Thats true! But he also had been giving away his fortune behind the scenes and investing in science for humanity.
I don't think individuals are immoral for being super-ultra-rich (unless they specifically did immoral, unethical things). I think it's a reasonable position to say that a system that allows for such massive, unfathomable wealth disparity is immoral. Ever since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, society has been grappling with the morality of capitalism, which is why no nation has completely unfettered capitalism (we've put in place many regulations, on child labor, on monopolistic practices, etc). So this is an evolving discussion and it wouldn't surprise me even a little bit if a hundred years from now, people look back on this era the way many today look back at the Gilded Age--a period of rapid economic expansion but also deeply problematic and exploitative practices leading to huge wealth disparities. I don't think anyone will ever propose a hard cap on income or total wealth, but we already have the equivalent of what's called a "luxury tax" in sports--the more you go over a certain threshold, the more you pay in tax (for the portion over the threshold). Bear in mind, we've had 90% marginal tax rates as recently as the '50s and '60s. Let's also remember that no one talks about that era as a dark age economically (obviously, the Vietnam War was a terrible thing at the time and various race relations issues). In fact, many conservatives wax nostalgically about what a golden era the 1950s were and how we should get back to that. Life was fine economically when the ultra-rich paid massive tax on their third billion. Sanders is no more of a revolutionary than FDR or JFK or LBJ--all proponents of massive top-end marginal tax rates and expansions of the social state. It only seems extreme and revolutionary today after tax cut after tax cut starting in the 1980s. If you don't want higher top-end marginal tax rates and more social programs, that's one thing--lots of conservatives didn't want them back then, either. But it's hardly something unusual to our history or destructive in our past.
Michael Bloomberg shouldn't have been on the stage last night. But the DNC shows it corruption yet again and changes their rules for Mike after he donates to the DNC. https://www.insider.com/dnc-debate-qualification-rules-bloomberg-donation-2020-2 Disgusting.
Ok? But everyone who makes over 29k a year will have to pay a higher tax rate to support those under 29k. 29k is FAR from “rich” it’s on the upper level of poverty at best and that’s the bottom of his progressive tax plan to pay for all this shit... why do we have to make middle class America suffer to give poor America a happier life? The rich getting taxed a shit ton may be annoying to them but it doesn’t effect their ability to pay their bills... I don’t mean to be disrespectful towards you and your post, it’s just... Bernie’s policies frustrate the hell out of me.
Yes, but what that analysis leaves out is that, with universal health care for example, it would replace health insurance premiums, which are extremely high. The taxes required to pay for universal health care can be held significantly lower than private insurance premiums because a universal health care system doesn't need to turn a profit, as private businesses do, and there are efficiency gains in a single system with a single infrastructure, as opposed to every company needing to set up their own infrastructure. This will "hurt" those who currently choose to go without health insurance, as they will effectively now be forced to pay for (and receive) health insurance, but it's a very small percentage of people who choose to go without (as opposed to not being able to afford it). And, of course, the less you make, the less you pay into it. It may start at 29k, but people just over 29k will pay almost nothing into it.
Besides the fact that Medicare for all (plus illegals) being basically economic suicide... let’s say it happens, what will happen to MY current health insurance? Will my provider be abolished essentially? Will I still be guaranteed to keep my current doctor or will I be forced to pay for something with no guarantee of my wants and needs?
Immoral though it may be, is it society's responsibility to ensure that people are incapable of behaving according to this particular immorality? Are we essentially going so far as to criminalize "excessive" wealth?
One could argue that being excessively wealthy is the American Dream, in theory anyone can become that.
The data from around the world shows the US spends on average twice as much per person on healthcare - and our healthcare is not as highly rated as other countries with universal health - so I am calling this statement as bunk and wrong, plain and simple. The rest of your points are worth discussing and are specific implementation points - but this point is just wrong. If anything, the US's current heath system is an economic drag of epic proportion on our economy.
I’m just trying to figure how the government is gonna pay for a $20+ trillion program while also being $20+ trillion in debt... and that’s not even touching the other programs such as College, Student loan payback, green new deal, etc.
Why is it government - it is the people that pay for that via their taxes and through economy of scale and legislation - you do not allow big health providers and pharma to overcharge you. If the solution is a US citizen on average to pay an extra $5K in taxes a year, but get the same or better health care as she does now without paying $10K privately - it is a win. (The numbers are from 2017, average US health spending per person was $10,224 - the UK with a national health service spent $4227 per year and the WHO and multiple other organizations consider the UK health-care 18th best in the world, the US - 27th).
I only pay about $720 a year for my health insurance, then a $500 deductible... I’d be more than pissed to have to pay an extra $4k per year...
Do you understand the difference between average and individual entries that are used to calculate this average?
Dumb post on my end, I admit. My point essentially is, I HIGHLY doubt my insurance would be cheaper if we did go universal as a country. I’m definitely not saying the system is perfect now, but there is no such thing as a perfect system. I personally rather see free market competition than government mandates. I just do not trust our federal government to provide a good service.
Well, we have proof that the system is less efficient than just about any modern country out there - so, no disrespect, your personal feelings about it are not a reasonable argument about the costs and the ability to afford it. As for the federal government not being able to provide a good service - I will take it seriously when I hear people calling for the privatization of the military - until that happens, this is just people employing "scary terms" from the 1950s to suppress logical thought.
There's no way for me to answer specifics like that with certainty. Medicare as it already exists allows for outside, private insurance providers so I'd assume that some private health insurance would still exist for any supplementary things you want. As for your own doctor, Medicare doesn't disallow particular doctors or providers. Some doctors (rarely, in my understanding) don't accept Medicare but I assume that wouldn't be the case if Medicare were universal.
Why? As I mentioned in a previous post, there are specific reasons of scale and lack of profit motive to believe taxes for universal health care would be lower than current insurance premiums. As andalusian posted, we already see that we pay more for similar or worse care than other nations with universal health care pay.
That seems really cheap for an individual plan - I pay more than that, even with my employer paying ~80% of the cost of my (employer provided) coverage. barfo
