Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
61. Apparently, Sanders' more recent proposals are bit higher than that.
Fri Sep 15, 2017, 08:52 AM
Sep 2017

Among the proposals: a 7.5 percent payroll tax on employers, a 4 percent individual income tax and an array of taxes on wealthier Americans, as well as corporations.

http://www.npr.org/2017/09/14/550768280/heres-whats-in-bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-bill


I do think, if those numbers pan out -- 7.5% and 4% -- it would add something to the Single Payer proposal.

But until I see a CBO or other creditable analysis, I'm skeptical. I'm also hopeful that folks who came up with those numbers are close, because I think most people would have a hard time opposing that.

I also want to see CBO or someone study the other impacts on the economy, including what decreased provider reimbursement might do to salaries of nurses, aides, janitorial staff, people working in health care computer systems, etc. But, I am encouraged by those numbers and hope Sanders isn't being a bit optimistic.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Got a link to this alleged funding proposal? Lee Adama Sep 2017 #1
Try this link: Atticus Sep 2017 #4
So nothing in the bill he put forward. Lee Adama Sep 2017 #10
I see that you make no comment on the actual funding proposals. And, my OP Atticus Sep 2017 #15
In politics, if you are explaining, you are LOSING! Lee Adama Sep 2017 #18
(could you stop yelling?) We disagree, but I will not call you "fucking Dumb". Atticus Sep 2017 #20
I never called you "fucking DUMB". Lee Adama Sep 2017 #21
You seem to have a hard time responding to what was ACTUALLY written. Atticus Sep 2017 #24
OFFS! Lee Adama Sep 2017 #28
Going for single payer at this moment was incredibly stupid. Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #7
It could have been brilliant. Lee Adama Sep 2017 #22
Nope. We have no chance at the moment...the GOP are already using it against us with a CBO score Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #44
I agree with everything you said except for one thing. Lee Adama Sep 2017 #55
I don't think it is budget neutral as it calls for tax hikes. Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #57
And a comprehensive transition plan that addresses all points of fallout tymorial Sep 2017 #54
Yep, instead it's nothing but a piece of paper with empty rhetoric. Lee Adama Sep 2017 #56
Fox playing up hard bernies 1987 interview Watchfoxheadexplodes Sep 2017 #2
We have no chance of getting single payer and now we handed the GOP something to attack us with. Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #5
Yeah, we should just play it safe and hope that we can salvage a few Atticus Sep 2017 #11
We should be realistic, and yeah when the damn Republicans have all power, we should think Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #45
This message was self-deleted by its author Snotcicles Sep 2017 #64
A big who cares...it is a plan that won't happen and a complete waste of time...work Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #3
We are all entitled to our opinions. nt Atticus Sep 2017 #6
Of course you do...and my only hope is this doesn't cost us any shot at Congress...a CBO Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #46
I wonder how much it would cost Control-Z Sep 2017 #38
That is how it could happen down the road when we are back in power...but if we lose the ACA, it Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #47
That is definitely the way to go...if you try a big stand alone bill like this one Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #59
Looks like it requires a COMPLETE rework and overhaul of the tax system. Pie. In. The. Sky. NurseJackie Sep 2017 #8
So? ProfessorGAC Sep 2017 #23
LOL NurseJackie Sep 2017 #35
Post removed Post removed Sep 2017 #43
Good. Let's cut out tax theft from the military contractors n/t leftstreet Sep 2017 #25
LOL NurseJackie Sep 2017 #36
I stand with Booker, Harris, Warren, Franken, and Gillibrand! Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #9
me too Voltaire2 Sep 2017 #12
I wonder what'd happen if he who shall not be named wasn't associated with this particular proposal. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #14
But the Republicans might say something mean!!! QC Sep 2017 #27
its been working well so far. Voltaire2 Sep 2017 #40
I stand with winning in 18 and 20...and we all know the Democratic Senators Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #48
Or, maybe they believe in it. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #53
Every Senator is running for president...coincidence? Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #58
Uh, actually, there are 13 or so co-sponsors. And no one has announced for 2020. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #66
He has proposed "taxes," not how much the average Joe will pay, but "taxes." Hoyt Sep 2017 #13
Thank you for a thoughtful response. Perhaps I am naive, but this proposal is--- Atticus Sep 2017 #16
I hear you. He did have this same basic proposal over a year ago, so it's not that new. Hoyt Sep 2017 #26
The problem is... yallerdawg Sep 2017 #17
It won't cost 3.2T. It will cost less than that. As a nation we will realize substantial savings. Voltaire2 Sep 2017 #41
Exactly right, putting this bill forward now is madness. Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #49
Pretty sure the senator asked to include the funding proposals: TCJ70 Sep 2017 #19
Oh, here is something that came out today that is getting there. Hoyt Sep 2017 #29
I think those numbers are realistic TexasBushwhacker Sep 2017 #39
Really, screwing with workplace insurance will get a party tossed out of power and if you are Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #50
That's a good point. At one time, unions were opposed to meddling with an area Hoyt Sep 2017 #60
Barasso Just Wants His Cut OneBlueDotBama Sep 2017 #30
From his primary website TexasBushwhacker Sep 2017 #31
Thanks for the link and info. We have to be sure this is publicized nationally. Atticus Sep 2017 #32
This pricing is extremely fair IMO Not Ruth Sep 2017 #33
The American people will not support such taxes. And poor people would have to be subsidize for the Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #51
Apparently, Sanders' more recent proposals are bit higher than that. Hoyt Sep 2017 #61
Far too many are "explaining" how it cannot be done. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #34
It's not like this is something new. yallerdawg Sep 2017 #37
Just fixing ACA - it actually can't be fixed. Voltaire2 Sep 2017 #42
Yes it can...and such remarks give the GOP joy because he even Democrats say" it can't be fixed..." Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #52
A Public Option is the answer to that. If that is as good as we hope, people will take it Hoyt Sep 2017 #62
To summarize your position as I read it: guillaumeb Sep 2017 #67
We HAVE progress... yallerdawg Sep 2017 #69
We agree. eom guillaumeb Sep 2017 #70
How much of employer savings would go to workers? MichMan Sep 2017 #63
You understand that employees pay premiums, copays, deductibles, and shit insurance didn't pay, Voltaire2 Sep 2017 #68
Another cost savings that is overlooked with Medicare For All is Snotcicles Sep 2017 #65
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Maybe I am mistaken, but ...»Reply #61