Let's be realistic, any true UHC plan is going to include increasing taxes on the Working Class...

[Humanist_Activist]

regardless of what form it takes.

Whether its a MFA plan, a Medicare buy-in or a public option, all will, if they are truly going to be universal, as in cover everyone with usable health care coverage, require that a significant chunk of the people that will be covered by the plan be heavily subsidized, in many cases covering 100% of medical coverage and costs as necessary.

Of course, to make it more economical, you could just make the public options as bad as a bronze plan(or even worse) but then it wouldn't be usable by anyone living at or near poverty who has any type of medical issues. It wouldn't prevent bankruptcies, or people avoiding treatment due to costs.

The only thing that comes to mind is too many people are penny wise and pound foolish. The savings of a true UHC system will more than offset the increase in taxes that it would require. The numbers are always huge and are there to shock us, but we spend around those same amounts now, just in a very inefficient way in a captive market system that shouldn't exist.

[Farmer-Rick]

1. Actually, if you made the filthy rich pay their fair share of taxes,

I bet a middle class tax increase would not be necessary. Lets start with a top rate of 90% like we had in 1950s and go from there.

[whathehell]

2. +100. n/t

[Hav]

3. But that's never going to happen

Why even deal with these extreme hypotheticals when it's a non-starter for most Dems and Repubs.
It's a nice soundbite but it doesn't do anything to get closer to a workable solution that can get through Congress.

[Farmer-Rick]

5. About 25 years ago, no one would consider Medicate for all possible.

If you don't start talking about it, If you ignore it as if it is impossible, then it's never going to happen.

In 1925 the top tax rate was 25%. Four years later the economy crashed. Low tax rates on the filthy rich leads to economic problems. We need to talk about this.

If we did it in the 1950s, why does it become an impractical, extreme hypothetical today? Is capitalism all that different from then and now?

Sounds to me like people are buying into the filthy rich's propaganda. Oh, just say it's politically impossible and they'll back off it. Just say it's bad for the economy and they'll back off it.

Low taxes for the filthy rich was a contributing factor of the RepubliCON caused Great Depression. Maybe we should examine history carefully before claiming we shouldn't talk about increasing the top tax rate to 90%.

[Hav]

6. The topic is to be realistic

I agree that the top rate needs to get increased, probably significantly. But in this climate, we won't see an almost immediate increase to 90% getting though Congress. And yet we need an immediate solution to pay for a program we want to implement in the near future.

[Farmer-Rick]

8. Yes, it will probably take another crash to raise to top tax bracket to 90%

You are right, in this upside down democracy the filthy rich will never allow a 90% top tax bracket.

But we should still be talking about it. The more we discuss it the more realistic it becomes.

Liberals have been going for the least possible change to get liberal legislation passed. But not crazy RepubliCONS. They are even talking about turning our rather convoluted democracy into a dictatorship.

A few years ago no one would believe a blatant racist like Trump could even get elected. And all his ties to the Russian dictator, shorty Putin, aren't a problem for most RepubliCONS. 50 years ago, who would of thought RepubliCONS would be actively supporting a man who wants to bring back communism to Russia.

We need to be as aggressive with our liberal ideals.

[dansolo]

11. False

That wouldn't generate nearly enough to pay for UHC.

[Farmer-Rick]

12. Show me your numbers and I will believe you.

All the numbers I run show it would solve a lot of problems in the US.

[Maine-i-acs]

4. raise the FICA cap and this all goes away. Also to never pay for insurance again -

wouldn't you deal with a little more taxes?
ask people in Canada or Britain how this works (clue: 80% approval of their health system vs 20% in ours).
So.
Lift the FICA cap to subsidize ALL insurance and make the premiums go away forever.
Yes "taxes go up" but if you never pay for 'health insurance' there is a NET GAIN.
Care is standardized, costs are stabilized, and the predatory profit motive goes away.

[Ron Green]

7. One risk pool equals a health care system. Multiple risk pools equal an investment scheme.

We have enough investment schemes in this country; we need a health care system.

[CTyankee]

9. Why couldn't we just make Medicaid available for them?

Raise the eligibility level of Medicaid recipients and you have your coverage.

[Cicada]

10. Employers can pay it all

Employers now pay trillions for health insurance. If they pay all that into Medicare for all then profits are not reduced. Individuals without employers can be required to pay health premiums for their care just as the now are, subsidized for those unable to pay the full cost. Medicare for all can cut costs. They can limit what is paid for various medical services. That may mean orothopedic surgeons earn only $300,000 per year instead of $500,000. Pharma may see income reduced by hundreds of billions per year. It is possible to avoid tax hikes.