Wait, by their own math we can get most of the list with the 5% wealth tax? Fucking sold. It would cover everything but Medicare for all and student debt. Give me that 32 hour work week.
It covers more than that, once you recover enough to actually fight a legal battle against the 1% they can pursue tax cheats and tax fraud where recovery bumps up to making five dollars for every dollar spent pursuing the debt. It’s take huge chunks out of the national debt every decade kinda money.
They’re also claiming that 90% of the proposal is Medicare for All. So everything else in the list would be $3550 per household per year if their claim of $35500 per year is to be believed.
I don’t know that they’re making the argument they think they’re making
And I’ll hazard a guess that those 1000 billionaires will still be billionaires. This is a no fucking brainer.
Not that billionaires should exist, but there will actually be essentially zero impact if we tax them appropriately, so why not
but… but… line go up not down!
And another billion dollar boat!
The sick part is that what is being asked is actually so inconsequential to the billionaires that not only will their line still go up, if we change nothing else but this, even wealth inequality itself will still keep going up, it will just go up at a slightly less supersonic speed. They don’t even care about the amount of money we’re asking for, they care about the precedent that if we can take this from them, what’s stopping us from taking everything from them.
That’s what they’re actually scared of. That’s why they resist this so hard. That’s why they don’t bend. They think that once the people slip out of their stranglehold they will get a taste of billionaire blood and they will like it.
And they might be right.
That and the fact that they can’t extract profits from services which have been made public. If we get free healthcare there are a bunch of
leechesinsurance execs that will be out of a job.
Damn, that’s a lot less than I thought it would cost for everyone to have equal access to healthcare.
If it’s that cheap, why are we denying healthcare to anyone?
Because the United States is an open-air labor camp, and medical care is a stick to make us work.
Also keeps competition down. I know more than one family where one parent is working a shit job just so their business-owning partner can have medical benefits.
I see it the same way:
No work, no healthcare, no insulin
Cruelty
deleted by creator
Manageable conceptual dollars if you want some basic fun math, look up the cost of the US Army (only army mind you) apache program, and then pull the numbers for the cost of Snap benefits for the entire country.
It is a priorities issue, not a money issue. I can’t be more clear in this; the government “for the people, by the people” no longer gives a single solitary fuck about any person. It is an oligarchy, kleptocracy, corporate-ocracy pick a name. That is not my opinion, it’s an observable, demonstrable, objectively true statement.
Military and government sponsored billionaire class.
Take it one step further: money is nothing but information about the priorities a society places on distribution of material and labor. Framed this way the perennial question of “where will the money come from” is absurd-the money comes from the consensus that we should do a thing.
profit issue imho. if the owning classes could profit and gain as much hegemony from healthcare and benefits as they do with a relatively easy “blow up brown children” weapons system… we’d have healthcare.
the problem is capitalism
There’s no way these numbers are real, right? I’m absolutely in favor of a wealth tax and the DSA in general; but it can’t possibly add $355,000 in value to each family
That’s the thing about wealth inequality numbers: they are so incomprehensibly large that you need Carl Sagan to explain them to you.
For instance:
Imagine a Cosmic Financial Calendar, where all the money in the planet is distributed along the calendar the same way it is distributed among the population. By June 1st, you would have seen 50% of the wealth, but to start seeing the top 32.5% of the wealth, you’d have to wait until December 28th at 8:22 am.
I just wish bellbottoms and turtlenecks would come back into style.
[Edit: I’ll stand by the 12/28 claim, but I think the June 1st doesn’t make a lot of sense.]
Yeah; I guess you’re right. It feels crazy that a wealth tax on a small number of families could net each family $35k per year in value. But I guess that’s a testament to the degree of wealth inequality we have
$355,000 per family over a ten-year period.
Still good
The site isn’t saying it will “add”, its saying it will “cost”…
For a start, that is over 10 years, so annually it’s a tenth of that (according to the site’s lies)
FYI, this post has been reported for a misleading headline.
I’m not particularly too invested in parsing correspondences from the American administration, so if you think this post should be removed, downvote this comment, if you think it should stay, ignore it completely. :)
The headline and the post are saying the same thing from opposite perspectives. The headline is saying the government will be spending $X providing Medicare for all. The post is saying “all” will receive $X worth of care.
It’s a little clunky phrasing, but it’s not actually misleading.
$355k? That’s not even the amount they (billionaires; boo) spend to rent a twelve year old by the half-hour.
Isn’t the website saying it will COST $355,000 per family? I mean, this site is stupid but… Can we all not read?
Edit: yo @sanitation@lemmy.today , can you clarify? Cos right now idk how your post got titled this way and I think its misinforming like 90% of the commenters
It does say that. But the reverse is also true. The government is spending that money; someone is receiving the benefits of that spending. Since we’re talking about “medicaid for all”, the beneficiaries are “anyone who needs medical care”. Which means, we will receive, on average, $355000 worth of care, per household, over a 10-year period.
Of course, nothing of this analysis is in any way reliable. The per-household cost of health care with commercial insurance is far higher than the cost of health care with Medicare. Higher still is the cost of forgoing medical treatment due to financial concerns.
That’s what I read out of it, and I’m neither murican nor native speaker.
But it still sounded like a bunch of dodo-poo to scare the average dildo. “That’s official: socialism bad!”
335k each??
Well, it’s kind of irrelevant, since the actual website is claiming that it’s a cost, not a payment. For some reason OP titled it in a way that is the exact opposite of what the site claims.
When I spend $20 on a pizza, I receive $20 worth of pizza.
When the government spends $355,000 on medical care for the public, the public receives $355,000 worth of medical care.
OP’s claim is just the flip side of the White House claim. By not having the government spend that money, we are taking on that $355,000 burden individually, rather than collectively through a risk pool.
I was thinking that’s how OP meant it, but that still doesn’t match the sites claim. And yes, I know the site is stupid and wrong, but its not self-owning. The site is saying that the 355k is paid by individual families, and that cost is clearly greater than buying private insurance would cost anyways, and just generally untenable for most people regardless of the other benefits. So the site is saying “you’ll be forced to pay 35k each year”. It denies the idea that taxes on billionaires would cover the cost. So it is exactly claiming that we take the burden on individually.
The website is internally consistent, it’s just wrong with respect to reality. But it doesn’t contradict itself.
If the government is going to be paying $355k for everyone to get healthcare, then everyone is going to receive $355k worth of care.
If the White House numbers are right, and we aren’t currently paying and receiving $355k for care, then either the government is incredibly wasteful, or private insurance is incredibly under-treating us.
Ludicrous is the idea that care costs will rise when the government replaces commercial, for-profit health insurance.
I’m more wondering why it doesn’t say each
Probably because it’s all made up numbers and they assume that anyone looking at it and taking it seriously has no numeric literacy. And sadly, looking at the comments in this post, it seems that even people criticizing the site have somehow misunderstood it entirely. So I guess they were right about that
I can’t be THIS erect at work. So I’ll need to read the rest at home
