Senator Opposes Medicaid Expansion To Save Souls

[aegsm76]

From the first of the three links I posted
snippet
But it is ludicrous to expect progressives to support an additional annual tax on all Americans of $7,800 per person, which is the amount that would be required in 2017 [2].

It would actually be $650 more dollars per month for each person.
NOT HOUSEHOLD, but PERSON!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

From the first of the three links I posted
snippet
But it is ludicrous to expect progressives to support an additional annual tax on all Americans of $7,800 per person, which is the amount that would be required in 2017 [2].

It would actually be $650 more dollars per month for each person.
NOT HOUSEHOLD, but PERSON!

While that number is a correct estimation, they are not explaining that you're already paying over half of that in your current taxes that support all the different programs we've been discussing that would be replaced by single payer. Programs like Medicare as we know it, Medicaid, the dozens and dozens of women's and children's health programs that are subsidized, SCHIP, the VA, etc. Critics of this program often leave out that over half of it is already paid for. Also, they leave out that you'll not be paying your monthly premiums, which in the end that means... you walk away with more of your own money in your pocket at the end of the day.

Right now, you're paying over half what would be necessary for a single payer system for all these programs, on top of your monthly premiums, which are rising (with no end in sight) to offset the loss of the uninsured as that loss is passed down to the consumer by providers.

[n david]

Your math is way off. Even your idol Bernie and his bff, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have higher figures than you.

CBO reported the government took in 3.3 trillion in taxes. Of that amount, 1.38 trillion was spent on all the gov't healthcare combined. Medicare, Medicaid, Chip, Vet healthcare, etc.

The Urban Institute, a left-leaning organization, says the cost of Bernie's single payer healthcare would be 3.2 trillion a year.

US revenue = 3.3 trillion
Single Payer cost = 3.2 trillion

It would bankrupt the US.

[n david]

Even liberal State legislatures are recognizing that single payer is too costly.

"""Last month in North Carolina, Democratic State Representative Verla Insko moved to kill her own pro-single-payer bill. An assessment from the state legislature's Fiscal Research Division pegged the cost of single-payer at $70 billion, $42 billion of which would have to come from the state. That latter figure is almost twice the state budget.

The Civitas Institute, a free-market think tank in North Carolina, estimated that implementing single-payer would cost a whopping $101 billion just in year one."""

"""Last year, California State Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, a Democrat, pulled the plug on single-payer legislation passed by the state Senate after deeming it "woefully incomplete." Even that was an understatement -- the bill was silent on how it would raise the $400 billion needed to fund single-payer each year."""

"""In 2014 in Vermont, then-Gov. Peter Shumlin -- a long-time single-payer advocate -- gave up on a single-payer plan after he learned it would cost $4.3 billion annually. That amount was equivalent to 88 percent of the entire state budget. He reluctantly concluded that the proposed funding mechanism for single-payer -- a 12.5 percent state payroll tax and a sliding-scale individual tax of up to 9.5 percent of income "might hurt our economy."""


https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypi.../#46c0134056f3

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

*snip*

I've said it all along, socialism only works when everyone plays by the same rules. And when the socialists in power can't get everyone to abide by the same rules, they have to resort to fascism in order to enforce those rules. The IRS is their weapon to enforce it, and those of us who don't want it will be ground underneath if we don't accept the socialist playbook.

Whether you realize it or not, you're advocating for a fascist society, because that's the only way to get everything you've proposed. America was predicated on the beliefs of independence and liberty. Unlike the rest of the world, we don't accept the socialist narrative as easily as they do. The only way the socialists will get their way, is at the barrel of a gun. And freedom loving Americans are locked and loaded to oppose such a move (which is the primary motivation behind the myriad anti-gun movements).

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Jito463

I've said it all along, socialism only works when everyone plays by the same rules. And when the socialists in power can't get everyone to abide by the same rules, they have to resort to fascism in order to enforce those rules. The IRS is their weapon to enforce it, and those of us who don't want it will be ground underneath if we don't accept the socialist playbook.

Whether you realize it or not, you're advocating for a fascist society, because that's the only way to get everything you've proposed. America was predicated on the beliefs of independence and liberty. Unlike the rest of the world, we don't accept the socialist narrative as easily as they do. The only way the socialists will get their way, is at the barrel of a gun. And freedom loving Americans are locked and loaded to oppose such a move (which is the primary motivation behind the myriad anti-gun movements).

I not arguing with you, but your post reminded me of de Tocqueville saying American democracy would only work as long as we were a moral/Christian based society.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I not arguing with you, but your post reminded me of de Tocqueville saying American democracy would only work as long as we were a moral/Christian based society.

Do you believe the part in bold? If not, why not?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I not arguing with you, but your post reminded me of de Tocqueville saying American democracy would only work as long as we were a moral/Christian based society.

our democracy is immoral because it is based on the will of the people rather than on the will of God.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

our democracy is immoral because it is based on the will of the people rather than on the will of God.

That I totally agree upon. I guess that's why I have never expected the United States to be a "moral" nation in the biblical sense.

In my opinion, no nation has ever been a "moral" nation. Nations ruled by elders and judges were just as immoral with social sins and problems as any other. Nations ruled by monarchs were just as immoral with social sins and problems as any other nation. And while democracy in our republic is designed to democratically elect representatives of the people, it is clearly the will of the people being expressed. And so, even democratic nations are just as immoral with social sins and problems like every other nation. While I might be biased, I do believe that democracy as expressed in our republic is truly the best method of governance, it certainly isn't perfect.

Some might argue that this is why we must turn to the Law of God and abide by theonomic principles of law and order. But even the best example of such a society, ancient Israel, was just as rife with sin, immorality, corruption, and idolatry. So, I contend that not even theonomy can provide the moral utopia some seem to think is best. I firmly believe that anything man touches is tainted by man's sinfulness, even when done with the best intentions. Men will twist, exploit, and justify sin, even in a theonomic society. The only problem with the theonomic society not found in secular societies is that in a theonomic society the twisting, exploitation, and justification of sin will be imposed and presented to you... in the name of God. Which is, in my opinion, is dangerously close to blasphemy.

I guess this is where my Christian anarchist tendencies come in. Only as individuals seeking Christ's own righteousness can we experience the Kingdom through our inner man (our spirits) in the midst of any ungodly or immoral society. And every government functions through coercion and power. And every human government is ruled by fallen and inherently wicked human beings. And so, every government is inherently flawed, sinful, and wicked. We must realize that we are not of this world, we are not beholden to it, nor are we called to be allegiant to its governments or parties in any way. Of course, this is a revolutionary point of view. And many believe that the next logical step would be to oppose all governments. But that's where being a Christian anarchist comes in. As Christians, though we are not beholden to any human authority, we tolerate them. We pay tribute and taxes to whom they are do. We peacefully abide their laws and seek the common good. And we pay our due respects to those in authority. But we are not of this world. When their ways clash with God's ways, and they will, we follow God's ways, even if the majority doesn't. And should it mean being led like lambs to the slaughter of persecution, so be it. We count it an honor to suffer for Christ.

We know that one day the kingdoms of this world will be abolished, and in their place will be established the Kingdom of God and of His Christ. And he shall reign for ever and ever.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Your math is way off. Even your idol Bernie and his bff, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have higher figures than you.

CBO reported the government took in 3.3 trillion in taxes. Of that amount, 1.38 trillion was spent on all the gov't healthcare combined. Medicare, Medicaid, Chip, Vet healthcare, etc.

The Urban Institute, a left-leaning organization, says the cost of Bernie's single payer healthcare would be 3.2 trillion a year.

US revenue = 3.3 trillion
Single Payer cost = 3.2 trillion

It would bankrupt the US.

I suggest looking into this FAQ on H.R. 676.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq#002

If other nations can do it, we can too. And... we can do it better than they can.