The only problem I have with Medicare for All proposals, is the lie that a large part of the savings that Americans will get to offset increased taxes, is premium savings.
I don’t understand where you get the idea that this is a “lie”. If one’s premiums are ended they are ended, and thus a savings that can be used to pay the higher taxes. As long as the tax burden is structured in such a way as to be less for each party involved than they paid in premiums they will benefit from the program. The companies will also gain from not having to keep administrative staff to deal with their insurance contract and that money should be recaptured to retrain and re-employ those workers as well.
Bernie and Warren to a lesser extent are wanting to see those savings to workers and employers used as an economic stimulus as much as possible, which is why he is including alternative tax plans targeting the wealthy. To make it simple the entire program could be funded by simply capturing what is now spent on total premiums between workers and employers, but that would be a loser politically as the workers would still view their taxes as paying for the healthcare of others.
And companies aren’t going to pass on their savings to employees. So someone needs to prove the “cost savings” thing.
I think you underestimate the freedom of mobility universal coverage not dependent upon employment will offer. Employers are going to be scrambling to retain their workforce without the job anchor of insurance and having “free money” available to provide additional pay and benefits will be their first goto in avoiding wholesale attrition. I don’t see it stopping there either.
They need to get out a Ross Perot whiteboard and show how it works.
I think we are having difficulty communicating across alternate realities, as you are obviously from the reality where “President Perot” existed. In my reality, people don’t vote logically and any attempt to draw politicians into the weeds of details is purposed to lessen their attractiveness, not improve it.
This factor was a huge part of Hillary’s loss to Trump. He simply stated what he wanted to do without any question from anyone about the details, while Hillary went deep in the weeds about policies, being the policy wonk that she is. Warren has the same weakness and Trump will use it just as he did against Hillary. Yes, Trump lied and that is going to make it more difficult for him as he now has a record, but the principle is the same. If you’re “splainin, you’re losing”.
Take note of the fact that Bernie’s targets for higher taxation are those he would likely tax more just because they have too damn much money and use it to subvert our democratic process. He fully understands that taxes can’t “fund” government spending, much less be directed to a particular purpose. Government spending creates money in the private sector and tax collection destroys that money as it enters the government sector and meets the debt that created it.
All taxes are balanced to zero by the debt and all spending is with newly created money, and debt. The balance between spending and collections is reported as a deficit or surplus on the government’s side of the ledger, but an opposite sum is created on the private sector’s side. The red ink of the government is the only source of black ink for the private sector and becomes someone’s assets until it is collected as a federal tax payment.
If the government “balances its budget” it leaves nothing in the economy to store value from commerce to retire private debt or be net saved. It also steals the resources and labor it uses to provision itself by clawing back all payments it makes for them. When viewed from this reality, “paying for” everything we spend on with taxation is not exactly a wise policy, but it is how the average voter relates to their government from their perspective as a “currency user” so it is the standard rhetoric of politicians.
