We don't really even need to tax the rich to have public healthcare and free college

[Recursion]

I mean, I'm not against taxing the rich for its own sake, but this whole framing bothers me. It's not like we need some source of money here.

We currently spend just at the Federal level about $3800 of public money per capita on healthcare; that's higher than Norway and only a bit lower than the UK. We currently spend about $13K of public money per student in the US as compared to Germany's $11K.

We're already spending at or above the levels of the social democracies we are talking about emulating; it's not like our problem is a lack of money. Our problem is that we have a culture that can't stand the idea of people being secure or comfortable.

[NCLefty]

1. Obama tried to give tens of millions of Americans access to affordable insurance and the right

turned it into The Great Satan, mostly just to have something to run against. Annnnd... it was their fucking idea! It came from Heritage Foundation. #$*$*$&!

Stupid-America is enthralled with the sports game of politics that conservatives have mastered. And they don't seem to give a shit about much else (ethics, laws, what's Actually Good For Us, etc.).

[CousinIT]

20. Big insurance fought it most to protect the for-profit wealthcare of corprats.

Socialism for billionaires and corprats. Rugged individualism for the millions of the rest of us.

Read Wendell Potter's book "Deadly Spin".

Big insurance owns politicians. Lots of them. And they have lots of lobbyists.

Citizens United.....pay to play. Billionaires and big corprats buying our government.

That is the problem.

[Doodley]

2. We have a system that is about profits and not people, because corporations own our lawmakers.

We should have a healthcare system as good as those in Western Europe based on how much of our taxes go towards healthcare. But millions in America have no insurance and healthcare outcomes, life expectancy, infant mortality are all worse, and we have to also buy insurance for the pleasure.

It will never change because we no longer have a democracy that works for the people. We are all being ripped off and having our lives shortened, but too few of us can see it because the media and the political system is corrupt to the core.

[democratisphere]

3. I don't think you understand.

The US is currently running massive annual deficits and accumulating greater and greater national debt. The US ALREADY spends one hell of a lot more than it takes in. The buying power of the US dollar continues to erode while the price of everything continues to rise. The problem with US healthcare and college is the price gouging cost which keeps going up. We have become the most corrupt nation on Earth and I don't see anything changing anytime soon, if ever. NOTHING is ever free as someone or something has to pay for it.

[ArizonaLib]

13. Defense spending and recent tax cuts

create this deficit. No one is saying not to pay for education and healthcare. Price gouging in healthcare, pharmaceuticals, etc. should be controlled. Tuition is high because the institutions get away with gouging also. Jefferson established the University of Virginia as a source of no tuition college education. The 'nothing is free' is conservative/libertarian nonsense because no one is claiming that anything is free - in the case of college level education, most universities have existed long enough that under decently managed endowments, tuition should not exist in this country.

[MarcA]

26. Agreed. TANSTAAFL nonsense.

Would any of the Democratic Candidates actually agree with such?

[Garrett78]

14. A much healthier, more educated populace would go a long way toward mitigating those realities.

[emmaverybo]

4. Warren, who is an economist, understands it won't pay for itself. Hence, she says she will raise

the investment by passing a wealth tax. The controversy comes not in her contending it will not cost anything, but in a) whether she could pass a wealth tax b) whether a wealth tax would raise enough money to pay for M4All.

[BlueMTexpat]

5. The controversy is in

getting ANY expansion of healthcare whatsoever.

Why not try for the version that covers all, with no co-pays or other out-of-pocket costs, etc.?

It's early days yet.

We always seem to begin negotiations with today's GOPers with our expectations set too low. Of course, those MFers are NOT open to any negotiations whatsoever.

If we're very lucky - we get a tiny bit of what we ask for. If not, we get nothing.

[emmaverybo]

6. I am addressing the money question only. But M4All is not going to happen. We can expand

Medicaid and protect it from cuts (these already happening in some states), build on and improve
ACA, offer an affordable buy in, protect Medicare,which is at-risk, and give people a choice. Regulate insurance companies.

Regardless of the fate of M4All, we need to work on healthcare as it exists now. And if M4All is an election killer, then it must go. Because if we lose this election, more than healthcare will be at stake.

[BlueMTexpat]

8. Certainly not,

with attitudes like yours.

[emmaverybo]

9. Yep. A lot of people are against running on it and shaming them is not going to change their

attitude. But in any case, M4All will take years to implement. Hear nothing from its proponents
about fighting Republican plan to gut Medicaid, Medicare, and further dismantling of ACA.Hear
zero about what to do in the interim,

And that is a crying shame.

[BlueMTexpat]

10. Fighting any GOPer plans to gut

ANYTHING that hurts us all goes without saying.

And yet you apparently have no problem "shaming" me simply for being a proponent of MORE!

Try not to be so disingenuous. Please.

[emmaverybo]

21. Oh honestly. No attempt to shame you. Sorry if it came across that way. The tears emoji should have

said being purposely dramatic. Not attacking you.

I don’t think in any discussion about healthcare “it should go without saying” what folks are to do in the interim when Republicans are bent on gutting all we have.

Biden did ask what are sick people to do in the meantime, before M4All would get up, and running.

No answer so far. He has vowed in campaign email to protect Medicare and Medicaid. But said nothing as to how. They all need to address this.

And try not to smear my character based on my debate, You are reading a bit much in,

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. You express a very reasoned approach. I personally

think any plan that goes from zero to 60 is unrealistic. It actually scares people and investors. A much more pragmatic and winnable strategy would be to call attention to the inherent problems, many caused by trump and GOP and talk about how you would fix them and plans on how to incrementally improve with the ultimate goal of lowering costs and insuring all people.

Maybe I missed it, but haven't heard a candidate talk about what to me is a major constraint. How do you realistically deal with transitioning from a huge for-profit enterprise that has tentacles and actual assets and workers ? How would pending situations be dealt with? Remember all the issues with the ACA at first? Multiply that times a zillion. You can say all day long it is the devil so who cares, but that is naive.

[Dirty Socialist]

7. We also need price controls

We shouldn't have to spend $700 for a diabetic epipen or pay outrageously high hospital bills.

[Magoo48]

11. Reign in the MIC and there'd be plenty of money for our real necessities.

[Recursion]

12. No, that's my point: there's *already* plenty of money

We're already spending more public money per capita on healthcare than Norway, and more public money on education per capita than Germany. We don't even need "more money", we need a population that's willing for money to actually help people. And that's what we don't have. We are already spending public money on education and health care at a comparable level to the social democracies; adding more money to that won't suddenly make the population accept the idea of their neighbors being secure.

[Magoo48]

16. Yes, agreed, I misunderstood your point. 😐 sorry

[Laura PourMeADrink]

23. Excellent point and I have thought about that often - the

erosion of the vast majority actually caring about the welfare of the masses. Moving from a blue state to a red state, I see a huge difference in point of view.

In a red state, I see people going out of their way with time and money to help a known neighbor through a difficult time. Yet these same people wouldn't give two shits about a stranger in NY who needed help.

Unless the whole country turns blue, our country will never be like Scandinavia for instance.

[Beartracks]

27. True. Okies (red state) are the most charitable, giving people - as long as...

... you stipulate that "the money goes to help your fellow Oklahomans" or "the money stays right here in Oklahoma City."

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

[Garrett78]

15. I agree. This isn't about money so much as culture.

It's about who's seen as deserving and who isn't; about corporate welfare being viewed as the only acceptable (and most expensive) form of welfare. It's about shortsightedness getting in the way of what would be an incredible long-term productivity gain.

Paradoxically, a healthier and more educated populace wouldn't struggle so much to realize this.

Just imagine the shift that would take place if every person in the world were to stop prioritizing a social construct with no intrinsic value (and, instead, prioritized the well-being of people and planet).

[Recursion]

17. Not to delve into the primaries, but Yang talks about that

The need to break the scarcity mentality that so many people have been tricked into believing.

[Sancho]

18. Most other public health systems around the world pay doctors less...

and also hospitals, etc. Public hospitals (like public schools) may be good ones, and available - but may not be as plush or convenient as private facilities. You'd probably have public pharmacies (probably delivery for most prescriptions) while the drug store chains would not need a storefront on every corner like they have now. It's much cheaper for medical tests, imaging, etc. in other countries along with fewer service locations.

Yes, there is probably enough money for a universal health system, but I can also see why it's an issue to implement it overnight. As a union officer we have spent decades negotiating health care costs; often instead of pay or benefits. If health care is universal, we'd demand higher salaries for employees, but good luck with that idea. It will take several contract cycles to move to M4A. A public option would be easier to negotiate.

Sooooo...the tax side is one half of the coin. Most of the proposed plans don't make it clear that expenditures would include paying health care professionals less (along with associated services). All those specialist MDs out there today will take home less - not to mention hospital administrators, pharmacists, etc.

[Hortensis]

19. Yes, that's solid info, which makes telling people THEY won't to

pay morally questionable. We do have the money.

We have hugely important reasons for eliminating, not just taking from, the billionaire and centimillionaire classes growing like tumors in our wealthy nation, but just promising voters "it's okay, you won't have to pay for what you get, the rich will" is not a moral or dignified stand. Nothing's free, even for takers.

Reminds me of kiss-up Republicans on TV praising and expressing sincere gratitude to billionaires for donating to horribly underfunded public colleges, and expecting everyone to be grateful. Always made me want to spit. Just taking the money and not saying thank you might be more to my taste, but if it's with the notion that we won't have to pay for ourselves still wholly unacceptable.

We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. ~ Nancy Pelosi to the nation January 20, 2019

[WhiteTara]

24. We don't, you're right. We just

need to reduce the military budget by even 10%. If we reduced it by 50%; wow, just think what we could do. If we could just stop pissing off the world and starting wars everywhere, it would be possible to do so much.

[Recursion]

25. No, I mean, we literally don't need to reduce the military budget by anything. Literally nothing.

We are paying more taxpayer money per capita for healthcare than Norway. There's no reason we need to spend any more public money than we do.

There are a lot of great reasons to cut the military budget, but it's not the case that military spending is keeping us from "spending enough" on healthcare.