How do Dem candidates propose to pay for "Medicare for all"? "Uh......"
It won't surprise any of you to hear that lots of people who don't have much money are eager to support pols who promise to give them "free" stuff. And every single Democrat presidential candidate has eagerly jumped on the "I'll give you..." bandwagon.
Except...as everyone should know (but far too many don't), there's no such thing as "free." Every good and every service costs something, and the government can't provide anything without paying for it. And there are only two ways to do that: either use tax dollars, or borrow even more money.
Many Democrats understand that. But a huge percentage of Americans don't. So when Elizabeth Warren says her administration would give voters "Medicare for all," those people think "Wow! Free health care for my entire life! I'm SO supporting this person!"
But again, obviously, it's not free. The only way to pay for it is to raise taxes on most Americans.
Warren repeatedly claims that taxes would only increase on "the rich" and corporations, but every analysis has shown that this won't raise enough money to pay for Medicare for all. Also, naive voters believe that if the government raises taxes on corporations, the corporations will eat the tax instead of passing it through as increased prices.
But Warren knows that admitting you'll raise taxes on the middle class is a losing proposition, so she adamantly refuses to admit that she'll do that. Instead she argues that "total cost" will go down--an implicit admission that even though she'll raise taxes on the middle class, NET costs for families will drop--at least according to her--because they won't have to pay for medical care.
Cool, eh? But wait a second...
In order to cover "free" medical care for all without borrowing more money, you have to raise taxes enough to cover the total cost, right? So what's the difference between that and the current situation, where consumers pay their medical costs directly?
"Uh...well...uh....AH! We'll be making 'the rich' bear part of the costs! Yeh, dat's it!!!"
Okay, let's play: Suppose Warren and congress succeed in raising taxes on 'the rich' (define, please) from 38% to, say, 70%. And let's suppose that 'the rich' take no countermeasures to offset that, so that the government reaps another $500 Billion per year. That's about one-seventh of the estimated cost per year of "Medicare for all." Does anyone believe the cost of the added federal employees needed to "administer" this disaster won't exceed that fraction?
In other words, no net benefit to middle-class taxpayers after the increase in taxes.
Of course one group will benefit: The 47% of Americans and illegal aliens who don't pay any federal income tax but will get "free" medical care. Needless to say, every one of those folks are all for the program.
Warren and the other Dem candidates all know this, and they're counting on them to elect the party's nominee to the presidency.
Watch the short video clip below to see how obviously Warren refuses to answer the direct question "Will you raise taxes on the middle class to pay for Medicare for all?"
Except...as everyone should know (but far too many don't), there's no such thing as "free." Every good and every service costs something, and the government can't provide anything without paying for it. And there are only two ways to do that: either use tax dollars, or borrow even more money.
Many Democrats understand that. But a huge percentage of Americans don't. So when Elizabeth Warren says her administration would give voters "Medicare for all," those people think "Wow! Free health care for my entire life! I'm SO supporting this person!"
But again, obviously, it's not free. The only way to pay for it is to raise taxes on most Americans.
Warren repeatedly claims that taxes would only increase on "the rich" and corporations, but every analysis has shown that this won't raise enough money to pay for Medicare for all. Also, naive voters believe that if the government raises taxes on corporations, the corporations will eat the tax instead of passing it through as increased prices.
But Warren knows that admitting you'll raise taxes on the middle class is a losing proposition, so she adamantly refuses to admit that she'll do that. Instead she argues that "total cost" will go down--an implicit admission that even though she'll raise taxes on the middle class, NET costs for families will drop--at least according to her--because they won't have to pay for medical care.
Cool, eh? But wait a second...
In order to cover "free" medical care for all without borrowing more money, you have to raise taxes enough to cover the total cost, right? So what's the difference between that and the current situation, where consumers pay their medical costs directly?
"Uh...well...uh....AH! We'll be making 'the rich' bear part of the costs! Yeh, dat's it!!!"
Okay, let's play: Suppose Warren and congress succeed in raising taxes on 'the rich' (define, please) from 38% to, say, 70%. And let's suppose that 'the rich' take no countermeasures to offset that, so that the government reaps another $500 Billion per year. That's about one-seventh of the estimated cost per year of "Medicare for all." Does anyone believe the cost of the added federal employees needed to "administer" this disaster won't exceed that fraction?
In other words, no net benefit to middle-class taxpayers after the increase in taxes.
Of course one group will benefit: The 47% of Americans and illegal aliens who don't pay any federal income tax but will get "free" medical care. Needless to say, every one of those folks are all for the program.
Warren and the other Dem candidates all know this, and they're counting on them to elect the party's nominee to the presidency.
Watch the short video clip below to see how obviously Warren refuses to answer the direct question "Will you raise taxes on the middle class to pay for Medicare for all?"
posted by SF at
10:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home