This page was last updated on May 10, 2016.
THINGS THAT DON’T MAKE SENSE DEPT; Carl Davidson; Facebook; May 7, 2016.
You can learn more about BCR’s leftster management here. “Leftster” is the combination of leftist and gangster, inspired by the left-originated “bankster.”
On his Facebook page, Carl Davidson (KD) of Beaver County Reds (BCR) wrote, “THINGS THAT DON’T MAKE SENSE DEPT: I could never figure out why businesses that offered health care as a benefit to their workers could rarely get behind Bernie’s Medicare for All. It would take the burden on paying and managing health care costs off of them. They would still contribute to a single-payer tax fund, but it would be less because it would be spread out more, and all the hassle would be gone. I think, for example, Detroit has a hard time competing with auto makers making cars in single-payer countries because nearly $1000 in health care costs are built into every US car. All I could come up with is they’re afraid too many people would come to like solutions that opened the door to socialism, so they would oppose it for that reason, even if it meant cutting off their nose to spite their face.”
Please read my paper “Healthcare.”
Since KD has 50+ years of experience writing pieces like this, I have a hard time believing he “could never figure out why businesses … could rarely get behind Bernie’s Medicare for All.” If this were true, why didn’t KD speak with these business owners to learn their reasoning? Instead, KD came up with a self-serving hypothesis in which business owners were so ideology-driven they knowingly took detrimental positions “even if it meant cutting off their nose to spite their face.”
Please, I beg readers to read the comment thread of “THINGS THAT DON’T MAKE SENSE DEPT.” The “discussion” represents an awesome entertaining and educational window into how lefties view the world, themselves, and their opposition.
I have to give lefties credit for chutzpah. They blow up the private-sector delivery of goods and services (medical care in this case) with government policies [tax-deductible (for the employer) and tax-free (for the employee) employer-based healthcare insurance] and programs (Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP, etc.), then claim ever more government interference is the cure. When the increased interference inevitably doesn’t work and actually makes things worse, leftists blame consumers, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and so on. For example, you may recall in 2009 President Obama falsely charged doctors were unnecessarily removing tonsils for the money and were raking in all kinds of big bucks for amputations in lieu of treating their patients’ diabetes. The cure? More and more government control of medical care.
Even though it desperately wants to believe in BS’ Medicare for All, Politifact had to concede “We found that it’s possible the middle class could see savings, but experts disagreed on whether Sanders’ plan pays for itself, based on what he’s laid out so far. The plan seems to rely on the most optimistic scenario for cost savings and efficiency. … He hasn’t released a full plan yet.” That’s why you’ll find the BS “Medicare for All: Leaving No One Behind” pages don’t cite any references for the claims made.
BS’ government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly would make the government the de facto owners, and doctors and nurses would become de facto government employees. You should note some nationalized/socialized healthcare system proponents object to this terminology (No kidding!) because most proponents don’t want their proposals associated with words like communism, fascism, and monopoly. It’s splitting hairs to say which of these approaches is worse. The bottom line is, “He who pays the piper calls the tune,” and BS’ government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly becomes the only payer.
Below follows my first-pass review of BS’ “Medicare for All: Leaving No One Behind.”
“It is time for this country to join them and fulfill the legacy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson and other great Democrats.
“Under Bernie’s plan, Americans will benefit from the freedom and security that comes with finally separating health insurance from employment.”
[RWC] As you read this review, remember the BS “Medicare for All: Leaving No One Behind” pages don’t cite any references for the claims made.
BS hopes we don’t know FDR’s “legacy” was employer-based medical insurance. So which is it? Is “employer-based medical insurance” an FDR “legacy” or a policy that impinges on our “freedom and security?”
BS is right “Americans [would] benefit from the freedom and security that comes with finally separating health insurance from employment,” but his “solution” is to leap from the frying pan into the fire. What “freedom and security” results from handing your medical care to the government?
Regarding “Americans will benefit from the freedom,” this sounds like a local lefty who claimed “[Y]ou would be more free, never having to think about paying for healthcare on your own ever again.” This nonsense reminds me of Newspeak in Nineteen Eighty-Four and the Party’s slogan, “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.” I cover the liberty aspect in more detail here.
“As a patient, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card. Bernie’s plan means no more copays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges.”
[RWC] Why would we need “insurance cards” if Medicare for All is really Medicare for All?
“By moving to an integrated system, the government will finally have the ability to stand up to drug companies and negotiate fair prices for the American people collectively.”
[RWC] “Integrated system” is lefty-speak for a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly. Why is it okay for the feds to run a monopoly but not “Bob’s Widgets?”
How can “fair prices” be negotiated with a government monopoly? This is a good way to drive pharmaceutical businesses out of business, to other countries, and/or reduce development of new medicines.
“The typical middle class family would save over $5,000 under this plan.”
[RWC] If this sounds familiar, it should. During his 2008 campaign, then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) said, “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year. … And we won’t do all this twenty years from now, or ten years from now. We’ll do it by the end of my first term as president of the United States.” How did that work out? Does BS’ $5,000 include Mr. Obama’s $2,500, or is it on top of Mr. Obama’s $2,500? <g> Fool me once, …
For my personal experience regarding medical insurance premiums, please go here.
“Businesses would save over $9,400 a year in health care costs for the average employee. The average annual cost to the employer for a worker with a family who makes $50,000 a year would go from $12,591 to just $3,100.”
[RWC] Like Obamacare saved families $2,500 per year?
“A 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers.
“A 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households. This year, a family of four taking the standard deduction can have income up to $28,800 and not pay this tax under this plan. A family of four making $50,000 a year taking the standard deduction would only pay $466 this year.”
[RWC] More BS BS. Note how BS refers to your healthcare coverage payment as a “premium,” not a tax. You may recall the Supreme Court’s first opinion saving Obamacare (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius) required the SC to rule the fee, penalty, etc. was a tax in one place but not in another.
There is no employer portion of payroll taxes and there never was. Contrary to folklore, 100% of Medicare and Socialist Security taxes come out of the employee’s pocket. The myth employers pay half is simply accounting sleight of hand mandated by law to understate the actual impact on the employee. You can read the details in my paper “Socialist Security and Medicare.” The same will be true for the BS “health care premium paid by employers.”
Assuming the BS “6.2 percent income-based health care premium” includes the current 2.9% Medicare tax, that portion of your medical insurance tax will increase by 114%. On top of that goes the “2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households.” Remember, the 6.2% tax is on your gross, pretax wage income and the 2.2% is applied to one of your Form-1040 incomes. Further, while the 6.2% tax is “only” on your gross, pretax wage income (W-2 form), the 2.2% tax appears to be on all income (capital gains, dividends, interest, wages, Socialist Security benefits, etc.).
“Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work.”
[RWC] BS fails to mention short-term (held less than one full year) capital gains are already taxed “the same as income from work.” Though the criteria differ, the same is true for dividend income. The important thing to remember about dividend income is it’s taxed twice. Since dividends are paid from after-tax income, the first taxing of dividends is via the corporation’s income taxes. U.S. marginal income tax rates from 34% to 39% kick in at only $75,000. Of course, corporations are subject to a plethora of taxes by a plethora taxing jurisdictions. By the time a shareholder receives a dividend check, his dividend has already received quite a haircut at a tax rate substantially greater than his personal tax rate. The second taxing is via your 1040 tax return.
Please read the Tax Foundation’s paper “Why Capital Gains are taxed at a Lower Rate.”
“Savings from health tax expenditures.”
[RWC] “Tax expenditures” – and “spending in the tax code” and “tax breaks” - are euphemisms for provisions of the tax code lefties don’t like. For example, the ability to deduct mortgage interest on your 1040 is “spending in the tax code” or a “tax expenditure” if you’re “rich.” You can get more details in my review of “Growing pains.”
“Revenue raised: $310 billion per year. Several tax breaks that subsidize health care (health-related ‘tax expenditures’) would become obsolete and disappear under a single-payer health care system, saving $310 billion per year.
“Most importantly, health care provided by employers is compensation that is not subject to payroll taxes or income taxes under current law. This is a significant tax break that would effectively disappear under this plan because all Americans would receive health care through the new single-payer program instead of employer-based health care.”
[RWC] Wages and “health care provided by employers” are both compensation, making them both business expenses that reduce the employer’s taxable income. If it’s a “tax break” to count “employer-based health care” as a business expense, isn’t also a “tax break” to do the same for wages? What about things like vacation days, sick days, maternity leave, paternity leave, life insurance, and so on?
Did you notice the “tax expenditure” not mentioned? Employer-based medical insurance is tax-free to the employee, as are things like vacation days, sick days, maternity leave, paternity leave, life insurance, and so on.
In Peace, Friendship, Community, Cooperation, and Solidarity. <g>
© 2004-2016 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.