Politics Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
I used some income thing on one of his websites showing you that you'd get to keep more of your money. And mine came back as owing 2,000 more per year
 
http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2016/02/11/single-payer_sacrifice_116_million_jobs_1551.html

The Single-Payer Sacrifice: 11.6 Million Jobs

Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders recently released his health-care plan: a government-run single-payer system for the U.S., similar to what many European countries have. Criticism of the plan has so far focused on its lack of political feasibility, but there is an even more important reason to be wary: Accounting for costs and tax increases, it would reduce labor supply by 11.6 million. In a struggling economy, with tepid wage growth, hurting employment should be the last thing on any politician’s agenda.

The plan truly promises everything under the sun. Not only will everyone be able to get any medical treatment needed — with no cost at the point of service — but the plan won’t require a terribly high tax increase. The funding mechanism boils down to an increase in payroll taxes: an “income-based premium” of 2.2 percent for individuals and a tax of 6.2 percent on employers. Because economists, as well as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, recognize that the "employer share" of payroll taxes is mostly borne by workers in the form of lower wages, this translates to an 8.4 percentage point increase overall.

These elements of the plan were the first to draw criticism. Not only do most single-payer countries fund their health-care systems with higher taxes on the middle class, but they also typically exclude a variety of services and drugs from coverage. Without being able to say no to some expensive drugs and services, the government would have a tough time driving down prices.

But perhaps the most stinging rebuke came from veteran health economist Kenneth Thorpe of Emory University. In Thorpe’s estimation, Sanders’ plan would require a total tax hike of 20 percentage points, and would cost $1.1 trillion more each year than the campaign has estimated. This is at least partly because the government would have to pay more than Medicare’s low rates to keep doctors and hospitals in the system, and making health care free at the point of delivery would also increase use of health-care services

...

When we take Thorpe’s more realistic assumptions and apply the same approach, the fully-implemented plan reduces employment by a whopping 11.6 million full-time equivalent workers. Under these assumptions, the average marginal tax rate would grow from around 22 percent to 42 percent, while the average total tax rate would increase from 11 percent to 31 percent. At the upper end of income, total tax rates would be far beyond 50 percent. And none of this factors in state and local taxes.

Of course, some of drop in employment might be considered “voluntary.” Some would stop working because they no longer needed to be employed to receive health insurance — escaping "job lock," as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi once put it. But others would simply find it meaningless to put in extra hours or look for more lucrative positions when so much of their earnings get sucked away as taxes.

For employers, this would all mean a large increase in hiring costs, too. Sure, as Sanders’ campaign likes to remind us, employers would no longer pay for private health insurance. But economists also recognize that health insurance is a form of compensation. And if you cut health insurance (with or without raising taxes), wages must in turn go up.
 
Denny Crane said:
Scholarly work.

Click to expand...


The fact that people want to voluntarily pay more fucking income tax is a god damn joke. Ha! lets throw more money at a bad fucking problem, THAT ALWAYS WORKS! Specially when its the Government!

Christ..

"
small employers that currently do not offer insurance (390,000
between 10 and 25 and 3.1 million under 10) would see substantial initial increases in
taxes to finance the plan through the 6.2 percent payroll tax. This tax would be passed
along to workers in the form of lower wages and other benefits."


"We present results in table 2 showing the Sanders’
financing plan. However we also do an analysis of the additional taxes needed to pay
for the $1.1 trillion underfinancing. This would require an increase in the payroll tax
from 6.2% to 14.3% and an increase in the income related premium from 2.2% to 5.7%
-- a combined 20 percent tax on income."

"
Overall,
over 70 percent of working privately insured households would pay more under a fully funded
single payer plan than they do for health insurance today."



You know what, people that want this guy to be in office should just start giving all of their checks to the Feds right now, and leave the rest of us alone.
 
As far as the OT, one economist will say one thing and another will say something different. I don't know enough about economic modeling to elucidate any truths on the subject.
 
dviss1 said:
How much do you pay a month for health insurance? You wouldn't pay a bit more in taxes to make your entire premium go away?

http://berniecare.org
Click to expand...

Government lies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913

The incomes of couples exceeding $4,000, as well as those of single persons earning $3,000 or more, were subject to a one percent federal tax.

We were told income tax would be low and only on the wealthy.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/the-income-tax-in-1913-a-way-to-soak-the-rich/

Given those lies, why would we trust government now? I don't. You shouldn't.
 
Denny Crane said:
Government lies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913

The incomes of couples exceeding $4,000, as well as those of single persons earning $3,000 or more, were subject to a one percent federal tax.

We were told income tax would be low and only on the wealthy.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/the-income-tax-in-1913-a-way-to-soak-the-rich/

Given those lies, why would we trust government now? I don't. You shouldn't.
Click to expand...

The Blah blah big gubmint shtick is getting old and tired.
 
dviss1 said:
The Blah blah big gubmint shtick is getting old and tired.
Click to expand...

You didn't address how it lies.

You say Sanders' plan is going to save people money. I say government lies and any savings will go away and we'll have a really expensive albatross dragging us all down.

We saw Obama lie about ObamaCare. "You can keep your doctor."

I literally know a few hundred realtors who lost their insurance when the ACA kicked in. They're paying more and instead of $2000 deductible they have $10,000 deductible and a much more limited choice of hospitals and doctors to choose from than before.

Government lies, dude.
 
Denny Crane said:
You didn't address how it lies.

You say Sanders' plan is going to save people money. I say government lies and any savings will go away and we'll have a really expensive albatross dragging us all down.

We saw Obama lie about ObamaCare. "You can keep your doctor."

I literally know a few hundred realtors who lost their insurance when the ACA kicked in. They're paying more and instead of $2000 deductible they have $10,000 deductible and a much more limited choice of hospitals and doctors to choose from than before.

Government lies, dude.
Click to expand...
People lie Denny....including realtors..it's not some new revelation...Oregon is quickly filling up with Californians who can't afford to buy a 2 bedroom 1 bath house in their Californian hometowns for over half a million..when it comes to Insurance companies and hospitals the issue to me is and always has been a need for TORT reform...but something tells me it wouldn't trickle down and end in saving the consumer money in the end. Donald Trump lies and he's a realtor who's never worked for the gov't.
 
Last edited:
riverman said:
People lie Denny....including realtors..it's not some new revelation...Oregon is quickly filling up with Californians who can't afford to buy a 2 bedroom 1 bath house in their Californian hometowns for over half a million..when it comes to Insurance companies and hospitals the issue to me is and always has been a need for TORT reform...but something tells me it wouldn't trickle down and end in saving the consumer money in the end.
Click to expand...

My point is you can't trust the government or Sanders when they say "we're going to save money" or "we'll pay for it with savings from not paying for (something else)." The reality is once established, government entitlement programs simply grow and grow and consume more and more or our paychecks. We can't afford these things, frankly. If we could, we wouldn't be in such massive debt. We're borrowing to pay for them.

I'm not a deficit hawk, per se. I'm fine with the government borrowing money, and it should borrow money. Under certain circumstances. For example, to build the Golden Gate Bridge, the government borrows $billions and pays it off over time via tax revenue or tolls or whatever. Great. But to borrow to pay your ongoing regular expenses is just crazy. It's a house of cards and flimsy at best.

Tort reform is a complex issue. Progressives will point out that the actual amount of money saved is puny, and it probably is. There just aren't enough massive payouts. However, the doctors and hospitals are afraid of having to pay a massive payout so they run a ridiculous number of tests to cover their asses. That money runs up the cost of health care and progressives don't want to acknowledge it.

How about considering a market based solution that has a strong competition element? I see ads for auto insurance all the time where one company is undercutting another. Given the regulatory environment, this isn't happening with health. That's what I'd fix.

Also, how about the government competing with private sector health care? Realize that health care is seeing patients, diagnosing illness, providing treatment, etc. It has ZERO to do with insurance. It wouldn't cost the government anywhere near as much as for ObamaCare, or Bernie's whacked out scheme, to build hospitals, buy equipment and medicine, and hire doctors and nurses. Not single payer, just another source of care; something like the VA.
 
Denny Crane said:
My point is you can't trust the government or Sanders when they say "we're going to save money" or "we'll pay for it with savings from not paying for (something else)." The reality is once established, government entitlement programs simply grow and grow and consume more and more or our paychecks. We can't afford these things, frankly. If we could, we wouldn't be in such massive debt. We're borrowing to pay for them.

I'm not a deficit hawk, per se. I'm fine with the government borrowing money, and it should borrow money. Under certain circumstances. For example, to build the Golden Gate Bridge, the government borrows $billions and pays it off over time via tax revenue or tolls or whatever. Great. But to borrow to pay your ongoing regular expenses is just crazy. It's a house of cards and flimsy at best.

Tort reform is a complex issue. Progressives will point out that the actual amount of money saved is puny, and it probably is. There just aren't enough massive payouts. However, the doctors and hospitals are afraid of having to pay a massive payout so they run a ridiculous number of tests to cover their asses. That money runs up the cost of health care and progressives don't want to acknowledge it.

How about considering a market based solution that has a strong competition element? I see ads for auto insurance all the time where one company is undercutting another. Given the regulatory environment, this isn't happening with health. That's what I'd fix.

Also, how about the government competing with private sector health care? Realize that health care is seeing patients, diagnosing illness, providing treatment, etc. It has ZERO to do with insurance. It wouldn't cost the government anywhere near as much as for ObamaCare, or Bernie's whacked out scheme, to build hospitals, buy equipment and medicine, and hire doctors and nurses. Not single payer, just another source of care; something like the VA.
Click to expand...
Some good points but I'll counter with the fact that this competitive field in the auto industry has not made cars more affordable...car prices with the element of competition are still rising
 
Denny Crane said:
http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2016/02/11/single-payer_sacrifice_116_million_jobs_1551.html

The Single-Payer Sacrifice: 11.6 Million Jobs

Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders recently released his health-care plan: a government-run single-payer system for the U.S., similar to what many European countries have. Criticism of the plan has so far focused on its lack of political feasibility, but there is an even more important reason to be wary: Accounting for costs and tax increases, it would reduce labor supply by 11.6 million. In a struggling economy, with tepid wage growth, hurting employment should be the last thing on any politician’s agenda.

The plan truly promises everything under the sun. Not only will everyone be able to get any medical treatment needed — with no cost at the point of service — but the plan won’t require a terribly high tax increase. The funding mechanism boils down to an increase in payroll taxes: an “income-based premium” of 2.2 percent for individuals and a tax of 6.2 percent on employers. Because economists, as well as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, recognize that the "employer share" of payroll taxes is mostly borne by workers in the form of lower wages, this translates to an 8.4 percentage point increase overall.

These elements of the plan were the first to draw criticism. Not only do most single-payer countries fund their health-care systems with higher taxes on the middle class, but they also typically exclude a variety of services and drugs from coverage. Without being able to say no to some expensive drugs and services, the government would have a tough time driving down prices.

But perhaps the most stinging rebuke came from veteran health economist Kenneth Thorpe of Emory University. In Thorpe’s estimation, Sanders’ plan would require a total tax hike of 20 percentage points, and would cost $1.1 trillion more each year than the campaign has estimated. This is at least partly because the government would have to pay more than Medicare’s low rates to keep doctors and hospitals in the system, and making health care free at the point of delivery would also increase use of health-care services

...

When we take Thorpe’s more realistic assumptions and apply the same approach, the fully-implemented plan reduces employment by a whopping 11.6 million full-time equivalent workers. Under these assumptions, the average marginal tax rate would grow from around 22 percent to 42 percent, while the average total tax rate would increase from 11 percent to 31 percent. At the upper end of income, total tax rates would be far beyond 50 percent. And none of this factors in state and local taxes.

Of course, some of drop in employment might be considered “voluntary.” Some would stop working because they no longer needed to be employed to receive health insurance — escaping "job lock," as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi once put it. But others would simply find it meaningless to put in extra hours or look for more lucrative positions when so much of their earnings get sucked away as taxes.

For employers, this would all mean a large increase in hiring costs, too. Sure, as Sanders’ campaign likes to remind us, employers would no longer pay for private health insurance. But economists also recognize that health insurance is a form of compensation. And if you cut health insurance (with or without raising taxes), wages must in turn go up.
Click to expand...
The main message I got from this, is that if 11+ million jobs are lost by going the single payer route, then we have been paying for unnecessary jobs via high insurance premiums for too many years. That's outrageous. And people call public employees leeches....
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
The main message I got from this, is that if 11+ million jobs are lost by going the single payer route, then we have been paying for unnecessary jobs via high insurance premiums for too many years. That's outrageous. And people call public employees leeches....
Click to expand...
you realize that other than you and I and a handful of geezers they are all at work reading and posting here!
 
riverman said:
Some good points but I'll counter with the fact that this competitive field in the auto industry has not made cars more affordable...car prices with the element of competition are still rising
Click to expand...
Auto insurance is cheaper and affordable. And cars are more affordable, too. A new 2016 Prius costs the same as they did in 2005. You can lease a KIA for $75/month.
 
My health care costs based on his calculator go down a little, but my taxes go up substantially more that it would be $2,000 more out of pocket
 
JfizzleBlazer said:
My health care costs based on his calculator go down a little, but my taxes go up substantially more that it would be $2,000 more out of pocket
Click to expand...


Where did you find that calculator? I tried googling but just get inundated with people swearing that it will be much cheaper or others just as adamant that it's much more expensive. Can't find anywhere that I can actually enter numbers.
 
WarriorFan said:
Where did you find that calculator? I tried googling but just get inundated with people swearing that it will be much cheaper or others just as adamant that it's much more expensive. Can't find anywhere that I can actually enter numbers.
Click to expand...
Dviss posted it above. Click on the link he provided and it will take you there
 
Thank you.

Seems strange though, when I enter just the premium, not including my copays and deductibles, of 6000 it tells me I will save over 3600. But that means my families total insurance cost is only 2400 which is less that the 2.2% proposed tax, ignoring that some of the 6.2% that my employer pays will, or at least could, be passed down to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SlyPokerDog
Politics Eleventh-Hour Amendment to Senate Bill Seeks to End Preschool for All Tax
Replies
12
Views
352
JfizzleBlazer
JfizzleBlazer
SlyPokerDog
Politics Bernie Sanders blames election loss on Kamala Harris listening to billionaires over working class
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
4K
Chris Craig
Chris Craig
PDXFonz
Forum Game Over/Under All-Star Weekend 2026
Replies
8
Views
122
PDXFonz
PDXFonz
Natebishop3
Notice Multnomah County loses $1 billion in resident income (largely thanks to increase in remote working)
Replies
6
Views
828
Phatguysrule
Phatguysrule
Phatguysrule
Science NASA Budget cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future
Replies
8
Views
290
crandc
crandc

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top