She is reticent to offer a way to pay for her "plan" so I offer her my services.
Install a 50% surtax on the current after tax profits of every single corporation in America. Simple as that.
That should take care of year 1 and the middle class should be happy.
I won't tell you how the middle class will fare in year 2 when corporations go out of business, pension funds will be wiped out, and unemployment skyrockets.
Someone else will have to come up with a way for her to implement her forgiveness of all student loans and free college for all. I'm out of ideas.
That is what Dems are running on at a time when the Trump economy is booming, and everyone is working, and we are not in a war and Trump serious about trying to get us out of being the worlds police force.
This is why they are focusing on impeachment. There is no other option for the Resist wackos at this point.
We get the leaders we deserve like the current idjit. Just feed the electorate pablum, stoke their fears, or offer them free shite.
Personally, I can't think of anyone I like who's running.
or Mittens Romney. I’m not that picky. Pence would be acceptable as well. No Liz Warren types.
Really need to get rid of this crazy Orange stain. I trust you have seen the Erdogan letter. The product of a disturbed mind.
I feel these guys could work on compromises.
The fact that both the New York Times and Hillary Clinton claim she has been groomed as a Russian asset to disrupt the Democrat primary and then run as a third party candidate to syphon off Dem votes is good enough for me.
(no message)
What's the worst that could happen? She could drop a bomb on DNC headquarters? Would that be bad?
(no message)
What could go wrong?
(no message)
(no message)
I kinda doubt that the government would want to pay for my recent shoulder replacement surgery at 72 years old when Obamacare architect Ezekiel Emanuel wants me off the planet at 75, even though I am now pain free and have total range of motion restored and am practicing law as well as I was 30 years ago. After all, in the perfect socialist world one size fits all.
Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/
Unless the GOP loses almost every Senate race...and even then it wouldn’t happen.
People might as well discuss how she’s gonna pay for everyone to live forever.
(no message)
(no message)
I'm no fan of Warren, and I'm not trying to defend her, but if a company made $5B profit before the surtax was imposed and then had its profits reduced to $2.5B after the surtax, why would a profitable corporation go out of business?
(no message)
But that's just me. I'm not a billionaire like you guys.
Government policy matters when businesses consider footprint options. A lot.
I worked for a large French multi-national company for 12 years. The CEO of that company would not open a new plant in France because once you hire people, in his view, you basically had an annuity payment to support those workers for the rest of their lives because of French labor laws. That kind of decision making is why there's virtually no economic growth in France. It's no different with tax policy.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Those profits are used for investing into new capital and innovation? Do we not as a society want to "progress" anymore?
Don't see any in bonds and money markets right now or for the foreseeable future. But that's a different argument.
A company making $2.5B profit isn't going to go out of business, to the best of my knowledge.
going to impact them greatly going forward. You act like these big corporations are just pocketing the profits and growing these enormous balance sheets with cash on hand.
Having profits cut by $2.5B is going to impact them. But it's still a company that is making a $2.5B profit. It's not going out of business, which again, was the point of my original post.
What if they are a corporation that has to invest 90%+ of their profit into innovation and equipment to continue that profit level? What if it is a truly volume based business that is making fractions of a penny on the dollar and if they don't have the means to invest in every increasing demand levels while shrinking cost of doing business it would be unsustainable.
Equipment is a pre-tax expense not post-tax. The original poster is not talking about a revenue tax, he's talking about an after tax surcharge on profits. That's a huge difference. A proposed after tax surcharge would have no impact on a company's ability to use its revenue to purchase equipment. In fact, it might actually encourage a company to spend more on innovation and equipment so as to reduce its post tax profit surcharge.
Honestly, I don't know why you are trying to pick fly shit from pepper on this. The fact is, companies will not go out of business. They will be less profitable for sure, but less profitable doesn't mean "out of business" which has been my point all along.
would be that companies would spend more and the government would get less than projected. That is what is called a tax loophole. So, she would not be paying for her Medicare-for-All at all.
All good.
energy and precious metal mining rights on federal lands and charge a severance tax, but I assume her Cherokee heritage will speak to her about land exploitation.
2. Eliminate the insurance bureaucracy (profit motive).
3. Take over the hospital bureaucracy (profit motive).
4. Effective and efficient delivery of care (much cheaper on the whole).
Now, the only problem in this whole scenario is that we have ineffective and corrupt governance. Privatized healthcare is not the best we can do.
But since you want to eliminate any choice, it will actually be Medicaid for all and there won't be any doctors and nurses left to actually provide it.
But if you want to reduce costs closet to other countries, then just pay doctors and nurses less and reduce services.
"Why does the United States spend so much more? The biggest reason is that U.S. healthcare delivers a more expensive mix of services. For example, a much larger proportion of physician visits in the U.S. are to specialists who get higher fees and usually order more high-tech diagnostic and therapeutic procedures than primary care physicians."
"Compared with the average OECD country, the U.S. delivers (population adjusted) almost three times as many mammograms, two-and-a-half times the number of MRI scans, and 31 percent more C-sections. Also, the U.S. has more stand-by equipment, for example, 1.66 MRI machines per 6,000 annual scans vs. 1.06 machines. The extra machines provide easier access for Americans, but add to cost. Similarly, occupancy rates in U.S. acute care hospitals are much lower than in OECD countries, reducing the likelihood of delays in admissions, but building that extra capacity adds to cost. Aggressive treatment of very sick elderly also makes the mix expensive. In the U.S. many elderly patients are treated in intensive care units (ICUs), but in other countries they would receive only palliative care. More amenities such as privacy and space in hospitals and more attractive clinics also add to U.S. costs."
And I also didn't say that we need to reduce pay for doctors or nurses.
30% of your hospital bill is administration, just as an example of my point "Privatized healthcare is not the best we can do".
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
in the mid-20s depending upon facility. Whatever the actual percentage is though, I would estimate over half of it is pinpointed at addressing regulatory government requirements. Since the inception of the HITECH Act and Meaningful Use (now Promoting Interoperability), mandated by the federal government, our facility has invested more money in I.T. than any other area of the hospital just to say we are achieving the objectives of the regulation. Which, by the way, have just about zero impact on the care that the patients receive. If anything, the government regulations make for a less safe environment.
(no message)
(no message)