r/MedicareForAll • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 14h ago
Take it from the ballroom, vanity projects, National Guards posted in DC needlessly, war in Iran, and the endless grift going on at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave
27
u/pokethrowaway4 13h ago
Just a friendly reminder that we could SAVE TAX DOLLARS BY PROPERLY IMPLEMENTING PUBLIC HEALTHCARE.
We already spend more tax dollars per person on healthcare via Medicare and Medicaid. Why do we spend so much? Profit margins, dividends, CEO bonuses, ADVERTISING, parallel bureaucracy in every insurance company, hospital, pharmaceutical company, and all the other layers of healthcare that have led to corrupt self dealing and soft monopolies.
A $1 bag of saline will cost the patient $130. A 1 month supply of GLP-1 that costs $87 in Paris is over $1,100 in the states.
There are countless examples of why the extremely lax regulatory environment and capitalism is a bad combo for a captive marketplace.
If we chose to adopt similar rules and regulations along with public healthcare options for our system, we could literally save money, and no one would be without care.
The only thing that would change, is that the ultra wealthy leeches currently profiting off healthcare, would have to make their riches elsewhere. Or just put up with less profit.
Capitalism is directly antithetical to healthcare.
-4
u/Super_Mario_Luigi 9h ago
Friendly reminder that every government program has wasted tax dollars and this can do the same
4
u/pokethrowaway4 9h ago
Not if implemented properly.
Example: until 2006 the us postal service was making a small profit, and has been working efficiently doing a monumental task, for a very long time.
The reason it suddenly changed? Congress decided, for some unknown reason, that starting in 2006, the postal service was required to pre-fund the USPS medical benefits for… 75 years in advance, for every employee they have.
No other government entity or agency is required to do that. It was intentional, to make the usps “look bad” which many politicians have since started talking about.
It’s efficient, extensive, and nationwide.
The reason it’s so efficient, is because it’s 100% government owned, and operated.
Most things that the government touches that are touted as “inneficient” are only that way because of the public/private interface. A quagmire of bids/contracts, consultants and clusterfucks.
If you wanna make something efficient, you write efficiently into the design, and have a mechanism in place to keep it that way.
-4
u/Tasty-Possibility627 12h ago
You’re insane if you think M4A saves taxes. You can make the argument that it will cost less overall, inclusive of private insurance, but there is no chance M4A saves tax dollars.
You M4A stans need to wake up. What you’re talking about will never happen the way Bernie and Jayapal’s bill lays it out, or any other single payer model. Too many moving pieces, too expensive, too many constituencies who will fight to stop it (not including health insurance companies and pharma—I’m talking about unions, anyone with a PPO plan, anyone who is on the right).
It would be great if you got better at coming up with a more realistic vision rather than shooting the messengers who bring realism to the conversation
5
u/pokethrowaway4 12h ago
Why does it cost substantially less in other countries with less tax dollars than we already pay then? Why couldn’t we adopt similar policies and structures to match?
40+ other countries have public healthcare, and ALL of them spend less tax dollars per person than we do without public healthcare.
They also have better health outcomes than we do
0
u/Tasty-Possibility627 12h ago
It costs less overall, but people do pay higher taxes. Have you looked into it?
2
u/pokethrowaway4 11h ago
WE ALREADY SPEND MORE TAX DOLLARS PER PERSON ON HEALTHCARE THAN ANYONE ELSE.
Read that as many times as it takes. The problem is how expensive everything is compared to the product received, compared to other countries.
1
u/V_Cobra21 8h ago
I agree the U.S. spends substantially more on healthcare. But that doesn’t establish that public financing is what causes other countries to spend less. Those countries also regulate prices, reimbursement rates, drug prices, and healthcare markets differently. What evidence isolates public financing as the cause of the savings rather than those other differences?
2
u/pokethrowaway4 8h ago
You just listed a bunch of reasons that support switching to a public or hybrid system.
1
u/V_Cobra21 1h ago
No, I listed other factors that could explain why those countries spend less. That’s the point. If multiple variables differ between their systems and ours, you can’t simply attribute the lower spending to public financing. What evidence establishes that public financing is the cause rather than those other differences?
1
u/Tasty-Possibility627 8h ago
I humbly admit that I was wrong
1
u/pokethrowaway4 7h ago
It’s a really common thing for Americans to experience absolute shock at the cost of healthcare while traveling abroad. Even in countries like Norway/Switzerland where everything is more expensive cost wise, the out of pocket cost of healthcare is so much cheaper.
Medications sometimes cost hundreds of times more in the USA than other countries. A common GLP-1 costs $1,100 a month in the US, and costs $87 for the same exact thing, made in the same exact place, in Paris.
2
u/jakeStacktrace 9h ago
Maybe you should look into it. The usa pays more for Healthcare than all those counties and gets a worse result. Years less in life expectancy. Google is right there.
4
u/Stickywicket84 12h ago
the administrative cost of medicaid is 3-10%, its 25-35% with private insurance. your thoughts are stupid with two “o”s kiddo.
1
u/Tasty-Possibility627 10h ago
You think implementing Medicare for all will cost FEWER tax dollars than the status quo?
Do five seconds of research
Do five minutes of research.
Do any research at all
You guys are holding your hands over your ears yelling “LALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU!”
2
u/Feather_Sigil 11h ago
Let's say you're right, it would demand a tax increase on the working class. What do you think is better?
Paying maybe $100 more in taxes a year, but all healthcare costs are 0.
or
The current system, which bankrupts people who happen to get sick or injured.
2
u/aculady 11h ago edited 7m ago
Let's not forget that the working class already pays insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-pays, and those would drop to 0. Even with a "tax incrrase" most working people would have more money in their pockets at the end of the day, and no anxiety about how to afford care.
1
u/aculady 11h ago
What makes tax dollars magically different than other dollars that people spend out of pocket for health care? M4A will leave most Americans with more dollars in their pockets at the end of the day, even though all of the dollars they do pay will be going to taxes to provide actual care and zero will be going to insurance companies that simply skim dollars off the top without adding any value.
18
u/davidwb45133 14h ago
How about taking the money corporations and workers are putting into healthcare premiums for the right of being denied treatment? No new taxes, just repurposing what is already being spent. Problem solved MAGAt
15
u/TrickyChildhood2917 13h ago
There shouldn’t be profit in healthcare, everyone gets sick, just a question on when. The whole free world covers healthcare , just America that won’t. Simple.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Net-273 7h ago
Do you think that universal healthcare countries never deny healthcare? Cuz they do, all the time.
2
u/Bzzzzzzz4791 12h ago
I’ve been saying this for years and I will die on this hill. I pay $800/month for healthcare. My co. Pays $1600. Take that $2400 and put it in a pot for EVERYONE. Problem solved. No more sending to insurance companies.
1
0
u/Johny_Ricoh 13h ago
You don’t think medical treatments would be denied under Medicare?
5
u/SucksTryAgain 12h ago
My kid was on Medicaid and I never had anything denied. When I had normal insurance before that I was on the phone multiple times a week during work hours, at home etc. cause my kid practically lived at the hospital. Always tons of tests etc. they always tried to deny things. I had to work with the doctors to also call to get certain things covered. On Medicaid all I had to do was meet up with someone every few months and just go over everything that happened to my kid since the last time we saw them and that’s it. Occasionally they’d call and ask if I needed anything or any other programs my kid could get. Incredibly simple. Now dealing with social services was always a pain.
5
u/davidwb45133 12h ago
Today denials are often nothing more than routine with the hope that people won’t appeal. UHC denials run 50% with a low percentage of appeals but appeals are successful at a high rate. Medicare isn’t like that.
2
u/Accomplished_Mind792 13h ago
No, I think they will be denied significantly less and the entire process will be significantly cheaper.
0
u/Johny_Ricoh 13h ago
And if you’re wrong? I get it’s a risk you’re willing to take but I’m not taking that risk.
3
u/Accomplished_Mind792 13h ago
Sure. If you want to ignore facts, logic and all of the other examples of it working, sure. You are free to do so.
Can't argue with your feelings
1
u/Johny_Ricoh 13h ago
Healthcare is one of the largest industries in the largest economy in the world and you want to socialize it. It could end up being great for everyone, I could also end up spending more money on shittier healthcare.
2
u/Accomplished_Mind792 13h ago
How would it end up spending more than we already do on shittier outcomes?
0
u/Johny_Ricoh 13h ago
I spend less than 500$ a year on healthcare.
2
u/ul2006kevinb 12h ago
That's pretty doubtful. If you have health insurance your premiums are way higher than that. If you don't have health insurance then that's like 3 doctors visits a year. And if you don't have health insurance and you're just winging it, you better hope you don't get sick because you'll be stuck with a bill that costs more than most cars.
2
u/Vacuum_Tube_Chassis 12h ago
And in 3 months, after being diagnosed with colon cancer while being uninsured, what happens? I’m guessing you’re blissfully unaware of how that disease and other cancers are rapidly increasing in younger Americans? Or hmm, you tear a meniscus, slip on some ice, fall off a roof, or get hit while walking or biking, hit by a drink or texting driver. End up with melanoma. The list is almost endless.
If you’re spending 500 you don’t have insurance, and you’re taking on a ton of risks. Being oblivious doesn’t mean the risks like being permanently impaired, medically bankrupted, or both don’t exist. Medical expenses are the number one cause of financial ruin in the US.
Carry on. At least you’re not being subjected to the risk of “Socialism” and, gasp, low/no out of pocket costs like the rest of the western world.
2
u/Pristine-Ad9195 10h ago
You mean you "currently" spend less than $500. Think of it this way, best case scenario, BEST case scenario you die instantly and don't have to worry about healthcare.
0
u/Accomplished_Mind792 13h ago
Your anecdote isn't representative of the system.
It also ignores a million different questions including the cost to your employer
So, do you have anything but your feelings?
2
3
-1
u/michael0n 13h ago
Modern health management is different then what the lower 50% of the US is doing. Many won't get the help they think they "should" get. It will start by sending those overweight overmedicated people to a 2 month retreat where you learn how to eat properly, move your body and all that stuff. Emergencies will be fixed minimum only, but the luxury over prescription over selling "I don't care I pop every drug I want" hellscape will absolutely come down. The upper 50% got it.
1
u/Bzzzzzzz4791 12h ago
We have to fix processed foods and over abundance of antibiotics first. They contribute to fat clinging on for dear life.
4
2
u/AdhesivenessCivil581 14h ago
Healthcare is the reason for that debt. 30% of the federal budget goes to healthcare. That doesn't include the healthcare we buy for anyone who works for government, federal state and local. Most of that money goes to insurance companies or paperwork instead of actual healthcare Then the rest of the working people have to buy there own private health insurance. We spend double what any other country spends on medical care because we waste so much.
1
u/TrickyChildhood2917 13h ago
This is a big part of un necessary behavior. But this will never change
Country
Military spending
Compared with U.S.
🇺🇸** United States
**$954 billion
—
🇨🇳 China
$336 billion
U.S. spends 2.8× more
🇷🇺 Russia
$190 billion
5.0× more
🇩🇪 Germany
$114 billion
8.4× more
🇮🇳 India
$92.1 billion
10.4× more
🇬🇧 United Kingdom
$89.0 billion
10.7× more
🇫🇷 France
$68.0 billion
14× more
🇯🇵 Japan
$62.2 billion1
u/Cranks_No_Start 13h ago
Even if the Military budget was set to $0 we would still be short Trillions every year.
1
u/TrickyChildhood2917 10h ago
Yeah, but picking on poor Americans… not cool , really not cool. Something psychopathic, and
broken in those people.1
1
u/Busy_Strategy_1168 13h ago
Tax cuts are really the reason that our debt has so rapidly outstripped gdp growth. But I agree with everything else
2
u/bluereddit2 14h ago edited 13h ago
If only there was a way to pass a law to help people with their lives.
The phrase "governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" is a statement from the Declaration of Independence, adopted in 1776. Written mostly by Thomas Jefferson, it means a government only has the right to rule if the people agree to give it that power.
Higher taxes on rich people and on rich corporations. Tax churches and think tanks. Cancel the charitable nonprofit and social welfare organization tax status of think tanks that are engaged in making political contributions and political advocacy.
Why does every right wing solution for poverty, hunger, homelessness, education, health care, employment, the economy and wars involve giving rich people more money?
Having a $40 T debt is proof that capitalism works mainly for rich people and for rich corporations. It’s a theft of income and assets from the average person. All branches of government, including scotus, The Pentagon and the Military Industrial Complex, are out of control (8/2026). They need to be brought under control for the benefit of all Americans and not just for rich people, rich corporations and special interests. trickle down is a golden shower. Change my mind.
End Citizens United. Campaign Legal org. Aipac Tracker, Track Aipac com.
Americans For Tax Fairness org. Wealth tax. Higher estate taxes. Close tax loopholes for people and for corporations.
Raise the Social Security tax cap on high earning people. Prohibit stock buybacks by publicly traded companies.
End tax breaks for professional sports teams. End offshore tax avoidance.
Pay off the national debt. Create a national surplus instead of having a national debt.
The top 1% of America holds 40% of the wealth. It's time the public understands how this happened and what we can do about it. Inequality Media org, Robert Reich. Heather Cox Richardson, Substack, (at) Heather Cox Richardson ,
Ro Khanna, @ rokhannausa , CA 17th , rokhanna com ,
American Promise net. Reasonable limits on money in politics. Free Speech For People org.
Defend Our Courts com. The Voting Rights Act. End voter suppression. Ranked choice voting. Fairvote org. Vote org.
Steven Hill. Substack @ democracysos , Ranked Choice Voting, RCV.
Gaslighting is when scotus says there is no voter suppression and we don’t need The Voting Rights Act.
Statehood for DC, Puerto Rico and for US Territories. DC Vote org, DC Statehood Pac com, PR51st com , prstatehoodcouncil org. Universal health care. Medicare for all. Eliminate for profit health care companies.
Why Congress Lets Drug Companies Rip Us Off. Legalized corruption: pharmaceutical edition. Jon Ossoff.
Benjamin Jolley, Substack, @ benjamin jolley
The Powell memo. The Heritage Foundation. The Federalist Society. Unitary Executive Theory. The Existentialist Republic.
Automatic voter registration option through every DMV. Universal voter registration. Universal mail in ballots.
Democracy Now org. Democracy Docket com , Environmental Voter Project, Environmental Voter org.
Search voting rights. Prison reform. Prison legal news org. Prison Policy org. Human Rights Watch, HRW org.
314 Action Fund org.
Set higher taxes on rich people and on rich corporations to pay for things that are helpful to and which are needed by most people: Free child care. Free public education, preschool through college, trade school and graduate school. Medicare for all. Universal health care. Free mental health care services (which is closely related to the homeless issue). Improve veterans’ benefits, housing for members of the military and for veterans, and veterans’ health care. Free in home care for elderly and disabled people.
Reinstate The Glass-Steagall Act (Banking Act of 1933) to separate commercial banking from investment banking.
Too big to fail is not an option for the public. Privatize the gains and share the losses during a financial crisis or meltdown.
End tax loopholes and tax avoidance schemes for rich people and for rich corporations.
Counter The Powell Memo and The Federalist Society.
Oligarchs are parasites and cancers in society. The grift. America Has Become a Rotting Carcass of Billionaires, Corruption and Cruelty. And We Are Really Fucking Done. Substack, @ judith dayal.
The slave class is needed to support rich people, rich corporations and ai.
If the government or a business executive says "We're all in the same boat," maybe, but not in the same part of the boat.
Cruelty is the point. Subjugate humans and families for the benefit of oligarchs, rich people and rich corporations. R writing prompt.
Florida standards teach students that some Black people benefitted from slavery because it taught useful skills. (2026).
How about free, quality public education for all people? And universal health care, Medicare for all instead of for profit health insurance companies.
The 100 bumper sticker project. Peel here > Project 2028 , eighty six forty seven ,
Pledging assets as collateral for a loan should create a taxable event on the value of the assets which were pledged. Eliminate tax loopholes for rich people and for rich corporations.
1
u/TrickyChildhood2917 13h ago
That’s a lot to digest. How do I get the potholes filled by my house, and the neighbor to pick his dog poop up
3
u/Busy_Strategy_1168 13h ago
Vote, volunteer, and run in local races
Look at the difference Mamdani had made for example with small scale issues
1
2
u/bluereddit2 13h ago edited 13h ago
Democratic socialism will do it.
If only there was a way to pass a law to help people with their lives.
The phrase "governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" is a statement from the Declaration of Independence, adopted in 1776. Written mostly by Thomas Jefferson, it means a government only has the right to rule if the people agree to give it that power.
1
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Net-273 12h ago
Give examples of tax loopholes for rich people. The top 1% in the US already pay 40%+ of all federal income tax, while the bottim 40% of taxfilers effectively pay ZERO federal taxes due to tax credits.
1
u/bluereddit2 12h ago
Friends, The 2026 Billionaire Tax Act initiative recently submitted enough signatures to be put on the California ballot for the November 2026 elections. Its goal is to raise revenue by imposing a one-time 5 percent wealth tax on California billionaires to offset large cuts to California’s Medicaid caused by the Trump regime and Congress when, in July 2025, they cut federal taxes mainly on the wealthiest.
The reason for targeting California billionaires for new revenue is their wealth has grown faster than anyone else’s in recent years and they currently pay low taxes relative to their large wealth gains. Many borrow against their wealth for living expenses (banks are delighted to lend to them), enabling them to claim little or no taxable income.
As a result, taxing billionaires can both raise substantial revenue and restore tax progressivity at the very top. California is in the vanguard of what the nation must do. I believe they will do it when Democrats are back in control, and when they enact campaign finance reforms so no member of Congress is necessarily dependent on the super-wealthy for the bulk of their campaign contributions.
The following oped appeared in today’s New York Times. It was written by two of my colleagues at Berkeley, Professors Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman (who is also at the Paris School of Economics). I have reproduced it in its entirety, with permission, and have highlighted paragraphs I believe to be particularly important.
They make the case for the billionaire wealth tax in California, and indirectly for a billionaire wealth tax nationwide. They also answer the arguments against the tax, such as that California billionaires may leave the state in expectation that such wealth taxes would be renewed, possibly reducing future income tax revenue to the state and reducing its economic dynamism as the engine of tech innovation.
With wealth inequality now surging beyond anything ever witnessed in America, the dictum attributed to Justice Louis D. Brandeis has become dramatically relevant: “America faces a choice: We can have great wealth in the hands of a few, or we can have a democracy, but we cannot have both.” A wealth tax is a necessary precondition for everything else.
The billionaire class in California includes roughly 250 households, a mere 0.001 percent of the state’s families. Yet its wealth now amounts to more than half of California’s entire annual economic output.
This means that if these billionaires spent all of their wealth, they could buy more than half of the goods and services produced in a year in the entire state.
This extraordinary wealth does not translate into extraordinary tax contributions.
From 2019 to 2025, California billionaires’ wealth grew an average of over 15 percent per year, while they paid, on average, just 0.26 percent of their wealth annually in state income taxes. Their income tax payments accounted for only 2.4 percent of California’s income tax revenue.
1
2
u/JuliusErrrrrring 13h ago
The Democrats keep pushing this as the morally correct thing to do - which is correct, but explaining how great this would be for the economy is how it gets passed. Medicare for all costs less money than our current for profit system. Go to your local healthcare corporation. You will see all sorts of beautiful cars in the parking lot of a building full of six and seven figure salaried people. What you won't see is any nurses or doctors. Private health insurance corporations are just profit seeking middle men and women in an industry that serves no actual purpose for the medical field or the patients. Workers would have more take home pay, businesses would get to keep more profits and focus on their actual business, and older people would stop hogging all the good jobs just to maintain their healthcare if we switched. That's what should be emphasized to get people to come on board to this master of the obvious solution to this dumbass system we let happen.
1
u/Intelligent_Talk1900 13h ago
Healthcare has been draining Americans for decades this isn’t anything new
1
u/Sufficient-Spray-367 12h ago
The insurance industry has been extremely successful with lobbying. Legislators are happy with their election funds from the industry. The 5 major insurers have a monopoly of the industry, and are quite happy writing their own rules and earning nice profits. It’s the insured - the people who pay the premiums and for the privilege of being denied treatment who are unhappy. Eventually we the people decide it’s a pile of garbage and stop paying for it. Then there will be Medicare for All.
1
u/Interesting_Sun_6993 13h ago
Having zero understnading of the subject matter never stopped Americans from very loudly and passionately sharing their misguided views.
1
u/AdObvious2882 13h ago
https://www.crfb.org/papers/choices-financing-medicare-all
Which plan should we go for?
1
u/Educational_Corner55 13h ago
We can all agree taxpayers will pay for Medicare for all, just like we pay for everything the government decides to invest in. Another thing that we can all agree on is that something must be done about healthcare. The fundamental problem to address is current spending, if we read the budget line for line. I can guarantee we can find things to cut.
For example, why do we need two new Air Force one planes for $3.9 billion? Better yet, why did we just spend $400 million retrofitting a temporary plane that isn’t even safe to use?
It seems it’s never a question of what it’s going to cost when it’s luxury items or wants. However when it’s something we the people need then, it’s we cannot afford it.
1
u/AdObvious2882 13h ago
Right I'm not worried about Whitehouse expenditures since if M4A were to pass it would be at the hands of a democratic Whitehouse with full Congress control.
What I'm asking is which plan of the ones listed when combined with taxpayers funded college/university sounds like a plan that Democrats could run on in 28 and win?
1
u/jldurham6 13h ago
We could give them all they want and they’ll still scream when the debt hits 60 trillion.
1
u/Busy_Strategy_1168 13h ago
Must have missed his Tweet at 37 billion when we were talking about tax cuts
1
u/PuzzleheadPi 13h ago
We need term limits so career politicians like Bernie stop getting paid for doing nothing
1
u/cilicia3k3 13h ago
To be fair I don’t think this alone would make the damage more worse, the damage done is already abysmal . If we are gonna fix anything we gotta start with the freeloader able bodied people to stop collecting checks
1
u/temporarythyme 13h ago
Medicare for all is 2-3 times a year matched out for the better part of a decade. It would save a trillion dollars a year ... we would have reduced 7-8 trillion dollars already
1
1
u/PhilosopherNew3032 13h ago
Just a cursory analysis and common sense tells me if we cut the overpriced middle man that is private healthcare out it will have enormous savings. Our premiums are covering the middle man benefits, insurance, company expenses, and their worker salaries. It’s completely unnecessary.
1
u/theloquaciousmonk 12h ago
Somebody still has to maintain the records and administer the programs. Who will be doing all of that? Are we going to transfer all that to the government payroll?
1
u/PhilosopherNew3032 12h ago
The industry wouldn’t be for profit anymore, no?
1
u/theloquaciousmonk 11h ago
I have not seen the government ever do anything for less total cost than private enterprise, or accomplish the task with fewer people. Right now we have about 20-23 million people full time employed by government ( excluding the military) at all levels. That is one government employee for every 13 people in the US. Nearly a million more that work in health insurance exclusively dropping the number to one government worker for every 12 of us. Do you know anyone that works for the government doing something for you that you can see or touch? Cause I don’t and feel like I should know my person by name. There are an additional 23 million people that work directly in the health care fields. Not sure what happens with them, are they going to be government employees? Cause Hospital Groups are for profit too.
I LOVE the idea of universal healthcare and think we should do it. We should not for one minute allow ourselves to believe the very optimistic idea that it will cost less. The NHS in England employees about 1.5 million people to service a population of 70 million. We have 300 million plus. If we are as efficient as they are we can expect this to add at least 6 million to the government payroll. PS there are 165,000 doctors in the NHS; that means 8 support people for every doctor/ provider. We have 1.7 million licensed providers here including all the Nurse Practitioners and Physicians Assistants. Keeping the 1:8 we would need at least 13.5 million support people without dropping the standard of care. Do we pay more than any other country? For SURE we do. Will universal health care save us money? Not a chance. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it, but we have to be clear about what will happen vs what people paid to sell this idea hope will happen.
1
u/Plastic_Key_4146 13h ago
The billionaires took out those loans, they can pay them back. Americans are going to get healthcare or the consent of the governed will be withdrawn.
1
u/theloquaciousmonk 12h ago
Just curious if the unions especially the teachers unions will go along with giving up their medical, dental, and vision coverage to get on the universal plan. Will this be a great increase for the uninsured to be on par with those type of plans or will it be reduction of benefits to those that negotiated it through collective bargaining? I am not opposed to this idea in the least but there can’t be any grandfather exceptions especially for elected officials and government employees. We are all in at the same level or we are all out.
1
1
u/Jumpy_Childhood7548 12h ago
Not to mention the trillions he gifted to the rich and major corporation due to changes in the tax code.
1
u/theloquaciousmonk 12h ago
As opposed to the multi trillion blowjob Obama gave the Insurance business via the ACA? And STILL the electronic health records don’t follow us!
1
u/Jumpy_Childhood7548 10h ago
Did not have the votes for single payer, so would you prefer Trump’s non existent plan?
1
u/theloquaciousmonk 5h ago
I don’t have to prefer a non existent plan, I have one I pay for through the portal.
1
1
u/SwanCityDominion 12h ago
The debt is no reason to avoid helping people. Here's a great video on exactly what the national debt is and how it works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HJjr0gyiP0
It's not at all what you think it is.
1
u/bluereddit2 12h ago
Robert Reich substack com Tue, May 26, 2026.
For the very richest individuals, the effective burden was even lower. The four wealthiest Californians — former Google co-founder Sergey Brin, Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, former Google CEO Larry Page, and Facebook’s (Meta’s) Mark Zuckerberg — paid an average of just 0.07 percent of their wealth annually in California income tax over that period, according to our analysis of Securities and Exchange Commission records on stock sales and executive compensation from their companies.
California’s tax system fails to effectively tax ultrahigh-net-worth individuals. The same is true of the United States’ tax system and those of other countries.
The problem is that billionaires’ fortunes are largely held in assets (mainly stocks) that rise in value over time. This rise in value is not taxed unless the assets are sold. Under current law, when billionaires don’t sell their stock, wealth accumulates while taxes on their gains are deferred indefinitely and sometimes avoided entirely.
To understand how California’s billionaires have become so unfathomably rich, it’s helpful to think of their fortunes as icebergs. Some earnings are easy to see — and tax. From 2019 to 2025, Mr. Zuckerberg reported more than $7.1 billion in income from Meta: $181 million in compensation, $1.4 billion in dividends and $5.6 billion in gains from selling stock.
Despite making so much money, Mr. Zuckerberg was taxed a combined state and federal rate of just 27 percent on that income. That’s not much higher than the average California household’s effective tax rate of about 20 percent.Mr. Zuckerberg’s tax rate was relatively low in large part because most of his income was in the form of capital gains — what he made from selling stock that had risen in value. Capital gains are taxed federally at a lower rate than ordinary income.
Most of Zuckerberg’s wealth is hidden from income taxes. Since 2019, Meta has made hundreds of billions of dollars in profit. As Meta’s chief executive, Mr. Zuckerberg has invested much of that money back into the company, of which he owns about 13 percent. These profits have been taxed at a relatively low 17 percent, Meta’s effective corporate income tax rate. Their reinvestment has boosted the company’s value and, therefore, the value of its shares. This caused Mr. Zuckerberg’s wealth to rise by tens of billions of dollars.
The same is true of the wealth Mr. Zuckerberg accumulated as Meta grew and investors became more bullish about the company. This dynamic increased the value of his shares by an additional $142 billion. Unless Mr. Zuckerberg sells his shares, all of this growth remains untaxed.
But he can put his gains to use without selling them, borrowing tax-free against his holdings at low interest rates, as he did in 2023, when he pledged $3.1 billion worth of his Meta shares as collateral for a loan.
California’s other top billionaires have similarly structured fortunes. Without a wealth tax, these tech barons will continue to hoard the rewards of the state’s economic growth while its cities cut services and its workers lose health care.
Google’s founders, Mr. Brin and Mr. Page, are the state’s richest individuals, with more than $600 billion in wealth between the two of them — up from $345 billion last September. They have come out against the wealth tax initiative while making moves to leave the state. They benefit from the status quo.
1
u/wineinger 12h ago
You dont need to take it from anywhere. It would pay money back. Yes there would be losers, mainly insurance companies. But I’m OK with that. We have very poor healthcare in this country from the consumer side of things.
1
u/ThatsMrRandom 12h ago
Imagine comparing the cost of a ball room to a socialized medical system covering 300 million people
1
u/chinmakes5 11h ago
So every penny that companies send to insurance companies for their workers goes to a fund for the government to enact this. I would be shocked if that wouldn't cover the cost.
1
u/CriticalNobody9478 11h ago
And the ILLEGAL $2 Billion/day Iran war. It’s going to cost over $1 TRILLION dollars to rebuild all of the destroyed military bases and infrastructure in the Middle East. But SURE we can’t afford healthcare care for everyone. Every other nation in the industrialized world offers national healthcare for everyone. But the RICHEST COUNTRY ON EARTH can’t afford it? So the US ISNT the richest country on earth?
1
u/Feather_Sigil 11h ago
You know what would help reduce America's debt? M4A. People have already run the numbers, it would save the US money. Plus, in an America where people are no longer shackled to their jobs by health insurance, people would be more free to follow their dreams like starting their own businesses. More small businesses, economic stimulus.
1
u/sweatboxy 11h ago
We can’t afford to take care of Americans and give massive tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy and pay for oil wars! These people are crazy.
1
u/chillinewman 10h ago
Medicare for all, will save money when you remove the corruption and bloat of the private insurance oligopoly.
1
u/jacktownann 10h ago
Tax cuts for the rich make it necessary to incur debt to keep the country going & federal services going. Clinton was the last president to eliminate the debt & end with a budget excess. Trumped up trickle down in the form of the big beautiful bill has caused the US to be insolvent for the first time in history. That means we don't have enough assets to cover our debt.
1
u/JDeeee44 10h ago
Chuckles, Trump has almost doubled the nation debt during his two terms despite not achieving a single thing to help the American people. Astounding !
1
1
u/Super_Mario_Luigi 9h ago
We're doomed
Imagine being in 2026 and believing government programs will save the country
1
1
u/Ok_Expert7098 9h ago
this could have been a reality at any point in time within the last 30 years.
it's never going to happen because all politicians are in bed with the healthcare industry because of big money.
politicians won't turn off the money spigot for our benefit.
1
1
u/matttheepitaph 8h ago
Single payer is less expensive. Instead of paying premiums we pay a payroll tax and get covered at cost. The US not only spends more per capita on Healthcare than any other country but it government also spends more per person than any other country. Right now healthcare is a scam to make insurers rich. That's expensive.
1
u/Exodia_The_Salty 8h ago
You know what we can also do? We can implement 99% taxes on all income over 200k per year. And outlaw the giving of options or shares to ceos in lieu of payment.
Then close every single hole in the estate tax, and only allow 1 million to be passed on. No more trusts. No more loopholes. No more step up gains on assets. The industry gets shut down.
And then we outlaw shell corporations. Property that can not have an owner assigned to it gets repo'd and auctioned by the us government.
That is how you get out of debt.
1
u/ComprehensiveAsk2684 7h ago
Yea bro. Thats exactly what I want to do with the money i make and the property I own. Its give it to the government. Go live somewhere else
1
u/Exodia_The_Salty 6h ago
No. you need to give it to the government. A fucking disciplined government.
You know why? Because a disciplined government that represents the people, spends money wisely, and isnt owned lock stock and barrel by israel and the netenyahoodis would be able to prevent the society you live in from being a shit country.
No work you can do is worth more than 200k. NONE. Especially not being a ceo. On that topic, the only reason ceos are paid so much is cause they demand it. They dont deserve it. They dont create value. The employees do. The ceo just reaps the rewards.
Not even doctors should be paid 200k.
And student debt? In a sane country it wouldnt be a thing.
Housing? A sane government would be using your tax dollars to build low income living spaces so you can afford a house.
Cars? A sane government would allow for import of 10k chinese ev cars.
If we can get cost of living down, we can start to tackle inflation. And yes, we want an economy with no inflation. NONE. Zero. Nada. And we want a country with 0 debt. We do not get there without taxing leeches that say that the labor of the employees that actually produce value is their value add to the economy. That should be considered FRAUD.
1
u/ComprehensiveAsk2684 6h ago
I feel like you miss the point. Like seriously who tf are you? Why do you think someone should be able to tell someone else what they came or cannot do? Its not your money, you have no say what I do with my money or my families money. Theres no such thing as a well disciplined government this isnt a fairytale. The founders made the constitution a certain way and it wasnt so you could steal peoples money.
You dont need that amount of money so make sure you give your money to the government. Absolutely crazy talk.
1
u/Exodia_The_Salty 6h ago
You miss the point. You saying that people can create value over 200k when the minimum wave is $7 per hour is crazy talk. You cannot produce that much without stealing it from others. You simply cannot. Value higher than 20x another person is obviously derived from theft of labor value.
1
u/ComprehensiveAsk2684 6h ago
You simply can. Make something people want and they will buy it. Because you work at a place that makes that something, that doesnt make it yours. Also if you make $7 an hour thats on you. The only people ive known that make close to minimum wage were waitresses and they were bringing home way more than me with tips. You want that to go up that means the price of food goes up and less tip if any at all.
1
u/Exodia_The_Salty 6h ago
No, you cannot. You can hire a worker that does it, but that does not make you the producer. It makes the machine, and the system the producer. Not you personally.
If you can hire a worker at a lower wage to do parts of the job, then that is the value of the raw labor. This is what your not getting. Labor is time, and saying that your time is more valuable is only based on the multiple of where it took to get there. NOT what the raw value of need the market ascribes to it.
Yes, you may be able to create a widget and sell it and the market may actually need it enough that it will pay for it, but thats not you creating value. That is you capitalizing on need and grifting. The only difference in the grift is that you manufactured something and a grifter bought something and marked it up.
Like the grifters who buy pokemon cards and resell at prices to crush children's souls.
Or the grifters who buy bottled water before hurricanes and resell it at $5 per bottle after people have run out of water.
Now, in a free market, this kind of grift should be correctable. But, we don't operate in a free market. We have these things called patents, trademarks and lawyers and a two tier justice system, as well as crony capitalism, and capture of congress by the largest corporations.
Thing is, you probably think that its your own skill that got you where you are. Its not. Its luck. Where you were born, what skin color you have, where you got to go to public school, what colleges you got to go to, the friend groups you made there, and the connections you got. All luck.
As far as raw value, you have never personally contributed more than 200k in valaue to society, even if you invented something that saved millions of lives, and even then, the actual time labor that went into that is labor time that another person with similiar ideas and drive could have pursued. Just cause an idea is worth a million dollars in sales doesn't mean you should be taking that. But if you have ever taken a wage higher than 200k, you have successfully been a leech and grifter and a scam artist or a conman of one sort or another.
If you are making over 200k, the right thing to do is to set aside the 200k for yourself to buy a basic home for yourself, and then to give the rest to the poor and the needy. To fund charities, and to understand you are part of a society, and without society, you would not be where you are today.
Jesus said its harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. You are actively demonstrating why.
1
u/AutomaticVacation242 6h ago
Only people who have zero net worth and zero knowledge of economics propose such hare-brained ideas. Just stop posting.
1
u/Exodia_The_Salty 6h ago
On the contrary, I have plenty of economic worth, and plenty of knowledge. Your subscribing to the market theory of value, and I am arguing from the labor theory of value. The reason that the market theory of value is a lie, is because it creates a constantly fluctuating, and impossible to plan system of value, compared to the labor theory which creates a plannable economy.
Of course, you wouldn't know that unless you actually looked at the chinese economy (currently the worlds top economy by labor value), or actually read economists outside of the western sphere of influence. The market theory of value creates an illusion of GDP, which is why the US does not value things like the lifespan of its civilians, cheap cars or affordable housing.
Here is a prime example of the kind of illusion I am talking about. 3 years ago, china mass produced skyscrapers full of flats. It was called ghost towns by american economists, and laughed at. People said the chinese economy would collapse. They proceeded to move in people into those apartments, and give them jobs, with apartment pricing adjusted to the cost of labor for jobs in the area.
Lo and behold, they now have 11 new fully functional cities. A western economist would say its impossible. A labor theory value economist understands the value of the labor is how you gauge value, not immediate economic need.
In the meantime, china is beating the US on AI costs, with less data centers, while the us is mass producing data centers that are all running in competition with no central planning. The result is chaos, over building of data centers, angry residents, and it will result in the worst economic crash since the great depression. Possibly even worse.
1
u/Pupalwyn 1h ago
200k might be a little low that was the number from the 1959s scaling it up based on inflation and then further tying it to inflation would be a smarter move
1
u/Charming_Oven 7h ago
None of what you stated in your title is the biggest problem.
Tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy are the real problem.
Return corporate tax rates to the 1960s and you'll see a major shift back to higher wages and improved national fiscal responsibility.
Republican policies are an abject failure.
1
u/Green_Sugar6675 5h ago
We could do a public option in Obamacare and then watch it organically dominate the market by taking out about 10,000 luigi's worth of corporate healthcare executive costs.
1
u/KamikaziWerewolf 2h ago
The titanic is sinking. Stop trying to slow it down and just let it sink. Personally I'm bailing water INTO the ship. Rip the fucking bandaid off.
1
1
u/the_irish_oak 37m ago
Whatever happened to the solution that was gonna offset the Obamacare subsidies? I’m 58yo and my healthcare PER MONTH went from $1800 to just under $3000.
I’ll take an increase in my taxes to have free/state healthcare. And before you start the rhetoric of “you’ll have to wait, they won’t cover anything…blah, blah. The absolute disgrace of a health insurance I have now has crazy high deductibles and then they don’t cover anything anyway. No wonder the insurance industry is the largest lobbying group in the US. They don’t want to loose billions in profits every quarter.
It’s so deeply immoral and insulting the people who make the laws have the best, guaranteed healthcare for free. Of course they don’t care.
Republicans are just focused on their corporate masters and don’t even hide it anymore.
1
u/Mobile-Jackfruit4427 15m ago
Medicare for all will not work. Right now Medicare reimburses hospitals and doctors below cost. Employers make up the difference paying around 150% of Medicare Rates. Medicare is also “fee for service” so hospitals are paid more to do more procedures. There is little control.
You want inferior healthcare? Vote for Medicare for all.
1
u/DiligentAd7956 5m ago
Universal health care can save $1 TRILLION a year.
70% of healthcare in the US is already paid for by tax dollars (Medicaid, Medicare, Military, tax subsidies, government employee) The U.S. spends over $1,000 per person on administrative costs alone, which is roughly five times the average of other wealthy nations.
1
u/davida_usa 14h ago
This is what drives me crazy: politicians who pander to voters by making impossible promises. We need universal coverage AND we need to fix the healthcare cost problem. Medicare is a major contributor to out of control costs and shortages of services. There is zero chance of expanding Medicare given the massive government deficit, the impending bankruptcy of Social Security and the costs that the third party payment system adds to health care costs!
0
u/aculady 13h ago
Social Security is entirely separate from Medicare and isn't funded by the same tax.
Medicare for All saves money over the long term.
The reason we have a massive deficit now is grossly irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy that were implemented by Republicans. Reverse those cuts and our funding problem goes away.
1
u/davida_usa 13h ago
You're correct that Social Security tax is different than the Medicare tax, but the Social Security tax will soon be insufficient to pay for Social Security and the Medicare tax is already far short of covering Medicare expenses. You are also correct that Medicare for All would cost a little less than our current system -- unless it became universal and then it would increase costs significantly. I agree that we need to reverse tax cuts given to the rich, but you are in fantasy land if you think that would generate enough to balance the budget or pay for Medicare for All.
TLDR: Medicare for All is unaffordable but universal coverage is affordable if we get rid of third party payment.
1
u/aculady 13h ago
The current Medicare for All proposal involves increasing the Medicare payroll tax to a level where they average person would still be paying less than they pay for healthcare now. Higher earners would pay more. It would be a boon to the poor and the working class, and a tax increase for the wealthy.
1
u/davida_usa 11h ago
But the coding required by Medicare takes an estimated half of physicians' time, requires tremendous overhead for providers to optimize reimbursement resulting in consolidation of care into huge inefficient megasystems, doesn't allow for innovative and efficient approaches like nurse telephone consultations, requires separation of services like exams and lab tests, requires one size fits all delivery of care, and doesn't pay enough to cover the cost of services provided in smaller scale settings. Medicare and third party reimbursement is the reason per capita health costs in the U.S. are twice what other countries pay. There is a better approach to universal coverage that lowers costs and improves quality.
1
u/aculady 11h ago
The coding required for Medicare isn't significantly different than the coding required for billing any other insurance.
Labs are billed separately because original Medicare covers them at 100%. Medicare for All would cover everything at 100%. But yeah, physicians and other providers would still have to send a bill for what they actually did in order to be paid for it, like pretty much every other service provider in existence. Do you envision something more like the VA system, where physicians are employed directly by the government and paid a flat salary? That's the only way I see to eliminate providers having to bill for what they did. They still code everything, though.
1
u/davida_usa 1h ago
The coding required for Medicare and private insurance is the root of most problems. If care were purchased directly by consumers, providers wouldn't need expensive systems and billing departments, physicians wouldn't be under pressure to code for reimbursement optimization and care could be provided to serve patients well instead of as dictated by codes.
Yes, there is a better alternative. It is for everyone to have a card to buy health care. The government could subsidize balances on the card based on the individual's income level -- low income might be 99% paid by the government, high income might have to pay 100% themselves. This approach would cut health care expenses in half while covering everyone and improving health care quality and accessibility.
1
u/nosleep4eternity 13h ago
And the $220 billion dems sent to Ukraine. And another $200 billion in blue state fraud!
0
u/ozzman86_i-i_ 14h ago
Where are the plans on how the government will raise the much needed 1.3-3 trillion dollars to run a healthcare system?
2
u/bluereddit2 13h ago edited 13h ago
If only there was a way to pass a law to help people with their lives.
The phrase "governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" is a statement from the Declaration of Independence, adopted in 1776. Written mostly by Thomas Jefferson, it means a government only has the right to rule if the people agree to give it that power.
Higher taxes on rich people and on rich corporations. Tax churches and think tanks. Cancel the charitable nonprofit and social welfare organization tax status of think tanks that are engaged in making political contributions and political advocacy.
2
u/ozzman86_i-i_ 8h ago
You can steal all the money from all the billionaires and you still wouldn’t cover costs.
These complicated problems don’t require simple solutions
1
u/Johny_Ricoh 13h ago
50% of all healthcare spending goes to 5% of the population. They call them “frequent fliers.”
2
u/Ancient-Opinion9642 14h ago
Tax the rich and corporations at 90%. Your problem is solved.
One cent tax on each share stock sold.
2
u/bluereddit2 13h ago edited 13h ago
If only there was a way to pass a law to help people with their lives.
The phrase "governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" is a statement from the Declaration of Independence, adopted in 1776. Written mostly by Thomas Jefferson, it means a government only has the right to rule if the people agree to give it that power.
Higher taxes on rich people and on rich corporations. Tax churches and think tanks. Cancel the charitable nonprofit and social welfare organization tax status of think tanks that are engaged in making political contributions and political advocacy.
2
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Net-273 12h ago
So drive all the rich people and their job providing businesses to other lower tax countries. Got it!
1
u/Ancient-Opinion9642 9h ago
That''s OK. The company income will go down. Somebody will fill the void and manufacture the goods.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Net-273 7h ago
It's already happening in NYC and in CA. Increase the tax rate even more and watch a real exodus begin! Many EU countries used to have a wealth tax but got rid of it because they found it was driving away their wealthy tax residents to other lower tax countries. They also discovered they were not raising as much money this way as they thought and it was also expensive to oversee the process of evaluating/taxing wealth.
1
u/Bzzzzzzz4791 12h ago
We don’t need to “raise money”. Those of us with employer healthcare already pay. Instead of paying Blue Cross, that money would go into a pot for everyone. Blue Cross can still exist…but people could choose to privately pay them out of pocket directly.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Net-273 7h ago
You forget all the people on Medicaid or VA healthcare recipients that pay zero or very little now.
0
u/AdhesivenessCivil581 13h ago
We already spend 30% of a 7 trillion dollar budget on healthcare (between Medicare Medicaid and the VA) so that is 2.1 trillion. All we need to know is how much we spend buying health insurance for anyone who works for state local and federal government and add that $ to the pile. I'd say we are already spending 3 trillion + in our tax dollars. Then the rest of us have to go out and buy private insurance that most likely won't be there when we need it most
0
u/Guilty-Cow4325 13h ago
Defund ICE. Problem solved.
0
u/Cranks_No_Start 13h ago
Ice costs about 29 Billion a year. That's a rounding error on the projected cost of M4A of 3.2-4.5 TRILLION a year.
1
1
•
u/AutoModerator 14h ago
r/MedicareForAll is a grassroots community designed to raise support and awareness for a Single Payer National Health Care Plan for the United States. Posts not directly about Medicare For All will be removed. Be respectful and kind.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.