And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[drogulus]

Medicare for all costs $32 Trillion over 10 year period, much less than current system.
For most people Medicare for all means tax cut, because public taxes rise less than people save paying zero private healthcare taxes.
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who can deliver Medicare for all. AOC and Ilhan Omar have now endorsed Bernie.

     I quarrel with the logic of how estimates are made. I wonder also who will get $32T in increased income. Has GDP=GDI been repealed? This is bizarre.

     Miscalculating Medicare-for-all

[greg]

Good is you're fired and you still have it.

Depends on if it negatively affects quality of insurance during employment, since for the vast majority of most people's lives they will be working.

Of course no one would oppose medicare for all if there were no downsides at all. The question remains, what will the downsides be? Will it be a net loss for some people?

I pretty much don't advocate many things with much enthusiasm and don't understand why people do. There's always a major downside to everything, and people like to pretend they don't exist in order to be decisive. Especially things like exuberant crowds at presidential rallies- completely alien stuff.

[drogulus]

Depends on if it negatively affects quality of insurance during employment, since for the vast majority of most people's lives they will be working.

Of course no one would oppose medicare for all if there were no downsides at all. The question remains, what will the downsides be? Will it be a net loss for some people?

I pretty much don't advocate many things with much enthusiasm and don't understand why people do. There's always a major downside to everything, and people like to pretend they don't exist in order to be decisive. Especially things like exuberant crowds at presidential rallies- completely alien stuff.

     That's what "radical" is for, to convince you that unintended consequences should prevent things being done. Yet, they're done and most consequences are the intended ones. Millions were insured by OCare, people hated it for an unintended thing then want to protect it because of the intended thing and once it was radical and now the next thing is radical and be really scared of that. Is that OK with you?

[Madiel]

Greg, what are the UPsides of employer-based insurance?

I've never really understood why it's done, unless it's just a reflection of American insurance costs being too much for individuals.

And I've certainly never understood why, if collective action is needed, Americans seem more willing to hand things over to corporations than to the governments they get to vote on.

[71 dB]

Depends on if it negatively affects quality of insurance during employment, since for the vast majority of most people's lives they will be working.

Of course no one would oppose medicare for all if there were no downsides at all. The question remains, what will the downsides be? Will it be a net loss for some people?

I pretty much don't advocate many things with much enthusiasm and don't understand why people do. There's always a major downside to everything, and people like to pretend they don't exist in order to be decisive. Especially things like exuberant crowds at presidential rallies- completely alien stuff.

Medicare for all is generally a negative thing to the richest people, insurance companies and Big Pharma, but it's about unrigging a system that has given these people insane advantage compared to the rest of the people. It's about 95 % of population finally getting in a democracy what's good for them instead always the richest people who can buy the politicians. Even for the richest people it's not the end of the World. Medicare for all covers at least as much if not more healthcare services than their platinum healthcare plans did, but they pay a little more taxes (for the wealthiest people the increase in public taxes is more than what they save on not paying private taxes) which they can afford to do. Rich people can also get, if they want, suplemental private healthcare coverage for things medicare for all doesn't cover, such as plastic surgery.

The US healthcare system is really bad. It cost more and gives poor results (millions of people have no access). The US has problems other countries don't have (lack of access, medical bankruptcies etc) because of for-profit healthcare system tailored to protect the profits of insurance companies rather than providing best possible healthcare with the least possible costs. That's why so many advocate medicare for all. The US needs it badly. To not recognize this fact is a sign of political and social ignorance or victimhood of corporate media misinformation.

[drogulus]

     I don't think Medicare For All in any of its forms is bad for rich people. I know what Bernie and many other progressives think. They are wrong.

     The rich get their share of increases of national income no matter how it's delivered. Income flows up or there would be no "rich". It flows up because the base of the pyramid has lots of income and when they spend the money goes to the business owners, under any tax scheme.

     When my income goes up I pay more tax. I pay tax on the increase. When the income of the country goes up it pays more tax. The rich get a piece at any tax rate they pay.

     As former Bernie advisor Stephanie Kelton says "Money doesn't grow on rich people". Bernie doesn't understand. He's a fiscal conservative like most left wingers.

[71 dB]

     I don't think Medicare For All in any of its forms is bad for rich people. I know what Bernie and many other progressives think. They are wrong.

     The rich get their share of increases of national income no matter how it's delivered. Income flows up or there would be no "rich". It flows up because the base of the pyramid has lots of income and when they spend the money goes to the business owners, under any tax scheme.

     When my income goes up I pay more tax. I pay tax on the increase. When the income of the country goes up it pays more tax. The rich get a piece at any tax rate they pay.

     As former Bernie advisor Stephanie Kelton says "Money doesn't grow on rich people". Bernie doesn't understand. He's a fiscal conservative like most left wingers.

The problem is when too much money has flown up the economy collapses because regular people have lost all purchasing power. (Great Depression of 1930 happened because of this). It is unsustainable. That's why we have to regulate the money flow up by taxation and other means such as living wage. Kylie Jenner earns a million dollars for posting one tweet. Regular people have to work for decades for such money.

[Karl Henning]

The problem is when too much money has flown up the economy collapses because regular people have lost all purchasing power. (Great Depression of 1930 happened because of this). It is unsustainable. That's why we have to regulate the money flow up by taxation and other means such as living wage. Kylie Jenner earns a million dollars for posting one tweet. Regular people have to work for decades for such money.

Correction: Regular people have to work all their lives for such money.

[71 dB]

AOC, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib all endorse Bernie Sanders.

Now Elizabeth Warren knows how progressives felt when she didn't endorse Bernie in 2016. 

[Karl Henning]

AOC, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib all endorse Bernie Sanders.

Now Elizabeth Warren knows how progressives felt when she didn't endorse Bernie in 2016. 

She doesn't care about your personal grievance, does that burn you, too? 

[71 dB]

She doesn't care about your personal grievance, does that burn you, too? 

I wasn't aware of her endorsement until recently as I didn't follow US politics closely before Trump won. However, I know lefties and progressives were upset for that (Elizabeth Warren is politically much closer to Bernie than Hillary) for a good reason. EW made an bad political calculation thinking Hillary would win AND take her as the VP.

[drogulus]

The problem is when too much money has flown up the economy collapses because regular people have lost all purchasing power. (Great Depression of 1930 happened because of this). It is unsustainable. That's why we have to regulate the money flow up by taxation and other means such as living wage. Kylie Jenner earns a million dollars for posting one tweet. Regular people have to work for decades for such money.

     I think you can increase the flow at the base. Some increased progressivity would be good for efficiency. Many on the left don't like efficiency arguments because they think it works against them, while I think an economy run for optimal output would reduce inequality. The important point is a stronger base means money does good work before it reaches the top level, the opposite of supply side tax cuts where the work it does is minimal.

     Your purchasing power argument is correct and it's the way capitalism is undercut by its own propagandists, who are mendacious and dumb to boot.

     I'll add this, the Founders feared that dynastic wealth would destroy liberty, the real thing not the religion, so it would be permissible to tax very large inheritances higher than we do. On the whole, though, I'm with Kelton that we don't need the money the rich have to do stuff.

[greg]

Greg, what are the UPsides of employer-based insurance?

Hard to say as the only thing I can compare it to is not having insurance.

[Madiel]

AOC, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib all endorse Bernie Sanders.

Now Elizabeth Warren knows how progressives felt when she didn't endorse Bernie in 2016. 

Only because she's American. The whole importance of endorsement escapes me. As far as I can make out, it only works as a system because lots of Americans are willing to follow the instruction of a celebrity (whether a politician or otherwise) and this is the extent of their engagement with the political process.

Then again, as previously discussed the whole elaborate process of each party choosing a presidential candidate is also foreign to me.

Some segment of America believes on democratic principle that people ought to vote on a myriad of things. That segment hasn't noticed that people are exhausted by this.

[drogulus]

     Bernie and AOC makes sense, they want the same things done. They differ on the how. Bernie want a punitive raid on great fortunes. That's where the money is, he thinks. AOC knows money isn't a "where it is" kind of thing until it's spent. Then it is where.

[71 dB]

     Bernie and AOC makes sense, they want the same things done. They differ on the how. Bernie want a punitive raid on great fortunes. That's where the money is, he thinks. AOC knows money isn't a "where it is" kind of thing until it's spent. Then it is where.

The way you speak about money is pretty weird... 

[JBS]

Greg, what are the UPsides of employer-based insurance?

I've never really understood why it's done, unless it's just a reflection of American insurance costs being too much for individuals.

And I've certainly never understood why, if collective action is needed, Americans seem more willing to hand things over to corporations than to the governments they get to vote on.

1) Traditionally, employers paid at least part of the insurance premium as an employee benefit.
2) Usually the corporations can offer a larger group of insured, allowing premiums to be spread out, etc. Also, larger corporations can negotiate better for lower premiums and more benefits.

Hence in theory the employee can get better and/or cheaper insurance than he would as an individual.
Practice will be quite different, of course.  A large driver of the "gig economy" and part time employment is the fact that companies don't need to offer outside contractors, temporary workers, and part time employees employee benefits, so they try to not hire full time employees when possible.

[JBS]

The way you speak about money is pretty weird... 

He adheres to a crank theory about money that has no relation to reality. It seems to say that governments can issue unlimited amounts of money to pay for services, and the whole idea of tax revenue, national debt, and budgets is really a mass delusion.

[Madiel]

1) Traditionally, employers paid at least part of the insurance premium as an employee benefit.
2) Usually the corporations can offer a larger group of insured, allowing premiums to be spread out, etc. Also, larger corporations can negotiate better for lower premiums and more benefits.

Hence in theory the employee can get better and/or cheaper insurance than he would as an individual.
Practice will be quite different, of course.  A large driver of the "gig economy" and part time employment is the fact that companies don't need to offer outside contractors, temporary workers, and part time employees employee benefits, so they try to not hire full time employees when possible.

Well yes, that last aspect is one of the reasons it seems like a bad system. Along with the general impediment on people changing jobs or starting their own business for fear of losing health benefits.

As for corporations having more power to negotiate prices than individuals do, I think that's true but this is where I'm fascinated by the American preference for relying on a corporation rather than a government to do this kind of work. A government purchasing healthcare and medicine for the whole population is arguably in an even better negotiating position than a corporation doing it for employees.

[drogulus]

He adheres to a crank theory about money that has no relation to reality. It seems to say that governments can issue unlimited amounts of money to pay for services, and the whole idea of tax revenue, national debt, and budgets is really a mass delusion.

    It a description of how money works that differs in being frank. Of course the currency issuer can issue up to practical limits because that is exactly what we do. Paul Samuelson admitted in an interview that the debt mania was a superstition, Fed chairmen (Greenspan, Bernanke) explain it to Congress and you can watch them on YT. You can't be a working economist without understanding what I'm saying is correct. Knowledge of how money works is popular among fund managers (Warren Mosler speaks their language). It doesn't surprise me that practitioners are catching on and that academic economists are still stuck on models that explain nothing that actually happens.

    Yes, the revenue theory of taxation is obsolete. The NY Fed Chairman said so in 1946. It's not coming back, it applies to users like states that don't have their own money.

    We created as much money to fight WWII as we needed to deploy every resource possible and produced the richest grandkids in world history. When was the last time you moaned about the crushing debt burden from all those B-17s and 8 million GIs? Talk about delusions!!