Support NeoGAF

[SoRuffShoNuff]

You pay at least a third of that if not more to cover health insurance now. Your increase in net terms would be more like 5 to 10k.

I pay 30 bucks a month for health insurance so 360 bucks a year, so nowhere near a third. My employer is not going to give me a 15k dollar raise to account for this massive burden being shifted to me.

 

[ugaboga232]

Of course, but his platform is to outline a goal for the country.

I'm not asking for the political plan, just the applied one. Assuming full and unbridled cooperation of Congress -- How do we go about this?

It is part of the medicare for all plan/bill whatever. He isn't looking for a tax omnibus and then adding his proposals, taxes will be part of them (which is why he is trying to create separate revenue neutral proposals that are self contained).

 

[Barzul]

He thinks he'll pass this in a Republican Congress? Good luck Bernie, good luck. I'm a democrat and this is giving me pause. You know what maybe free college shouldn't be done at the same time as healthcare. Give healthcare the focus first.

 

[ChaosXVI]

I see this as being what Bernie wants to have if he could have everything that he wants. But he can't have it all, so he will negotiate to something slightly less. This is something that the Democrats need to keep doing. Because they always propose said "sweet middle ground tactic" and then the Republicans make them negotiate it away. If he starts further back it just makes it easier for him to trim it and thus, appear to be "working with them".

i.e. it's the same logic you use when you sell a car to somebody.

But yeah all of this sounds fine to me either way.

 

[LegendofJoe]

Umm. That isn't free then. I am not paying near 5k a year now for healthcare. So how is this better for me?

Did you include what your company pays for your healthcare?

 

[ieptbarakat]

"Pay more in taxes to help fund free public education and health care."

"But why would I want to help others?"

 

[excelsiorlef]

The tax change is a condition of the Medicare for all plan. It's part of it.

I believe the college plan going into effect is contingent upon the approval of his proposed banking taxes.

Then cool fair enough . It might work. I'd love to see the numbers on the 34k bracket though because a grand a year is significant but if it equals out due to health care savings groovy.

 

[JustenP88]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...homas-piketty-bernie-sanders-us-election-2016

Let’s glance back for an instant. From the 1930s until the 1970s, the US were at the forefront of an ambitious set of policies aiming to reduce social inequalities. Partly to avoid any resemblance with Old Europe, seen then as extremely unequal and contrary to the American democratic spirit, in the inter-war years the country invented a highly progressive income and estate tax and set up levels of fiscal progressiveness never used on our side of the Atlantic. From 1930 to 1980 – for half a century – the rate for the highest US income (over $1m per year) was on average 82%, with peaks of 91% from the 1940s to 1960s (from Roosevelt to Kennedy), and still as high as 70% during Reagan’s election in 1980.

 

[mackattk]

Yeah adding all that up it isn't near 5k.

Hey everyone. Show's over. FriedConsole doesn't benefit from this plan. All you millions of Americans out there who can't afford medication, about to go into bankruptcy from a medical procedure, or anything else medical related, sorry - you are still fucked.

I don't mean to single you out, but this line of thinking is why it is so hard to make progress on human rights and affordable care for people in the US.

 

[Crimson_Gold]

I pay 30 bucks a month for health insurance so 360 bucks a year, so nowhere near a third. My employer is not going to give me a 15k dollar raise to account for this massive burden being shifted to me.

Be like me. Ask for candy and gratitude.

I wonder if there is a way to reconcile the impact on people's fixed expenses with the increased taxes

 

[border]

"Theoretically, the employer would pass the savings onto you," said the most naive person I've heard from today.

 

[DragonSworne]

I see this as being what Bernie wants to have if he could have everything that he wants. But he can't have it all, so he will negotiate to something slightly less. This is something that the Democrats need to keep doing. Because they always propose said "sweet middle ground tactic" and then the Republicans make them negotiate it away. If he starts further back it just makes it easier for him to trim it and thus, appear to be "working with them".

i.e. it's the same logic you use when you sell a car to somebody.

But yeah all of this sounds fine to me either way.

It's what Trump is doing with the wall and immigration.

 

[ugaboga232]

I pay 30 bucks a month for health insurance so 360 bucks a year, so nowhere near a third. My employer is not going to give me a 15k dollar raise to account for this massive burden being shifted to me.

You have an amazing healthcare plan and you probably have a very high income to get a 15k tax (which includes your employer already shifting the burden of the tax onto you so why would they shift that burden and not include the other one except for pure greed which another company can take advantage of).

"Theoretically, the employer would pass the savings onto you," said the most naive person I've heard from today.

If they pass the cost of the tax and the burden of healthcare already on to you (why do you think contractors are paid so much more than salary), do you not think that some companies would pass on savings? All it takes is one company to create competition.

 

[Protein]

After reading some of these posts, I thought I got account phished by the Free Republic for a second.

 

[teh_pwn]

Did you include what your company pays for your healthcare?

My employer keeps costs pretty low by using an in house clinic. I pay $10 co-pay, and the company pays about $80 through insurance each visit. Prior to this clinic it was $450 paid by insurance. I don't expect the government to lobby to keep prices down like this.

 

[FinalStageBoss]

I'd gladly pay up tbh.

 

[harSon]

Bernie's plan would definitely hurt quite a bit for me. I make $33/hr in San Jose California, and only pay ~$70 a month for health care.

 

[LegendofJoe]

I pay 30 bucks a month for health insurance so 360 bucks a year, so nowhere near a third. My employer is not going to give me a 15k dollar raise to account for this massive burden being shifted to me.

Your employer pays a heck of a lot more than 30 dollars a month. And I said earlier that companies have to be forced to pass along a lot of their savings in the form of increased wages for this to be workable earlier in the thread.

 

[SeanR1221]

My wife is applying to nurse practitioner programs which would push us into 15k hike. No thank you. That would be absurd.

 

[Crimson_Gold]

Bernie's plan would definitely hurt quite a bit for me. I make $33/hr in San Jose California, and only pay ~$70 a month for health care.

Lunch is on you

 

[ugaboga232]

My employer keeps costs pretty low by using an in house clinic. I pay $10 co-pay, and the company pays about $80 through insurance each visit. Prior to this clinic it was $450 paid by insurance. I don't expect the government to lobby to keep prices down like this.

I am sure this arrangement costs money and what about anything that the in house clinic can't do? And the government will be doing a lot of restructuring if this plan goes through to lower healthcare spending/waste/etc.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I've noticed that Vox really, really hates Bernie Sanders

 

[Kyuur]

Umm. That isn't free then. I am not paying near 5k a year now for healthcare. So how is this better for me?

It isn't meant to be better for you only. It's meant to be better for the country.

 

[hermit7]

I am curious if the tax increase would reduce the total loans that I have from the government.

I would be much more inclined to pay the tax if it meant that my student loans were forgiven. I doubt that would be true however.

 

[noshten]

I pay 30 bucks a month for health insurance so 360 bucks a year, so nowhere near a third. My employer is not going to give me a 15k dollar raise to account for this massive burden being shifted to me.

Sorry Bernie can't change that your employers are going to make a bad decision that will end up costing them, as their competitors invest into poaching all their talent.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Hey everyone. Show's over. FriedConsole doesn't benefit from this plan. All you millions of Americans out there who can't afford medication, about to go into bankruptcy from a medical procedure, or anything else medical related, sorry - you are still fucked.

You may not like it, but FriedConsole's opinion will be the opinion of million of otherwise Democratic-leaning voters in nice subdivisions around the country which again, is while I agree with Bernie's goals, his arguments suck.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

You have an amazing healthcare plan and you probably have a very high income to get a 15k tax (which includes your employer already shifting the burden of the tax onto you so why would they shift that burden and not include the other one except for pure greed which another company can take advantage of).



If they pass the cost of the tax and the burden of healthcare already on to you (why do you think contractors are paid so much more than salary), do you not think that some companies would pass on savings? All it takes is one company to create competition.

Yeah them passing on 100% of the savings to me sounds just as plausible as trickle down economics.

 

[Tesseract]

You may not like it, but FriedConsole's opinion will be the opinion of million of otherwise Democratic-leaning voters in nice subdivisions around the country which again, is while I agree with Bernie's goals, his arguments suck.

And that's why Trump will win

 

[border]

If they pass the cost of the tax and the burden of healthcare already on to you (why do you think contractors are paid so much more than salary), do you not think that some companies would pass on savings? All it takes is one company to create competition.

Relying on theoretical altruism of major corporations seems almost antithetical to ethos of Sanders, and particularly his supporters that blame corporate influence on almost everything wrong today.

 

[LegendofJoe]

I've noticed that Vox really, really hates Bernie Sanders

Thanks to this article I now know to avoid their stuff from now on.

 

[WonkyPanda]

15k rate hike for me? Yeah, no thanks. It's hard enough to save for a home and future tuition, and then I need to pay that much more? Not buying it. Tax the wealthier higher if you need too, but you're killing young professionals who don't have a war chest yet.

 

[mackattk]

You may not like it, but FriedConsole's opinion will be the opinion of million of otherwise Democratic-leaning voters in nice subdivisions around the country which again, is while I agree with Bernie's goals, his arguments suck.

I know. I also didn't mean to single him out (edited the post). It is just frustrating.

 

[ugaboga232]

Yeah them passing on 100% of the savings to me sounds just as plausible as trickle down economics.

I didn't say 100% and now that healthcare is decoupled from employment you have more flexibility to find a company that isn't cartoonishly greedy.

Relying on theoretical altruism of major corporations seems almost antithetical to ethos of Sanders, and particularly his supporters that blame corporate influence on almost everything wrong today.

It is less altruism and more competition. The logic some people are saying is that companies can arbitrarily decrease wages or not increase them with no ill effects. This is not altruism, this is retaining your workers so that they don't get poached by company B that suddenly has a ton more cash to hire away good workers

 

[teh_pwn]

I am sure this arrangement costs money and what about anything that the in house clinic can't do? And the government will be doing a lot of restructuring if this plan goes through to lower healthcare spending/waste/etc.

They're using office space owned by the company, and power, etc. Perhaps there is additional cost, but I doubt the company would have paid anything close to GP visits in a general network overall considering how stingy they are.

Point is that my employer's compensation is competitive with the market, and healthcare costs are way down at least for me and to some degree them. Granted my benefits are very good given my field, I'm very fortunate, and I'm not opposed to single payer if it were designed by a peer reviewed board of Scientists & MDs, but I'm not compelled to pay several thousand more in taxes for a vision that will just mean more Congressional based spending on drones.

 

[hawk2025]

You can't make the "companies will compete away savings" argument in one hand, and "companies are evil, crush salaries and control our country" on the other.


If you are going to make an extreme argument, they either bid away their gains to labor or they don't.


The truth is somewhere in the middle, and impact is surely asymmetric. My problem (again...) is that the bargaining power is more likely to be at the firm's side precisely on the lower end of the income distribution.

I don't believe that the pass-through is uniform across income levels.

Relying on theoretical altruism of major corporations seems almost antithetical to ethos of Sanders, and particularly his supporters that blame corporate influence on almost everything wrong today.

I don't think the argument relies on altruism per se, it just relies on a bargaining power level for labor that undermines many of the arguments of the campaign elsewhere.

 

[SeanR1221]

15k rate hike for me? Yeah, no thanks. It's hard enough to save for a home and future tuition, and then I need to pay that much more? Not buying it. Tax the wealthier higher if you need too, but you're killing young professionals who don't have a war chest yet.

Exactly. This goes into effect we can't start a family.

 

[Drek]

So now you fired your employee or coerced some into staying, what is the end game? Is there gonna be economy wide collaboration on hoarding these savings and not letting even start ups use all this freed up money to entice people? This seems even more naive than the sanders people you are harping on about the evil 1%. Very very very few people are pure evil or pure greed.

1. how the hell do you think it's going to take collaboration on the part of employers to "hoard" these savings? That is standard management practice taught nationwide in every business school - control HR costs.

2. Start-ups generally pay less as-is and require an employee's faith that they're helping to build something and that there is a payoff for being in at the ground floor when it's built. They're also an incredibly small part of the economy. They aren't your champion to deliver a new wave of competitive salaries.

3. It isn't pure evil or pure greed to control HR costs. It's the job of any responsible manager. Most employees are pretty easily replaced from a fairly large pool, why risk over-paying when replacing someone is a sure way to guarantee you're paying market rate?

My point here is this: just making it possible for employers to hand over all the savings to their employees isn't going to accomplish anything. If there is no impetus forcing a salary adjustment the employer isn't going to volunteer it. If an employee pushes for it there is still a large probability of it being declined, possibly with a prejudicial view of the employee being mentally logged.

So in short you're taking away the free market nature of healthcare, putting all the financial burden on the employee, and then forcing them into a now decidedly more free market employee compensation discussion to see the financial return promised. It's nothing more than horsetrading one financial burden for another.

Did you include what your company pays for your healthcare?

Does Sanders' plan include legislation obligating employers to transfer this savings directly to the employee? Or do you live in fantasy land where those demon corporations Sanders has been speaking about all this time suddenly turn into kindhearted non-profits upon him taking the oath of office?

You can't make the "companies will compete away savings" in one hand, and "companies are evil, crush salaries and control our country" on the other.


If you are going to make an extreme argument, they either bid away their gains to labor or they don't.


The truth is somewhere in the middle, and impact is surely asymmetric. My problem (again...) is that the bargaining power is more likely to be at the firm's side precisely on the lower end of the income distribution.

I don't believe that the pass-through is uniform across income levels.





I don't think the argument relies on altruism per se, it just relies on a bargaining power level for labor that undermines many of the arguments of the campaign elsewhere.

Exactly. Those most able to endure the additional tax burden due to already existing higher salaries are the highly skilled, hard to replace employees who could negotiate for some or all of the employer's savings.

Meanwhile the lower end would lack the bargaining power to get similar returns and therefore either keep the job they have and suffer with the tax increase, or try negotiating with an employer who knows they can replace the employee for little hassle and likely a reset of wages/seniority/benefits to go along with it.

 

[border]

I've noticed that Vox really, really hates Bernie Sanders

If there's actually anything inaccurate about these charts and data I would be happy to hear it.

If Sanders is going to promise the moon, I don't see how it's "hate" that someone wants to examine how it will be paid for.

 

[Kysen]

I thought GAF was progressive. Hilary pundits act like this isn't how its done in Europe were they get free healthcare and college.

I'm in the UK with "Free" health care and my taxes aren't that high. Bernie will never get any of those proposals through congress anyway. So It doesn't even matter if he wins. Anything left of Obama = grid lock.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Your employer pays a heck of a lot more than 30 dollars a month. And I said earlier that companies had to be forced to pass along a lot of their savings in the former of increased wages for this to be workable earlier in the thread.

There would probably be a slightly rough transition...

My company pays 100% of my premium right now, its right around 6% of my salary that would be converted to a payroll tax. No real savings for me.

They also kick in for dependents though, wonder how that would be handled.

 

[ugaboga232]

They're using office space owned by the company, and power, etc. Perhaps there is additional cost, but I doubt the company would have paid anything close to GP visits in a general network overall considering how stingy they are.

Point is that my employer's compensation is competitive with the market, and healthcare costs are way down at least for me and to some degree them. Granted my benefits are very good given my field, I'm very fortunate, and I'm not opposed to single payer if it were designed by a peer reviewed board of Scientists & MDs, but I'm not compelled to pay several thousand more in taxes for a vision that will just mean more Congressional based spending on drones.

I am a scientist/soonish to be doctor, this is what everyone is pushing for (obviously the how and when are hotly debated but some form of universal healthcare is the optimal solution). I have no idea what you mean about drones, it seems like you think the taxes are decoupled from the medicare for all plan. And most health insurance makes GP visits free or cheap, I am talking about anything other than GP.

15k rate hike for me? Yeah, no thanks. It's hard enough to save for a home and future tuition, and then I need to pay that much more? Not buying it. Tax the wealthier higher if you need too, but you're killing young professionals who don't have a war chest yet.

You make more than ~85% of the population, who should be paying for it if not the upper middle class and upper class? And you will probably not lose much money once the healthcare is factored in.

 

[FStop7]

Altruism is not easy in a self centered society.

It's so easy to be altruistic with other peoples' money.

 

[teh_pwn]

I am a scientist/soonish to be doctor, this is what everyone is pushing for (obviously the how and when are hotly debated but some form of universal healthcare is the optimal solution). I have no idea what you mean about drones, it seems like you think the taxes are decoupled from the medicare for all plan. And most health insurance makes GP visits free or cheap, I am talking about anything other than GP.

What I mean about drones is even with Obama spending for that went up significantly. Even if Bernie were President, there's checks and balances and a GOP/Dem Congress.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

I didn't say 100% and now that healthcare is decoupled from employment you have more flexibility to find a company that isn't cartoonishly greedy.



It is less altruism and more competition. The logic some people are saying is that companies can arbitrarily decrease wages or not increase them with no ill effects. This is not altruism, this is retaining your workers so that they don't get poached by company B that suddenly has a ton more cash to hire away good workers

I like the job and insurance I have right now so why vote for this uncertainty?

Your last sentence sounds just like what Reagan said would happen with trickle down economics and we see how that turned out.

 

[Tesseract]

I'm in the UK with "Free" health care and my taxes aren't that high. Bernie will never get any of those proposals through congress anyway. So It doesn't even matter if he wins. Anything left of Obama = grid lock.

This is probably why many are thirsting to shake up the status quo, there's too many mothball babies in power

 

[LegendofJoe]

You can't make the "companies will compete away savings" in one hand, and "companies are evil, crush salaries and control our country" on the other.


If you are going to make an extreme argument, they either bid away their gains to labor or they don't.


The truth is somewhere in the middle, and impact is surely asymmetric. My problem (again...) is that the bargaining power is more likely to be at the firm's side precisely on the lower end of the income distribution.

I don't believe that the pass-through is uniform across income levels.

It certainly wouldn't be. That's why the full cost of a UHC program should largely be born by businesses. Individuals in this country largely have no idea what the full cost of coverage is for themselves and their families. It's best to just cut them out of the accounting.

 

[ugaboga232]

There would probably be a slightly rough transition...

My company pays 100% of my premium right now, its right around 6% of my salary that would be converted to a payroll tax. No real savings for me.

They also kick in for dependents though, wonder how that would be handled.

Do you think that plan is free? Did you not see the graphs showing that your amazing healthcare plan probably costs your employer many thousands? You have to be making a ton where the loss due to payroll tax is more than the healthcare savings.

 

[the black pearl]

Not surprising. Those taxes wouldnt actually happen, though, since he would get blocked, even by other liberals.

What about people like myself who get health insurance thru work? I don't pay for it, my job does and they definitely won't be giving me that money back if the government is giving insurance. These taxes would screw me over big time.

Also I dig your avatar

 

[border]

It is less altruism and more competition. The logic some people are saying is that companies can arbitrarily decrease wages or not increase them with no ill effects. This is not altruism, this is retaining your workers so that they don't get poached by company B that suddenly has a ton more cash to hire away good workers

And similarly capitalism dictates that companies will seek to increase wages as little as possible to prevent loss of talent, and then call it a day. You may get some fraction of your company's health care costs back in salary, but you aren't getting all of them. Not to mention that millions of people are working lower-skill jobs where someone isn't looking to poach them away at all.....they're just gratefully scraping by with what they're giving.

 

[ugaboga232]

What I mean about drones is even with Obama spending for that went up significantly. Even if Bernie were President, there's checks and balances and a GOP/Dem Congress.

Ok? That is not what is going on here, and we are talking about the magical future where all plans are approved. If they aren't approved, why are you even worried, no tax hikes.

I like the job and insurance I have right now so why vote for this uncertainty?

Your last sentence sounds just like what Reagan said would happen with trickle down economics and we see how that turned out.

You obviously don't have to but a lot of people will because they will be better off. A lot more people will be better off economically and medically and some people will be less so. Vote for whatever concerns you.

And similarly capitalism dictates that companies will seek to increase wages as little as possible to prevent loss of talent, and then call it a day. You may get some fraction of your company's health care costs back in salary, but you aren't getting all of them. Not to mention that millions of people are working lower-skill jobs where someone isn't looking to poach them away at all.....they're just gratefully scraping by with what they're giving.

So we are in agreement? Those lower skill job holders either have crap health insurance or none at all so the 6% payroll tax even if not compensated at all will save them a ton of money.