Elizabeth Warren billionaire tax calculator broken?

[NewSilkTurtle]

So much of the commentary in this thread is simply mind-boggling.

First of all, when discussing "choice" in regard to health insurance, the main issue is this: Medicare for all tosses "choice" out the window. One size fits all. A tax is not optional the way an insurance premium is. If I don't want to pay, if I want to do without insurance, I have that choice, now, but under universal coverage, I could not "opt out" and avoid the cost, because it's a TAX.

Next: What Senator Warren is proposing would cost Trillions annually. On the low end, the estimate is $20T over a decade, and on the high end, the estimate is $52T. How could this money be collected? She proposes a tax on billionaires, but I think her math is a tad on the fuzzy side.

Assuming a midway point is accurate on the cost, that would be $36 Trillion or $3.6T per year. There are at last count 607 Billionaires in the USA, controlling roughly $8T. Assuming they all stayed put under a Warren presidency, and were taxed at 90%, that would provide enough money to cover the program for two years, but just once, because if you take 90% of a wealthy person's money, they're going to stop being wealthy.

There's no way around it, that money would have to come out of everyone's pockets, not just those of the billionaires.

 

[alcoholbob]

So much of the commentary in this thread is simply mind-boggling.

First of all, when discussing "choice" in regard to health insurance, the main issue is this: Medicare for all tosses "choice" out the window. One size fits all. A tax is not optional the way an insurance premium is. If I don't want to pay, if I want to do without insurance, I have that choice, now, but under universal coverage, I could not "opt out" and avoid the cost, because it's a TAX.

Next: What Senator Warren is proposing would cost Trillions annually. On the low end, the estimate is $20T over a decade, and on the high end, the estimate is $52T. How could this money be collected? She proposes a tax on billionaires, but I think her math is a tad on the fuzzy side.

Assuming a midway point is accurate on the cost, that would be $36 Trillion or $3.6T per year. There are at last count 607 Billionaires in the USA, controlling roughly $8T. Assuming they all stayed put under a Warren presidency, and were taxed at 90%, that would provide enough money to cover the program for two years, but just once, because if you take 90% of a wealthy person's money, they're going to stop being wealthy.

There's no way around it, that money would have to come out of everyone's pockets, not just those of the billionaires.

So every other country in the world with a single payer system is oppressing it's citizens?

 

[ivwshane]

So every other country in the world with a single payer system is oppressing it's citizens?

Yeah silly. Didn’t you know, people choose shitty coverage and they choose high deductible plans, it’s the consumers who choose to use only in network doctors.

Brilliant!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So much of the commentary in this thread is simply mind-boggling.

First of all, when discussing "choice" in regard to health insurance, the main issue is this: Medicare for all tosses "choice" out the window. One size fits all. A tax is not optional the way an insurance premium is. If I don't want to pay, if I want to do without insurance, I have that choice, now, but under universal coverage, I could not "opt out" and avoid the cost, because it's a TAX.

Next: What Senator Warren is proposing would cost Trillions annually. On the low end, the estimate is $20T over a decade, and on the high end, the estimate is $52T. How could this money be collected? She proposes a tax on billionaires, but I think her math is a tad on the fuzzy side.

Assuming a midway point is accurate on the cost, that would be $36 Trillion or $3.6T per year. There are at last count 607 Billionaires in the USA, controlling roughly $8T. Assuming they all stayed put under a Warren presidency, and were taxed at 90%, that would provide enough money to cover the program for two years, but just once, because if you take 90% of a wealthy person's money, they're going to stop being wealthy.

There's no way around it, that money would have to come out of everyone's pockets, not just those of the billionaires.

While I don’t totally disagree with what you said, all evidence points toward single payers systems being cheaper to manage & apply. The US has the most expensive and inefficient healthcare in the world by far.
Yes rolling out single payer would be expensive particularly for the first 5-10 years but I have a feeling rooting out all the middlemen that add zero value will slow the cost inflation of what we have ultimately bringing it in parity of everywhere else.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So every other country in the world with a single payer system is oppressing it's citizens?

Let's put it this way bud - they are taxed FAR higher than than the bottom 50% that pay $0 in federal income taxes.

(Hint: Try around 50%)

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Let's put it this way bud - they are taxed FAR higher than than the bottom 50% that pay $0 in federal income taxes.

(Hint: Try around 50%)

Fine tax them

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Fine tax them

Sure, So just tell them we are implementing a 20% VAT (like those European countries) eliminating the standard deduction, and jacking up the bottom tier income tax brackets.

I'm sure that will go over well for the bachelor degree holders working at Starbucks that support these candidates.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Sure, So just tell them we are implementing a 20% VAT (like those European countries) eliminating the standard deduction, and jacking up the bottom tier income tax brackets.

I'm sure that will go over well for the bachelor degree holders working at Starbucks that support these candidates.

Hey you are not allowed to use EU tax rates and not use EU medical costs. No taking the worst outcome of both, pretty dishonest.
If we run with the EU model our healthcare total costs should be around 50% of what they are today. Maybe less.
Also your EU tax figure is funding better government backed retirement plans than we typically have and free or mostly free education.
I’ll happily pay a VAT style tax to get the retirement, education and healthcare trifecta.

 

[IronWing]

There's no way around it, that money would have to come out of everyone's pockets, not just those of the billionaires.

Triple my federal income taxes to get rid of my insurance premiums and out of pocket medical costs and I come out ahead. Let's get busy.

 

[ivwshane]

Hey you are not allowed to use EU tax rates and not use EU medical costs. No taking the worst outcome of both, pretty dishonest.
If we run with the EU model our healthcare total costs should be around 50% of what they are today. Maybe less.
Also your EU tax figure is funding better government backed retirement plans than we typically have and free or mostly free education.
I’ll happily pay a VAT style tax to get the retirement, education and healthcare trifecta.

Nor does he include local and state taxes as well as property taxes in the comparison.

 

[Fenixgoon]

So much of the commentary in this thread is simply mind-boggling.

First of all, when discussing "choice" in regard to health insurance, the main issue is this: Medicare for all tosses "choice" out the window. One size fits all. A tax is not optional the way an insurance premium is. If I don't want to pay, if I want to do without insurance, I have that choice, now, but under universal coverage, I could not "opt out" and avoid the cost, because it's a TAX.

Next: What Senator Warren is proposing would cost Trillions annually. On the low end, the estimate is $20T over a decade, and on the high end, the estimate is $52T. How could this money be collected? She proposes a tax on billionaires, but I think her math is a tad on the fuzzy side.

Assuming a midway point is accurate on the cost, that would be $36 Trillion or $3.6T per year. There are at last count 607 Billionaires in the USA, controlling roughly $8T. Assuming they all stayed put under a Warren presidency, and were taxed at 90%, that would provide enough money to cover the program for two years, but just once, because if you take 90% of a wealthy person's money, they're going to stop being wealthy.

There's no way around it, that money would have to come out of everyone's pockets, not just those of the billionaires.

you realize that our current healthcare expenditures are around 3.5T annually, right? So that's 35T in a decade - the middle of those estimates. Throw in the added bargaining power that a single payer AND government entity has, and the savings are going to be substantial despite increased utilization. There's a reason our per capita costs are so Fing high. Like Medicare/Medicaid legally not being able to negotiate drug prices, for example.

Anecdotally, I take a medication that costs $16k/year in the US. If I lived in the UK, it would be about 3k/year.
Also having worked for a medical company, I can absolutely tell you the US pays a premium for the same product due to our healthcare system structure.

 

[Paratus]

I’ve gotten a nice look at my healthcare “choice” recently.

Had a minor medical issue and my doctor recommended an in hospital test. They scheduled it and submitted it to my insurance (major name carrier with “excellent” coverage). Insurance held up the test and said they had 30 days to approve or disapprove.

Didn’t take that long but after two weeks they disapproved the test and said they would only approve a cheaper less accurate home test, (wearing a portable sensor).

We did that. My test came back showing my condition was borderline mild/moderate and the doctor recommended a treatment. I approved and they submitted it to the insurance who denied it.

So I either need to get worse or pay out of pocket for the treatment or the doctor and I need to make the argument I’m actually moderate and not mild and resubmit.

So throughout this, the choice of testing my doctor and I agreed to was overridden by the insurance, the timing of the testing was overridden, as was the type of treatment.

Fuck this “choice” conservatives want so much.

 

[fskimospy]

Sure, So just tell them we are implementing a 20% VAT (like those European countries) eliminating the standard deduction, and jacking up the bottom tier income tax brackets.

I'm sure that will go over well for the bachelor degree holders working at Starbucks that support these candidates.

Of course it will go fine, after all those countries with higher tax rates do far more redistribution than we do so those lower income people will end up with more money overall if we do that.

I mean this is just basic math.

 

[fskimospy]

So much of the commentary in this thread is simply mind-boggling.

First of all, when discussing "choice" in regard to health insurance, the main issue is this: Medicare for all tosses "choice" out the window. One size fits all. A tax is not optional the way an insurance premium is. If I don't want to pay, if I want to do without insurance, I have that choice, now, but under universal coverage, I could not "opt out" and avoid the cost, because it's a TAX.

Next: What Senator Warren is proposing would cost Trillions annually. On the low end, the estimate is $20T over a decade, and on the high end, the estimate is $52T. How could this money be collected? She proposes a tax on billionaires, but I think her math is a tad on the fuzzy side.

Assuming a midway point is accurate on the cost, that would be $36 Trillion or $3.6T per year. There are at last count 607 Billionaires in the USA, controlling roughly $8T. Assuming they all stayed put under a Warren presidency, and were taxed at 90%, that would provide enough money to cover the program for two years, but just once, because if you take 90% of a wealthy person's money, they're going to stop being wealthy.

There's no way around it, that money would have to come out of everyone's pockets, not just those of the billionaires.

The money ALREADY comes out of everyone’s pockets. If we take your midpoint as accurate then covering everyone under Warren would cost the same as not covering everyone under our current system.

Surely you would agree that such a program would then be a tremendous victory for America as a whole, right? You did think this through, after all.

 

[Brainonska511]

I’ve gotten a nice look at my healthcare “choice” recently.

Had a minor medical issue and my doctor recommended an in hospital test. They scheduled it and submitted it to my insurance (major name carrier with “excellent” coverage). Insurance held up the test and said they had 30 days to approve or disapprove.

Didn’t take that long but after two weeks they disapproved the test and said they would only approve a cheaper less accurate home test, (wearing a portable sensor).

We did that. My test came back showing my condition was borderline mild/moderate and the doctor recommended a treatment. I approved and they submitted it to the insurance who denied it.

So I either need to get worse or pay out of pocket for the treatment or the doctor and I need to make the argument I’m actually moderate and not mild and resubmit.

So throughout this, the choice of testing my doctor and I agreed to was overridden by the insurance, the timing of the testing was overridden, as was the type of treatment.

Fuck this “choice” conservatives want so much.

I was at a recent meeting where I heard the following story regarding a cancer patient: doctor wanted to use a test on the cancer that could tell them whether any specific mutations were present, all in a single shot, which helps them decide what treatment to use up front. The insurance company said no, do the testing in a sequential order - which eats up both time and samples of the cancer. When the doctor tried to appeal it through a process where they can discuss the issue with an insurance company doctor, the insurance company doctor agreed with the methods of the treating physician, but then still couldn't override the rejection of the initial test. It's totally fucked up.

 

[ivwshane]

I was at a recent meeting where I heard the following story regarding a cancer patient: doctor wanted to use a test on the cancer that could tell them whether any specific mutations were present, all in a single shot, which helps them decide what treatment to use up front. The insurance company said no, do the testing in a sequential order - which eats up both time and samples of the cancer. When the doctor tried to appeal it through a process where they can discuss the issue with an insurance company doctor, the insurance company doctor agreed with the methods of the treating physician, but then still couldn't override the rejection of the initial test. It's totally fucked up.

Its almost like insurance companies are daring the American people to get rid of them.