Government shouldn't outlaw Private Insurance and Democrats know that

[squatz1]

Now that the first Democratic primary has come to a close, we've seen a significant shift in the minds of Democrats relating to a substantial question -- "Should Americans be able to keep their private insurance" and the answer, now, for most Democrats is "Yes."

Bernie is the only person to deviate from this, saying that private health insurance companies should be outlawed. Which I think we all know is never going to happen, but even thinking about the government coming into an industry (with such a large amount of people employed) and telling them that they're no longer needed is appalling. Just think, an entire sector is gone (one that employs hundreds of thousands of Americans) just like that.

If the Government can do a better job with their whole Medicare for all Plan for cheaper, then so be it. More to them, but I don't think the government should outlaw private insurance -- nor should they force them out with regulations, fees, taxes, etc. in a way to make their plan seem better. I'd like to see if the government can compete and if they can then so be it -- if it brings costs down for Americans, then I'm happy.

What does everyone else think?

[bones261]

The current Medicare system has part C, which allows for a participant to have a private insurance company take over their Medicare benefits, (a Medicare advantage plan.) Furthermore, a participant can opt out of part B. ( A participant should have other insurance if they opt for this.) Furthermore, Medicare claims are usually handled by government contractors. (These are private companies.) However, what many of the Democratic candidates are actually pushing resembles this very little. In fact, it appears what they are offering is closer to VA health benefits for all. This program is totally run by the government and like most government run programs is totally inefficient. I'd be all for a "Medicare for all" program if what they offer is actually closer to what Medicare currently offers. However, I am feeling like many democratic candidates are actually pushing for something that I think would be disaster and labeling it "Medicare for all," since Medicare is a popular program, and they are trying to bamboozle their voters.

[Spendulus]

The current Medicare system has part C, which allows for a participant to have a private insurance company take over their Medicare benefits, (a Medicare advantage plan.) Furthermore, a participant can opt out of part B. ( A participant should have other insurance if they opt for this.) Furthermore, Medicare claims are usually handled by government contractors. (These are private companies.) However, what many of the Democratic candidates are actually pushing resembles this very little. In fact, it appears what they are offering is closer to VA health benefits for all. This program is totally run by the government and like most government run programs is totally inefficient. I'd be all for a "Medicare for all" program if what they offer is actually closer to what Medicare currently offers. However, I am feeling like many democratic candidates are actually pushing for something that I think would be disaster and labeling it "Medicare for all," since Medicare is a popular program, and they are trying to bamboozle their voters.

This is a focus on the results, not the initiative.

What they want is to take another 10-25% of peoples' income in taxes.

Then there are the promises.

Then there is what is actually delivered.

Just look at the "takings." They want to take your money. Then say "No."

[coins4commies]

Allowing the people who bear the burden of the costs to opt out of a public system would open the door for them to defund and neglect it because it wouldn't be their health they're neglecting.  Think about it, if everyone's health depends on the public system, everyone has a vested interest in making the system work well.  There can be no workaround. 

If private insurance remained, neglect would be inevitable because the goal of private companies is not to provide the service, but to maximize profits which means provide as little service as possible while collecting as much money as possible. Private insurance companies can profit more by weakening the government system and will have the political power to do just that. 

Of course the government cannot compete.  We don't even want the government to compete.  Thats the whole point. We want them to focus on providing the best service possible instead of tricking people into paying the most possible for the least possible in return (what private companies do)

[Spendulus]

....
If private insurance remained, neglect would be inevitable because the goal of private companies is not to provide the service, but to maximize profits which means provide as little service as possible while collecting as much money as possible. ....

Odd, a lot of public health care systems have a goal of providing as little service as possible while collecting as much money as possible....

[coins4commies]

....
If private insurance remained, neglect would be inevitable because the goal of private companies is not to provide the service, but to maximize profits which means provide as little service as possible while collecting as much money as possible. ....

Odd, a lot of public health care systems have a goal of providing as little service as possible while collecting as much money as possible....

Its not odd.  Its what always happens when they have to compete with private companies.

but even thinking about the government coming into an industry (with such a large amount of people employed) and telling them that they're no longer needed is appalling. Just think, an entire sector is gone (one that employs hundreds of thousands of Americans) just like that.

This is why access to free education/housing and or UBI is important. It gives people a strong safety net until they can find a real job. 

[Spendulus]

....
If private insurance remained, neglect would be inevitable because the goal of private companies is not to provide the service, but to maximize profits which means provide as little service as possible while collecting as much money as possible. ....

Odd, a lot of public health care systems have a goal of providing as little service as possible while collecting as much money as possible....

Its not odd.  Its what always happens when they have to compete with private companies. ...

Who would want private companies to get in the way of corrupt communists?

[coins4commies]

I'll assume that by "corrupt communists" you mean a system that provides everyone with top quality healthcare so I can answer the question.  The answer is the top 5%.  Those who profit off of everyone's health insurance premiums.  If you hold shares of insurance companies, of course you don't want those shares to go to zero and simultaneously have to pay more in taxes.  Its a lose-lose for the super wealthy.  We're talking about people who earn more than 300,000 per year.  

[TECSHARE]

Its a lose-lose for the super wealthy.  We're talking about people who earn more than 300,000 per year.  

LOL. Anyone who earns more than 300k a year is super wealthy. K.

[coins4commies]

Its a lose-lose for the super wealthy.  We're talking about people who earn more than 300,000 per year.  

LOL. Anyone who earns more than 300k a year is super wealthy. K.

Well yeah thats 5%.  This is bad for 5% and good for 95%.     I'm just being honest.  No program or policy benefits everyone. 

[TECSHARE]

Its a lose-lose for the super wealthy.  We're talking about people who earn more than 300,000 per year.  

LOL. Anyone who earns more than 300k a year is super wealthy. K.

Well yeah thats 5%.  This is bad for 5% and good for 95%.     I'm just being honest.  No program or policy benefits everyone. 

You might be honest, while I have my doubts, you are most certainly ignorant. Who do you think is employing the other 95%? What if that guy who makes 300k a year spends $250k in payroll every year? Suddenly this works for the 0%.

[Spendulus]

I'll assume that by "corrupt communists" you mean a system that provides everyone with top quality healthcare so I can answer the question.  The answer is the top 5%.  Those who profit off of everyone's health insurance premiums.  

The hordes of deadbeat civil servants? The corrupt officials that scrape their share of the money before anyone else?

 the super wealthy.  We're talking about people who earn more than 300,000 per year.  

LOL, at current rates that's about 11,250 per month in NY or CA.

Is that enough to buy a house in those areas?

[coins4commies]

I'll assume that by "corrupt communists" you mean a system that provides everyone with top quality healthcare so I can answer the question.  The answer is the top 5%.  Those who profit off of everyone's health insurance premiums.  

The hordes of deadbeat civil servants? The corrupt officials that scrape their share of the money before anyone else?

 the super wealthy.  We're talking about people who earn more than 300,000 per year.  

LOL, at current rates that's about 11,250 per month in NY or CA.

Is that enough to buy a house in those areas?

A blanket system that everyone uses with no qualifiers actually reduces the amount of bureaucracy and red tape.  Less corruption because there is no work to be done in regards to finding out how something will be paid for or by who or for whom. 



And yes.   Its easily enough to buy a house anywhere.   That amount is precisely enough to buy a median home in the most expensive market of San Francisco.    Funny how that works huh?  Its almost as if a lot of thought has been put into coming up with a plan that works for everyone. 

[Spendulus]

....
A blanket system that everyone uses with no qualifiers actually reduces the amount of bureaucracy and red tape.  Less corruption because there is no work to be done in regards to finding out how something will be paid for or by who or for whom. 
....

Corruption is based on available corruptables, and you would like a large pot of money there.

It's obviously a target for taking by those who would do so.

[coins4commies]

You are correct about corruption but wrong about what I would like.  My plan involves reducing the size of the pot and would significantly reduce the amount of money being extracted from the system.

You might be honest, while I have my doubts, you are most certainly ignorant. Who do you think is employing the other 95%? What if that guy who makes 300k a year spends $250k in payroll every year? Suddenly this works for the 0%.

This is an invalid point.  This fake person makes 50k not 300k.  Income taxes are not based on revenue and the fact that you don't know that means you are either intentionally dishonest or way too rich or too poor to be in touch with basic tax concepts.  Besides, most people in that sort of situation described could use small business deductions like property depreciation or smart accounting to report their adjusted gross income to near 0 to pay minimal taxes.  The business isn't doing great.

[squatz1]

I'll assume that by "corrupt communists" you mean a system that provides everyone with top quality healthcare so I can answer the question.  The answer is the top 5%.  Those who profit off of everyone's health insurance premiums.  

The hordes of deadbeat civil servants? The corrupt officials that scrape their share of the money before anyone else?

 the super wealthy.  We're talking about people who earn more than 300,000 per year.  

LOL, at current rates that's about 11,250 per month in NY or CA.

Is that enough to buy a house in those areas?

Enough to buy a house, yes, but you're still going to have it mortgages as you're most likely still going to live out of your means (It's a great American thing that we do here)

After taxes from the Fed and NY though, that amount is going to be much much lower. You're walking away with about $191k after taxes.

You are correct about corruption but wrong about what I would like.  My plan involves reducing the size of the pot and would significantly reduce the amount of money being extracted from the system.

You might be honest, while I have my doubts, you are most certainly ignorant. Who do you think is employing the other 95%? What if that guy who makes 300k a year spends $250k in payroll every year? Suddenly this works for the 0

This is an invalid point.  This fake person makes 50k not 300k.  Income taxes are not based on revenue and the fact that you don't know that means you are either intentionally dishonest or way too rich or too poor to be in touch with basic tax concepts.  Besides, most people in that sort of situation described could use small business deductions like property depreciation or smart accounting to report their adjusted gross income to near 0 to pay minimal taxes.  The business isn't doing great.

I'm confused on what you're trying to touch on here. Are you saying that these small business deductions are leading to people paying no taxes and that's a bad thing? There's a reason for these taxes, and its to incentivize investment and growth. It also allows you to deduct expenses of doing business (which makes sense, as it would never make any sense to pay taxes on your revenue instead of income)

Can you clarify this portion?

[Spendulus]

You are correct about corruption but wrong about what I would like.  My plan involves reducing the size of the pot and would significantly reduce the amount of money being extracted from the system. ....

And "what you would like' is just about as bad an idea as the many time you've stretched or completely ignored the truth in things you have said here.

Your plan involves increasing taxes, so it involves increasing the pot from which corruption is engendered.

I'll assume that by "corrupt communists" you mean a system that provides everyone with top quality healthcare so I can answer the question.  The answer is the top 5%.  Those who profit off of everyone's health insurance premiums.  

The hordes of deadbeat civil servants? The corrupt officials that scrape their share of the money before anyone else?

 the super wealthy.  We're talking about people who earn more than 300,000 per year.  

LOL, at current rates that's about 11,250 per month in NY or CA.

Is that enough to buy a house in those areas?

And yes.   Its easily enough to buy a house anywhere.   That amount is precisely enough to buy a median home in the most expensive market of San Francisco.    Funny how that works huh?  Its almost as if a lot of thought has been put into coming up with a plan that works for everyone.  

Really? The 11,250 is net take home of 300k / year which is what you call "super wealthy." And you consider that "super wealthy?"


I assume you'd agree with the "conservative model" used in the banking industry that the house payment should not exceed 25% of take home income. That'd be $2812 payment including taxes, interest, and insurance, and PMI.

Please show me examples of houses in the most expensive market of San Francisco for which the monthly payment is $2812 or less. Zillow is fine.  Actually, I think you are just making things up again. Median prices in those neighborhoods are 3-5M. Taking the lower number, 3,000,000 and assuming an interest rate of 4.5%, monthly interest paid would be 11,250. To that you must add principal pay down, insurance, taxes, and PMI.

So you are just lying again, and poorly.

I'm seeing the average house in SF running a mortgage of 6-7000 per month, way outside what someone with a take home pay of 11250 could afford.

Maybe you want to reconsider what you consider "super wealthy?"

And that's the reason nobody should pay any attention to your rosy claims about the wonders of communism. So much of what you say is untrue, why should those things you say about communism be any different?

[coins4commies]

You are correct about corruption but wrong about what I would like.  My plan involves reducing the size of the pot and would significantly reduce the amount of money being extracted from the system. ....

And "what you would like' is just about as bad an idea as the many time you've stretched or completely ignored the truth in things you have said here.

Your plan involves increasing taxes, so it involves increasing the pot from which corruption is engendered.

I'll assume that by "corrupt communists" you mean a system that provides everyone with top quality healthcare so I can answer the question.  The answer is the top 5%.  Those who profit off of everyone's health insurance premiums.  

The hordes of deadbeat civil servants? The corrupt officials that scrape their share of the money before anyone else?

 the super wealthy.  We're talking about people who earn more than 300,000 per year.  

LOL, at current rates that's about 11,250 per month in NY or CA.

Is that enough to buy a house in those areas?

And yes.   Its easily enough to buy a house anywhere.   That amount is precisely enough to buy a median home in the most expensive market of San Francisco.    Funny how that works huh?  Its almost as if a lot of thought has been put into coming up with a plan that works for everyone.  

Really? The 11,250 is net take home of 300k / year which is what you call "super wealthy." And you consider that "super wealthy?"


I assume you'd agree with the "conservative model" used in the banking industry that the house payment should not exceed 25% of take home income. That'd be $2812 payment including taxes, interest, and insurance, and PMI.

Please show me examples of houses in the most expensive market of San Francisco for which the monthly payment is $2812 or less. Zillow is fine.  Actually, I think you are just making things up again. Median prices in those neighborhoods are 3-5M. Taking the lower number, 3,000,000 and assuming an interest rate of 4.5%, monthly interest paid would be 11,250. To that you must add principal pay down, insurance, taxes, and PMI.

So you are just lying again, and poorly.

I'm seeing the average house in SF running a mortgage of 6-7000 per month, way outside what someone with a take home pay of 11250 could afford.

Maybe you want to reconsider what you consider "super wealthy?"

And that's the reason nobody should pay any attention to your rosy claims about the wonders of communism. So much of what you say is untrue, why should those things you say about communism be any different?

Public corruption is not the only form of corruption.  

As for your scenarios.  You have switched a lot of things around in your calculations that have thrown everything off.  I will try to break everything down

1. "super wealthy" is a relative term.  These are people who have income in the 95 percentile so they are super wealthy relative to most people.  

2.  I don't agree with what you are calling the "conservative model" because it is not meant to be applied to the typical person and does not apply to the "super wealthy"  in the same way because 75% of the median income leaves an individual with 45000 in other living expenses while much less than 75% of 300,000 is necessary to fulfill other expenses.  The higher your income, the more percentage of your income you can spend.   The most important part of this is that you have changed the actual number.  The number should be based on gross income and you based it on "take home" which makes it significantly lower.  No one uses that.  You snuck that in to make it look like I was the one lying.

A good rule of thumb is that PITI should not exceed 28% of your gross income. However, many lenders let borrowers exceed 30%, and some even let borrowers exceed 40%.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/05/030905.asp
Again, the higher your income, usually the more sense it makes that you can afford to spend a larger percentage of it.  

3.  You used the average home price instead of median home price which again is misleading.  The average home price is a pretty meaningless number that is skewed by ultra high value homes.  If anything, it would be most appropriate to use a "entry level home price" to figure out if someone can afford to buy a home.
https://sf.curbed.com/2019/7/10/20689307/median-home-price-house-sf-san-francisco-2019
Median sale price is 1.7 million. Keep in mind the median home price in the US is $226,000.  
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/San-Francisco-CA/house,condo,land_type/80743196_zpid/20330_rid/0-500000_price/0-1907_mp/globalrelevanceex_sort/38.183688,-122.161789,37.581045,-123.12584_rect/9_zm/0_mmm/
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/San-Francisco-CA/house,condo,land_type/2124214951_zpid/20330_rid/0-500000_price/0-1907_mp/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.374648,-121.978455,36.974032,-125.834656_rect/7_zm/0_mmm/
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,condo,land_type/59792371_zpid/2-_beds/0-900000_price/0-3432_mp/globalrelevanceex_sort/37.853848,-122.351475,37.702973,-122.592487_rect/11_zm/0_mmm/
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,condo,land_type/2121141340_zpid/2-_beds/0-900000_price/0-3432_mp/globalrelevanceex_sort/37.853847,-122.351475,37.702973,-122.592488_rect/11_zm/0_mmm/
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,condo,land_type/89237732_zpid/2-_beds/globalrelevanceex_sort/37.853847,-122.351475,37.702973,-122.592488_rect/11_zm/2_p/0_mmm/

4. This entire sidetrack is a cherry pick in itself because we are discussing an extreme subset of conditions in rare extreme markets.  The overwhelming majority of this tiny fraction of people earning 300,000 would easily afford a home in most markets.  Its all just a distraction and a reach for you to desperately try to prove a point.  

5. Is "no one can afford to buy a house" really even the argument you want to be making on behalf of more expensive healthcare?

[TECSHARE]

You are correct about corruption but wrong about what I would like.  My plan involves reducing the size of the pot and would significantly reduce the amount of money being extracted from the system.

You might be honest, while I have my doubts, you are most certainly ignorant. Who do you think is employing the other 95%? What if that guy who makes 300k a year spends $250k in payroll every year? Suddenly this works for the 0%.

This is an invalid point.  This fake person makes 50k not 300k.  Income taxes are not based on revenue and the fact that you don't know that means you are either intentionally dishonest or way too rich or too poor to be in touch with basic tax concepts.  Besides, most people in that sort of situation described could use small business deductions like property depreciation or smart accounting to report their adjusted gross income to near 0 to pay minimal taxes.  The business isn't doing great.

The point that these are still the employing class is quite a valid point. You act like these people live like royalty, and you want to remove their incentive for working as hard as they do, but they employ a large percentage of the people who make less than them. It is a lot like a food chain in nature. You can't just cut off the top half and expect everything to work out just fine. Also there is the very simple question of what entitles you to the labor and resources of others?

[Spendulus]

....

1. "super wealthy" is a relative term.  These are people who have income in the 95 percentile so they are super wealthy relative to most people.  .....

3.  You used the average home price instead of median home price which again is misleading.  The average home price is a pretty meaningless number that is skewed by ultra high value homes.  If anything, it would be most appropriate to use a "entry level home price" to figure out if someone can afford to buy a home......

So now you are claiming the "super wealthy" can maybe buy an "entry level home" in the SF area by spending 2/3 to 3/4 of their take home pay.

Let's go look at your prior claim. After I said this:

LOL, at current rates that's about 11,250 per month in NY or CA. Is that enough to buy a house in those areas?

You replied:

Its easily enough to buy a house anywhere.   That amount is precisely enough to buy a median home in the most expensive market of San Francisco.    

Well, which is it? The most expensive market or the "average" market? Looks to me like your "super wealthy" is pretty close to poor. And if he follows your advice, he's chained to a ridiculous mortgage forever and likely winds up dead broke.

Why should anyone follow your advice on the wonderful world of communism?

They'd likely find out the hard way you were grossly mistaken or lying.

You said -

This entire sidetrack is a cherry pick in itself because we are discussing an extreme subset of conditions in rare extreme markets.  The overwhelming majority of this tiny fraction of people earning 300,000 would easily afford a home in most markets. Its all just a distraction and a reach for you to desperately try to prove a point. 

It's YOUR ARGUMENT and YOUR PHRASE "Super wealthy." Live with it.