Dems take back the House? Be careful what you wish for...

[Kirkrapine]

Medicare for All presents no problems a tax hike on the rich can't solve. Likewise with SS.

 

[CandiCame]

So 'bout $1000/year per person. Or did I displace a zero?

Don't math at them. It's a waste of time.

 

[DMBFFF]

So 'bout $1000/year per person. Or did I displace a zero?

You did, though the $32.6 trillion still sounds kind of high—I'm not sure the annual GDP of the US is that high.




Edit for CandiCame:

Can you count suckas?!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3qPiy1kYhQ
1:58
1,169 views

 

[BotanyBoy]

Don't math at them. It's a waste of time.

LOL said the resident mathematician

 

[TalkRadio1]

It'll be fun watching the Congressional Democrats jockeying for power.

 

[Adre]

I now have a Dem rep in South Carolina! Didn’t see that coming.

 

[HisArpy]

Don't math at them. It's a waste of time.

Maf iz hard...

326,000,000,000,000 / 10 = 326,000,000,000 per year That's 326 Billion per year for the ENTIRE POPULATION of the US

326,000,000,000 / 330,000,000 = ~98,787 EACH.

Per year.

So the "average" family of mom, dad, and 2.3 kids will be paying (Drum roll pleez):

424,788 per year.

Yeah, that'll work.

 

[TalkRadio1]

"So, how do I get an apartment? Those little things are very real." - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

No love for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from the DC Dems?
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1489224

 

[Kirkrapine]

"So, how do I get an apartment? Those little things are very real." - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

No love for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from the DC Dems?
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1489224

Well, that's her problem, and she'll solve it. All we need to be concerned about is how she'll vote.

 

[TalkRadio1]

Democrats load "subpoena cannon" with 85+ Trump targets

House Democrats plan to probe every aspect of President Trump’s life and work, from family business dealings to the Space Force to his tax returns to possible "leverage" by Russia, top Democrats tell us.

What they're saying: One senior Democratic source said the new majority, which takes power in January, is preparing a "subpoena cannon," like an arena T-shirt cannon.

https://www.axios.com/house-democra...ion-cf3ed351-ff11-4498-89f4-cee588145198.html

 

[Kirkrapine]

https://www.axios.com/house-democra...ion-cf3ed351-ff11-4498-89f4-cee588145198.html

'Bout effin' time!

 

[TalkRadio1]

New SC Democrat won’t back Pelosi ‘under any circumstance’

I now have a Dem rep in South Carolina! Didn’t see that coming.

COLUMBIA, S.C.-- South Carolina's newest congressional Democrat is standing by his pledge not to support Nancy Pelosi for speaker of the House.

Congressman-elect Joe Cunningham's campaign confirms to The Associated Press that he is "a man of his word and will keep the promise he made to voters and will not vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker under any circumstance," Cunningham spokesman Tyler Jones told The Associated Press.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/south-carolina/article221468415.html

 

[Kirkrapine]

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/south-carolina/article221468415.html

Now, why would he have promised voters that? The identity of the next Speaker is usually not a campaign issue.

 

[DeluxAuto]

The timeline is interesting for the midterm.
First, the Pubs said they won.
Then they said they only lost a few.
Then they said, Dems won, but now what.
The record number of women and minorities elected bodes well for the Dems.

 

[Liar]

Maf iz hard...

326,000,000,000,000 / 10 = 326,000,000,000 per year That's 326 Billion per year for the ENTIRE POPULATION of the US

326,000,000,000 / 330,000,000 = ~98,787 EACH.

Per year.

So the "average" family of mom, dad, and 2.3 kids will be paying (Drum roll pleez):

424,788 per year.

Yeah, that'll work.

Um.

326,000,000,000 divided by 330,000,000 is not 98,787. It's 987.87.

Or Excel is lying to me.

I literally copypasted the numbers in from your post.

Am I missing something here?

 

[TalkRadio1]

Will the Dems choose Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House?

Or will they choose Barbara Lee?

 

[TalkRadio1]

In the week since the midterm election, Democratic lawmakers have vowed to launch inquiries into publicly traded companies with ties to President Donald Trump and his top lieutenants, including Deutsche Bank, Boeing, and AT&T. They plan to seek answers directly from pharmaceutical CEOs on the cost of prescription drugs. And they want to turn up the pressure on consumer-facing companies like Wells Fargo, Equifax and payday lenders.

"To appeal to the Democratic base right now requires them to at least posture as though they're going to meaningfully contest corporate power," said David Segal, executive director of Demand Progress, a liberal advocacy group.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/13/dem...w-they-want-to-take-on-corporate-america.html

 

[Luk]

Maf iz hard...

326,000,000,000,000 / 10 = 326,000,000,000 per year That's 326 Billion per year for the ENTIRE POPULATION of the US

326,000,000,000 / 330,000,000 = ~98,787 EACH.

Per year.

So the "average" family of mom, dad, and 2.3 kids will be paying (Drum roll pleez):

424,788 per year.

Yeah, that'll work.

Um.

326,000,000,000 divided by 330,000,000 is not 98,787. It's 987.87.

Or Excel is lying to me.

I literally copypasted the numbers in from your post.

Am I missing something here?

Like everything else, Timmy sucks at math and certainly does not Excel.

 

[TalkRadio1]

Boston state Rep.-elect Nika Elugardo says the Dem Party is ‘straight-up racist'

Some of the newly-elected Democratic women in Massachusetts say they had to work against their own party to secure their wins.

State Reps.-elect Nika Elugardo and Liz Miranda and Suffolk County District Attorney-elect Rachael Rollins, speaking on a panel on WGBH’s “Basic Black” last Friday, detailed how the party highlighted white candidates in its literature and boosted their primary election opponents as they discussed their winning campaign strategies.

Elugardo went so far as to call the party “straight-up racist.”

“What needs to be said in a straight forward way is that the Democratic Party is straight-up racist,” Elugardo told host Callie Crossley. “The structural racism that we’re talking about dismantling is in the party, and this is one of the reasons why it’s frustrating to be standing up on a stage at a Democratic Party behind speeches being made about Republicans dividing the country.”

https://www.boston.com/news/politic...-elugardo-democratic-party-straight-up-racist

 

[HisArpy]

Um.

326,000,000,000 divided by 330,000,000 is not 98,787. It's 987.87.

Or Excel is lying to me.

I literally copypasted the numbers in from your post.

Am I missing something here?

I did make an error in the original number. I input 326 trillion instead of 32.6 trillion. So, with my calculator:

32,600,000,000,000 / 10 = 3,260,000,000,000 (3.26 Trillion)

3,260,000,000,000 / 330,000,000 = 9,878.78 (per person)

That's (I hope) error free.

Mom, dad and 2.3 kids * 9,878.78 = 22,721.212121 PER YEAR. And the likelyhood is that the 32.6 Trillion dollar estimate is wrong and that the true cost is probably much higher. Maybe twice as costly.

 

[Liar]

I did make an error in the original number. I input 326 trillion instead of 32.6 trillion. So, with my calculator:

32,600,000,000,000 / 10 = 3,260,000,000,000 (3.26 Trillion)

3,260,000,000,000 / 330,000,000 = 9,878.78 (per person)

That's (I hope) error free.

Mom, dad and 2.3 kids * 9,878.78 = 22,721.212121 PER YEAR. And the likelyhood is that the estimate is wrong and that the true cost is probably much higher. Maybe twice as costly.

Seems 'bout right.

I employed my Mad Wikipedia Skillz (TM), and found that OECD says the annual health care expediture per capita in the us was $9,892 in 2016.

If that is paid with tax money via gubmint buerocracy or with premiums via private insurance buerocracy doesn't seem to change much. It's not $32.3 trillion of added cost. It's $32.3 trillion of existing cost, paid for by the American people, as it always was, but in a different way.

Whether that is a low or high estimate, is pure speculation. But feel free to speculate away.

 

[HisArpy]

Seems 'bout right.

I employed my Mad Wikipedia Skillz (TM), and found that OECD says the annual health care expediture per capita in the us was $9,892 in 2016.

If that is paid with tax money via gubmint buerocracy or with premiums via private insurance buerocracy doesn't seem to change much. It's not $32.3 trillion of added cost. It's $32.3 trillion of existing cost, paid for by the American people, as it always was, but in a different way.

Whether that is a low or high estimate, is pure speculation. But feel free to speculate away.

It's not the per capita cost that's the problem, though I dispute the numbers because not everyone has HC and thus the averaging of the cost is skewed since we don't know what the costs of those without HC actually are. They could be less. Or they could be a lot more.

Be that as it may, my current health care plan costs less than half that amount. In addition, I can choose to go without buying HC and pay out of my own pocket while hoping that nothing catastrophic comes along.

However, with the gov taking over the industry, I no longer have that luxury of going without or continuing on with paying my currently lower costs. Instead, I get to pay the fixed cost under the estimate with the possibility that it may in fact be double that amount even if I don't use my HC at all.

In essence I'm getting screwed so that someone else with higher medical expenses can join in with those screwing me. And there's no guarantee that I'll have to put up with the gov going balls deep just once in my pocketbook.

 

[Liar]

It's not the per capita cost that's the problem, though I dispute the numbers because not everyone has HC and thus the averaging of the cost is skewed since we don't know what the costs of those without HC actually are. They could be less. Or they could be a lot more.

Be that as it may, my current health care plan costs less than half that amount. In addition, I can choose to go without buying HC and pay out of my own pocket while hoping that nothing catastrophic comes along.

However, with the gov taking over the industry, I no longer have that luxury of going without or continuing on with paying my currently lower costs. Instead, I get to pay the fixed cost under the estimate with the possibility that it may in fact be double that amount even if I don't use my HC at all.

In essence I'm getting screwed so that someone else with higher medical expenses can join in with those screwing me. And there's no guarantee that I'll have to put up with the gov going balls deep just once in my pocketbook.

What I'm saying is, your current cost is not actually lower. It's just spread out.

Your current health insurance plan costs half of that, yes.

Add to that potential co-payments.

Add to that what you already pay in taxes for the VA, medicare, medicaid, ACA subsidies, and various other already tax funded healthcare expenditures.

Add to that employers' health insurance costs, eventually passed on, as all business costs, to consumers.

That's what you actually pay, in total. You just don't see it in one place. But it's there.

A single payer system would shift all that to one spot - taxes. That is all. Whether that is good or bad from a moral point of view or have poisitive or negative consecuences can be discussed. But it is what it is.

True, you wouldn't be able to opt out of that one part of it that you can opt out of today if you feel like living on the edge. But you also can't opt out of paying for the community police protection, just becaue you have a private security detail.

So...yeah. End point: Biiiiig scaaaary numbers, wooo. But when one actually takes a step back and look at them, it's about the same numbers as it always was.

 

[HisArpy]

What I'm saying is, your current cost is not actually lower. It's just spread out.

Your current health insurance plan costs half of that, yes.

Add to that potential co-payments.

Add to that what you already pay in taxes for the VA, medicare, medicaid, ACA subsidies, and various other already tax funded healthcare expenditures.

Add to that employers' health insurance costs, eventually passed on, as all business costs, to consumers.

That's what you actually pay, in total. You just don't see it in one place. But it's there.

A single payer system would shift all that to one spot - taxes. That is all. Whether that is good or bad from a moral point of view or have poisitive or negative consecuences can be discussed. But it is what it is.

True, you wouldn't be able to opt out of that one part of it that you can opt out of today if you feel like living on the edge. But you also can't opt out of paying for the community police protection, just becaue you have a private security detail.

So...yeah. End point: Biiiiig scaaaary numbers, wooo. But when one actually takes a step back and look at them, it's about the same numbers as it always was.

There's the difference. Actual vs potential.

What single payer does is shift the actual cost of HC for sick individuals onto healthy individuals. There is no risk pool, it's a straight "you're going to pay for my shit" burden. It's free shit for those who don't take care of themselves, or who are physically challenged, by shifting the actual cost onto those who aren't sick or disabled.

That's not insurance, it's a financial gangbang without lube.

 

[Liar]

There's the difference. Actual vs potential.

What single payer does is shift the actual cost of HC for sick individuals onto healthy individuals. There is no risk pool, it's a straight "you're going to pay for my shit" burden. It's free shit for those who don't take care of themselves, or who are physically challenged, by shifting the actual cost onto those who aren't sick or disabled.

That's not insurance, it's a financial gangbang without lube.

Um, shifting the actual cost of HC for sick individuals onto healthy individuals, is literally what health insurance, and a risk pool, is. A lot of people paying in, so that the few who are unfortunate, can withdraw. Single payer is literally the biggest possible risk pool that can exist within the borders of a nation.

If you are worried that a lack of co-payments would make people not "take care of themselves" because the health care is free...

a. ...what?
b. No, seriously, what?
c. If anything, it should encourage people to seek preventive healthcare, which is relatively cheap, instead of putting it off, thus minimizing the need for the much more expensive catastrophic care later.
c. Co-payments can be built into a single-payer system.