government is part of the reason insurance premiums keep going up. We baby boomers are retiring.

So what happens with Medicare for All? The same thing that happened in those lower income areas.

Survey: More doctors report they cannot afford to take new Medicaid, Medicare patients

Doctors limit new Medicare patients - USATODAY.com

Insurance only pays a fraction of the bill also.

Correct, but working people are more likely to pay the rest than a senior citizen.

Nobody pays it.

Bill: $9000

Insurance: pays $3800.

You owe: $240.

No, we all pay for it. Do you think doctors and hospitals operate at a loss? They get that lost money back from other places.

It's also why these figures are all wrong by Sander's or anybody else. They are calculating what it would cost for all of us to be on Medicare, not figuring in how to pay for those losses since private pay and private insurance would no longer be doing it.

I disagree.
When medical providers are only paid a third of what they charge, they are not operating at a loss.
It is just that they have jacked up their bills by over 4 times what they should be.

The savings that would pay for medicare for all would be the billions currently wasted on filling out private insurance claims, prepaying premiums, tax exempt employer benefits, incredibly jacked up provider charges, profit skimming by insurance companies and medical corporation monopolies, etc.
Other countries prove health care costs can be cut in half and still provide better quality service.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Wrong. Providers and doctors are paid less with government patients; typically they only get 2/3 of what they bill out. That's why some are refusing new Medicare and Medicaid patients. It's also why when you see medical facilities close down, it's in lower income neighborhoods where most of the patients are government patients. There is nowhere to recoup those losses.

So how do they recover that lost money? Simple, they increase prices, and private insurance ends up paying the loss. Government is part of the reason insurance premiums keep going up. We baby boomers are retiring.

So what happens with Medicare for All? The same thing that happened in those lower income areas.

Survey: More doctors report they cannot afford to take new Medicaid, Medicare patients

Doctors limit new Medicare patients - USATODAY.com

Insurance only pays a fraction of the bill also.

Correct, but working people are more likely to pay the rest than a senior citizen.

Nobody pays it.

Bill: $9000

Insurance: pays $3800.

You owe: $240.

No, we all pay for it. Do you think doctors and hospitals operate at a loss? They get that lost money back from other places.

It's also why these figures are all wrong by Sander's or anybody else. They are calculating what it would cost for all of us to be on Medicare, not figuring in how to pay for those losses since private pay and private insurance would no longer be doing it.

I disagree.
When medical providers are only paid a third of what they charge, they are not operating at a loss.
It is just that they have jacked up their bills by over 4 times what they should be.

The savings that would pay for medicare for all would be the billions currently wasted on filling out private insurance claims, prepaying premiums, tax exempt employer benefits, incredibly jacked up provider charges, profit skimming by insurance companies and medical corporation monopolies, etc.
Other countries prove health care costs can be cut in half and still provide better quality service.

Do you have all of your savings investments in the medical field?
Why not? According to you they’re the biggest profit takers on earth.

 

[Rigby5]

At least I am grateful you are aware of the issue unlike others.

Yeah, quite the polished presentation. Of course there's some truth to every assertion. Way beyond Andy's normal capabilities though so vastly lifted from a Koch Bros think tank bucket no doubt. Problem is some of us were quite alive and aware throughout. Typical rw nutjob rewriting of history. Corporate corruption? Oh np, we'll just skip ahead to everyone freaking out over the outcome and look back very selectively so as to put all the blame on govt. Greedy private lenders, bundlers, financial advisors, investors, insurers? All innocent as the driven snow. Govt made me do it! Bad govt, BAD! Government changed the market incentives causing banks to make bad loans!

Yeah, right. Cry me a river. Who corrupted the govt officials to play along? No higher govt position or salary is lucrative enough for any professional to take on such huge personal risk. It takes a system wide concerted effort by groups of private shitheads with deep, deep pockets and a common commitment to steal all they possibly can in order to keep gaining vastly more. We corrupted them and then they helped us. See? Their fault! We're victims!

First you get some money, then you corrupt some power, then you get boatloads more money! Want to know who's really to blame? Same as ever.. duh!.. follow the money! Proof that greed uber alles capitalism has been attempted enough and run its course. The supposed "free market" is and always was bullshit doomed to fail. Significant public transparency and oversight is absolutely required. Legal ability to hide and take zero responsibility is the problem.

Agreed.
Government was only responsible for the real estate collapse in that they had repealled Glass-Steagall, and allowed banks to make incredibly risky loans to each other, knowing the government would then be forced to bail them out.
The claim banks were forced to make risky loans to poor and Blacks through prosecution of discrimination cases again banks is a lie.
None of those prosecutions were to help unqualified buyers.

Unqualified buyers had nothing at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.
The buyers were not defaulting on payments until after the the ARM rates almost doubled, and no ordinary person could have made those increased payments.
And the defaults were caused by the banks refusing to refinance at fixed rates.

Government was only responsible for the real estate collapse in that they had repealled Glass-Steagall, and allowed banks to make incredibly risky loans to each other, knowing the government would then be forced to bail them out.

Glass-Steagall didn't prevent banks from writing bad mortgages.

Writing bad mortgages had nothing at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.
What caused the collapse was bundling the bad mortgages into derivatives that then were traded as stocks, as if they were of far greater value than they really were, both allowing banks to pretend they had more assets than they really did, and to essentially force government to secure risky stock investments the government would not have had to secure if Glass-Steagall had not been repealled.

The proof these were not bad mortgages in the first place, is that people had been successfully making payments on them for many years.
It was the changes in 2008 that doubled their monthly payment that caused the home buyers to default, and that was NOT their fault. Blaming individual home buyers is totally incorrect.

Writing bad mortgages had nothing at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.

That's hilarious!!

The proof these were not bad mortgages in the first place, is that people had been successfully making payments on them for many years.

Refinancing during the growth phase of a bubble is easy.

It was the changes in 2008 that doubled their monthly payment that caused the home buyers to default

You mean that mortgages that were current at 1% interest and in default at 5% interest were good mortgages?

and that was NOT their fault.

People who took out loans they couldn't afford are entirely blameless?

The mortage defaults were never allowed to refinance.
The bubble busting made their home not worth enough for them to qualify.
They owed more than the home was worth.
But they still would have kept making their old payments because they would want to protect their down payment.
But they could not make the new ARM payments that as much as doubled.

There were no 1% interest mortgages.
They lowest mortgages during the bubble were around 8%, and the bust made them jump to over 15%.
The drop to 3% did not happen until years later, when there were so many foreclosures that banks had to eventually drop rates.

Almost no one took out real estate loans they could not afford.
They were making the payments successfully, and could have continued doing so.
It was their rates being jack up deceptively by ARM loans that forced them to default.
Do you think they just wanted to throw away their down payment and years of monthly payments?
They liked being make homeless?

Again, read about the LIBOR scandal.
Libor scandal - Wikipedia

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong. Providers and doctors are paid less with government patients; typically they only get 2/3 of what they bill out. That's why some are refusing new Medicare and Medicaid patients. It's also why when you see medical facilities close down, it's in lower income neighborhoods where most of the patients are government patients. There is nowhere to recoup those losses.

So how do they recover that lost money? Simple, they increase prices, and private insurance ends up paying the loss. Government is part of the reason insurance premiums keep going up. We baby boomers are retiring.

So what happens with Medicare for All? The same thing that happened in those lower income areas.

Survey: More doctors report they cannot afford to take new Medicaid, Medicare patients

Doctors limit new Medicare patients - USATODAY.com

Insurance only pays a fraction of the bill also.

Correct, but working people are more likely to pay the rest than a senior citizen.

Nobody pays it.

Bill: $9000

Insurance: pays $3800.

You owe: $240.

No, we all pay for it. Do you think doctors and hospitals operate at a loss? They get that lost money back from other places.

It's also why these figures are all wrong by Sander's or anybody else. They are calculating what it would cost for all of us to be on Medicare, not figuring in how to pay for those losses since private pay and private insurance would no longer be doing it.

I disagree.
When medical providers are only paid a third of what they charge, they are not operating at a loss.
It is just that they have jacked up their bills by over 4 times what they should be.

The savings that would pay for medicare for all would be the billions currently wasted on filling out private insurance claims, prepaying premiums, tax exempt employer benefits, incredibly jacked up provider charges, profit skimming by insurance companies and medical corporation monopolies, etc.
Other countries prove health care costs can be cut in half and still provide better quality service.

Nobody has better healthcare than the US when it comes to quality.

I'm a patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic. In fact, was just there yesterday to get checked out. When you go to their downtown campus, you are the one who feels like a foreigner.

It's not just patients, it's doctors as well. They either come here from their socialized medical care countries to make some real money, or come here, get educated, and never return home. So because of our system, we draw the best talent from around the world.

My sister works there as well. She can testify to the amount of Canadian patients at the Clinic looking for some relief that they couldn't get in their socialized medical care country. In fact, all our northern hospitals have Canadian patients.

So you can't tell me of another country that's problem-less either. They all have either extremely slow services, low quality equipment, medications we quit using decades ago, or outright refuse to treat some people. Nobody has a perfect medial system, including ours.

 

[Rigby5]

That's right, rather than address my point get triggered and call me names.

Typical.

You should be called names because you are confuses about this big time. You don't get a pass when you take idiotic positions. It doesn't get any more idiotic than advocating that the ******* government control our health care.

I did answer your confusion by saying that the right thing to do is for you pay for your health care and I pay for mine and we leave the worthless corrupt bloated oppressive government out of it.

Do you think any politician would ever get elected on running on ending Medicare?

I would vote for anybody that ran on that platform.

You would be an idiot if you didn't also vote for him/her.

It takes courage to do the right thing and undo government screw ups. Too bad we don't have very many politicians with courage. Those same gutless assholes are the ones that you stupid Moon Bats want to run your health care. Then you wonder why we ridicule you so much.

Medicare is one of the most successful programs in the whole country, with admin costs less than 10% that of private health care. The only reason Medicare is not better is that it does not hire its own doctors and nurses directly, like the VA does, and would be even more efficient.

You are confused. Medicare is ******* disaster that the politicians keep raiding money from the program. It also controls what kind of health care you get and how much the payout will be. Who in their right mind would want to sign up for a program where a bureaucrat gets to decide what kind of health care you get?

You are forced by the government to pay for it when you earn money and then they control what you get as payback and that is a stupid program. It is better for you to take care of your own health care and leave the ******* government and their control out of it.

Of course if you a worthless Democrat voting welfare queen or Illegal you don't like the idea of being responsible for anything. You want other people to pay your bills.

Why would you even want to be forced into a program where you had to work in order to pay somebody else's bills? On a moron would sign up for something like that.

That makes no sense because the alternative to voted in bureaucrats deciding your health care, is for profit corporation deciding your health care, which is 100s of times worse.

You prepay health insurance premiums, so you have absolutely no say at all when it comes down to actually needing health care, as to quality or costs, when it is private. You ONLY get any say at all when it is public.
Government control is how you stop abusive monopolies and other frauds.
The whole point of having government involved is to ensure everyone is equally involved and paying appropriately.

 

[Rigby5]

That's only part of the root cause (and a small part of it), the majority of the price increase goes back to good old SUPPLY AND DEMAND, namely supply isn't keeping up with accelerating demand, in part because the consumer has been decoupled from the COST (leading to over consumption) and in part because the citizenry is FAT, SICK AND NEARLY DEAD due to poor lifestyle choices (diet and exercise).

If we keep going the way we're going with our lifestyle choices, health care costs due to treatment of chronic diseases and lost productivity will be so high that the nation will be bankrupt no matter what "system" of health insurance we adopt.

Regardless of whether the 3rd party decoupled the consumer of the costs and consequences of their life style, or whether it decoupled them from being able to contest pricing or quality of services, clearly 3rd party, prepaid, health care, has totally and completely failed.
It is not working and can not be fixed without getting rid ot the third party.
And the third party is the insurance company, which adds nothing and greatly takes away.
It is not even the profits they skim that is the worst, but the vast overhead they add in administrative costs for all their required paperwork for claims.

Likely we should switch from a pre-paid system of premiums, to where government underwrites guarantees medical loans you post pay, after you get medical services. That way payments could be based on ability to pay and people below poverty level have their medical loans forgiven.

You're missing the point... it CANNOT be "fixed" by changing who pays and how the bills get paid, it can only be fixed by altering the trajectory of the demand for health care services which involves Americans changing their eating and exercise habits (aka lifestyle) along with re-coupling consumption with actual COST of consumption.

If you don't fix the root causes of accelerating demand our health care costs coupled with the loss of productivity brought about by chronic disease will BANKRUPT the United States and effectively destroy the productive economy.

All this BS about bickering over who handles insurance and what "system" we should adopt is just an exercise in rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

We are 23 Trillion in debt. When do we hit bankruptcy? If we do not have to pay for bombs and bailouts, why do we have to pay for healthcare?

Almost all of the national debt is defense spending.
Most of our annual budget is defense once you include things like VA and GIBill costs.
The national debt still includes SDI, Desert Storm, the invasion of Iraq, etc.
There is essentially no social services in the national debt.
There will be some when SS temporarily short falls by 10% or so, but nothing significant yet.

Almost all of the national debt is defense spending.

You misspelled "entitlement spending".

That is not at all true.
First of all, you can not include self funding programs like Social Security of Medicare.
Second is that not only is about 50% of the rest of the national budget for defense, but all of the interest on past debt is also defense. So the real total for defense spending is more like 75% of the discretionary budget.

 

[Rigby5]

An entire thread of Leftards justifying raising taxes on people making $14/hr. Wowzers.

No, public health care would save everyone lots of money, and not cost anyone any more than they spend now.
The rest of the world is proof.

 

[Rigby5]

Insurance only pays a fraction of the bill also.

Correct, but working people are more likely to pay the rest than a senior citizen.

Nobody pays it.

Bill: $9000

Insurance: pays $3800.

You owe: $240.

No, we all pay for it. Do you think doctors and hospitals operate at a loss? They get that lost money back from other places.

It's also why these figures are all wrong by Sander's or anybody else. They are calculating what it would cost for all of us to be on Medicare, not figuring in how to pay for those losses since private pay and private insurance would no longer be doing it.

I disagree.
When medical providers are only paid a third of what they charge, they are not operating at a loss.
It is just that they have jacked up their bills by over 4 times what they should be.

The savings that would pay for medicare for all would be the billions currently wasted on filling out private insurance claims, prepaying premiums, tax exempt employer benefits, incredibly jacked up provider charges, profit skimming by insurance companies and medical corporation monopolies, etc.
Other countries prove health care costs can be cut in half and still provide better quality service.

Do you have all of your savings investments in the medical field?
Why not? According to you they’re the biggest profit takers on earth.

Since the medical fields are the biggest profit takes on earth, they do not need a lot of invesment capital.
They already force us to prepay them more money than they know what to do with.
That is why they own most of the mutual funds investment companies.
They don't know what to do with all that money we keep prepaying them.
So the interest they pay out to stock holders is very low.
Only about 4% or less.
Most things pay better, like real estate.
The only good thing about investing in medical corporations is stability.
They never go down.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, quite the polished presentation. Of course there's some truth to every assertion. Way beyond Andy's normal capabilities though so vastly lifted from a Koch Bros think tank bucket no doubt. Problem is some of us were quite alive and aware throughout. Typical rw nutjob rewriting of history. Corporate corruption? Oh np, we'll just skip ahead to everyone freaking out over the outcome and look back very selectively so as to put all the blame on govt. Greedy private lenders, bundlers, financial advisors, investors, insurers? All innocent as the driven snow. Govt made me do it! Bad govt, BAD! Government changed the market incentives causing banks to make bad loans!

Yeah, right. Cry me a river. Who corrupted the govt officials to play along? No higher govt position or salary is lucrative enough for any professional to take on such huge personal risk. It takes a system wide concerted effort by groups of private shitheads with deep, deep pockets and a common commitment to steal all they possibly can in order to keep gaining vastly more. We corrupted them and then they helped us. See? Their fault! We're victims!

First you get some money, then you corrupt some power, then you get boatloads more money! Want to know who's really to blame? Same as ever.. duh!.. follow the money! Proof that greed uber alles capitalism has been attempted enough and run its course. The supposed "free market" is and always was bullshit doomed to fail. Significant public transparency and oversight is absolutely required. Legal ability to hide and take zero responsibility is the problem.

Agreed.
Government was only responsible for the real estate collapse in that they had repealled Glass-Steagall, and allowed banks to make incredibly risky loans to each other, knowing the government would then be forced to bail them out.
The claim banks were forced to make risky loans to poor and Blacks through prosecution of discrimination cases again banks is a lie.
None of those prosecutions were to help unqualified buyers.

Unqualified buyers had nothing at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.
The buyers were not defaulting on payments until after the the ARM rates almost doubled, and no ordinary person could have made those increased payments.
And the defaults were caused by the banks refusing to refinance at fixed rates.

Government was only responsible for the real estate collapse in that they had repealled Glass-Steagall, and allowed banks to make incredibly risky loans to each other, knowing the government would then be forced to bail them out.

Glass-Steagall didn't prevent banks from writing bad mortgages.

Writing bad mortgages had nothing at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.
What caused the collapse was bundling the bad mortgages into derivatives that then were traded as stocks, as if they were of far greater value than they really were, both allowing banks to pretend they had more assets than they really did, and to essentially force government to secure risky stock investments the government would not have had to secure if Glass-Steagall had not been repealled.

The proof these were not bad mortgages in the first place, is that people had been successfully making payments on them for many years.
It was the changes in 2008 that doubled their monthly payment that caused the home buyers to default, and that was NOT their fault. Blaming individual home buyers is totally incorrect.

Writing bad mortgages had nothing at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.

That's hilarious!!

The proof these were not bad mortgages in the first place, is that people had been successfully making payments on them for many years.

Refinancing during the growth phase of a bubble is easy.

It was the changes in 2008 that doubled their monthly payment that caused the home buyers to default

You mean that mortgages that were current at 1% interest and in default at 5% interest were good mortgages?

and that was NOT their fault.

People who took out loans they couldn't afford are entirely blameless?

The mortage defaults were never allowed to refinance.
The bubble busting made their home not worth enough for them to qualify.
They owed more than the home was worth.
But they still would have kept making their old payments because they would want to protect their down payment.
But they could not make the new ARM payments that as much as doubled.

There were no 1% interest mortgages.
They lowest mortgages during the bubble were around 8%, and the bust made them jump to over 15%.
The drop to 3% did not happen until years later, when there were so many foreclosures that banks had to eventually drop rates.

Almost no one took out real estate loans they could not afford.
They were making the payments successfully, and could have continued doing so.
It was their rates being jack up deceptively by ARM loans that forced them to default.
Do you think they just wanted to throw away their down payment and years of monthly payments?
They liked being make homeless?

Again, read about the LIBOR scandal.
Libor scandal - Wikipedia

But they could not make the new ARM payments that as much as doubled.

If you can only afford the teaser rate.....chances are you got a bad mortgage.

There were no 1% interest mortgages.

There were definitely mortgages with very low teaser rates as well as negative amortization mortgages.

They lowest mortgages during the bubble were around 8%,

If rates were 8% or higher, the bubble wouldn't have happened.

and the bust made them jump to over 15%.

You're lying.

It was their rates being jack up deceptively by ARM loans that forced them to default.

Deceptively? LOL!
When was the last time you took out a mortgage?
The pages and pages of rate disclosure documents are hard to miss.

Do you think they just wanted to throw away their down payment and years of monthly payments?

Many had very low or no down payment at all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Regardless of whether the 3rd party decoupled the consumer of the costs and consequences of their life style, or whether it decoupled them from being able to contest pricing or quality of services, clearly 3rd party, prepaid, health care, has totally and completely failed.
It is not working and can not be fixed without getting rid ot the third party.
And the third party is the insurance company, which adds nothing and greatly takes away.
It is not even the profits they skim that is the worst, but the vast overhead they add in administrative costs for all their required paperwork for claims.

Likely we should switch from a pre-paid system of premiums, to where government underwrites guarantees medical loans you post pay, after you get medical services. That way payments could be based on ability to pay and people below poverty level have their medical loans forgiven.

You're missing the point... it CANNOT be "fixed" by changing who pays and how the bills get paid, it can only be fixed by altering the trajectory of the demand for health care services which involves Americans changing their eating and exercise habits (aka lifestyle) along with re-coupling consumption with actual COST of consumption.

If you don't fix the root causes of accelerating demand our health care costs coupled with the loss of productivity brought about by chronic disease will BANKRUPT the United States and effectively destroy the productive economy.

All this BS about bickering over who handles insurance and what "system" we should adopt is just an exercise in rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

We are 23 Trillion in debt. When do we hit bankruptcy? If we do not have to pay for bombs and bailouts, why do we have to pay for healthcare?

Almost all of the national debt is defense spending.
Most of our annual budget is defense once you include things like VA and GIBill costs.
The national debt still includes SDI, Desert Storm, the invasion of Iraq, etc.
There is essentially no social services in the national debt.
There will be some when SS temporarily short falls by 10% or so, but nothing significant yet.

Almost all of the national debt is defense spending.

You misspelled "entitlement spending".

That is not at all true.
First of all, you can not include self funding programs like Social Security of Medicare.
Second is that not only is about 50% of the rest of the national budget for defense, but all of the interest on past debt is also defense. So the real total for defense spending is more like 75% of the discretionary budget.

First of all, you can not include self funding programs like Social Security of Medicare.

Look at all the transfer payments. They dwarf defense spending.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

An entire thread of Leftards justifying raising taxes on people making $14/hr. Wowzers.

No, public health care would save everyone lots of money, and not cost anyone any more than they spend now.
The rest of the world is proof.

Rationing and long waiting lists are awesome!!!

 

[Grumblenuts]

An entire thread of Leftards justifying raising taxes on people making $14/hr. Wowzers.

~~~in your dreams~~~

 

[Flopper]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

This thread is the very definition of Fake News.

True
The Sander's campaign released a document describing how Medicare for All could be financed. A 4 percent income-based premium paid by employees, exempting the first $29,000 in income for a family of four was one of nine options.
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/down...4ADD-8C1F-0DEDC8D45BC1&download=1&inline=file

 

[WEATHER53]

Robin Hood stole from rich to give to poor but Robin Bernie want to steal from all levels of contributors to give to all illegals and non contributors.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Robin Williams used to say all sorts of silly shit too. Often wasn't funny, but sure had that gift of gab.