Bernie Sanders Math

Bernie Sanders Math | WHEN  "FREE"  COSTS  $32  TRILLION | image tagged in bernie sanders,memes,wait what | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
share
11,991 views, 126 upvotes, Made by csm0652 4 months ago bernie sandersmemeswait what
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
That's a savings of 1 trillion over the current system.
reply
6 ups
Bernie even thanked the Koch brothers for doing the math for him.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/399625-sanders-thanks-koch-brothers-for-accidentally-making-argument-for-medicare
reply
0 ups, 3 replies
Medicare has no profit so it’s at best partial reimbursement and semi-pro bono. It only works because the rest of us pay extra for our care to make up the elderly’s costs. Now, what happens if we are all on semi-pro bono and there is no one to make up the diff. The 32trillion is way low! The health care community will shrink, waiting lines will form for all but the rich who will pay to be first in line, and Medicare reimbursements will have to raise to keep providers. I think it’s closer to $100 trillion if we used Medicare for all. Costs More than current system and
reply
2 ups
How/why does it work in virtually every other modern, Western country?
This would make us great again.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
So Canada doesn't exist?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
The rich come here for treatment and the rest die or get worse wIting for rationed care
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
How is it "rationed"? Is the big bad goberment putting a cap on the number of doctors?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Capping under Obama care any cancer screening after age 75 - time for you to die anyway and unburden the system. Time to wAit a year for a heart by-pass in Canada. If you die 1st, that’s the breaks.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Source?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Obamacare - it’s written into the 2700 pages. Canada - patients with $ who come here for faster treatment.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
You're complaining about long wait times because everyone is able to go to the doctor? Yeah, the rich can skip the line by going to the US, but at least poor people aren't dying from lack of proper medical treatment. Oh, and private doctors still exist in Canada, but very few people go to them when they can get the same thing for free.

Now, would you rather have a medical bill so expensive you end up on the street or a longer wait at the hospital?
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Depends on the problem
0 ups
Obviously, the people with life threatening injuries/illnesses are prioritized.
0 ups
Not if they are old. Obamacare stopped cancer tests at 75. Why? No more treatment after 75 unless you pay yourself.
reply
0 ups
It doesn't cost more than the current system per this article which you can find on this thing you're currently using called the internet http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/399625-sanders-thanks-koch-brothers-for-accidentally-making-argument-for-medicare
reply
[deleted]
6 ups, 2 replies
reply
3 ups
reply
1 up
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
6 ups
reply
3 ups, 6 replies
Where does the money come from?
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
She's used it way too much to get any reactions. The joke, I mean.
reply
1 up
If she used her actual va**na, she would go to jail.
And the judge would send her to death row cos of crimes against comedy
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Taxes
reply
1 up, 1 reply
So my taxes would have to increase? By how much?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Nah I mean you would take money out of the necular bomb budget and put it in the healthcare budget
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Necular bomb budget is pretty low. Way below 32 trillion. Military budget for 1 year is only 600 billion. What else would need to be cut?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Corporate welfare.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Corporations will leave if that happens. Look at Detroit.

Your suggestion would cripple cities and the economy that has finally taken a turn for the better.

It's easy to hate the rich, that's called jealousy, but punishing them only serves to harm the poor. Cutting corporate welfare is not a viable solution.

Where else could the 32 trillion come from? There is a correct response. Let's see who gets it!
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
What happened in Detroit was a result of a decline in manufacturing after the end of WWII, white collar types spreading out to the suburds and the auto industry spreading with them, increasing automation replacing assembly line workers, crippling Union lead strikes giving the auto industry reason to depart from the city - finally heading to Southern States and later Canada and Mexico, business centered around them shutting down, riots, the energy crisis of the 70s causing car sales to slump, declining auto market share as imports took over in the 80s, mortgage redlining preventing poorer folks from moving to the burbs or opening their own businesses and thus getting stuck in decaying slums, former factory grounds being so polluted that building anything else upon them would be diifficult and costly, etc, etc, etc,,,

Corporate welfare enabled its own decline in Detroit's center by financing its departure to elsewhere, utilizing subsidies and tax incentives to move abroad in search of cheaper labor.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Good points. The wealthy go where they can make money. A lot of your examples are the results of the wealthy being choked by politics. The end result is they leave in search of cheaper labor and resources.

Even supposing they stick around, do you think that they would actually be able to account for the 32 trillion dollars in taxes that would need to be collected over the ten years? The US's annual GDP is about 18trillion. 3trillion dollars, 16% of the GDP every year directly out of the pockets of the people that drive our economy, don't you think that's dangerous?

Also, nobody has come up with the actual correct answer yet. How would the US actually end up paying for the health care?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
After WWII, suburbs became popular throughtout the US, many of them not heavy economic centers themselves, tho in Detroit jobs did follow them.

Universal health care is a joke, never works. It will only drive up costs while making people wait for even minor routine care. It's the fastest growing sector of the economy, and in NYC, I heard it was one quarter of it already (I have to check that for verification, that number is, um, sick - - sorry, I hadda).

It's easy for EU countries and Canada to boast of it when their own military, etc, costs are low because Uncle Sam is protecting them them from each other and forces abroad. Even with that, Canada has the highest per capita debt ratio in the world. While those countries don't have as high health care costs as we do, their best doctors depart for better elsewhere. And it's still a drain dependent on overly optimistic economic growth expectations, unsustainable in the long run.
1 up
Awesome points, especially that thing about Canada's debt.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
One Google search and I found the following. Willful ignorance is why this country is circling the drain:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/

A 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers.
Revenue raised: $630 billion per year.

A 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households.

Progressive income tax rates.
Revenue raised: $110 billion a year.

Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work.

Limit tax deductions for rich.

The Responsible Estate Tax.

Savings from health tax expenditures.
1 up
Willful ignorance, eh? So you think that with all those measures in place the US will be able to cover the 3trillion dollar a year cost of Bernies healthcare plan?

Here's a number for you:
The US collects about 3.5 trillion dollars in taxes a year. In order to pay for the healthcare the US would have to almost double the taxes it takes in. Double the taxes!

There's absolutely no way that will happen. There would be riots and an actual civil war.

So if the US doesn't have the means to pay for this healthcare plan, how will it get paid for?

I'm surprised nobody's figured it out yet. If you think you figured it out and want to share, start at the top.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
The economy has not "taken a turn for the better". It's been on this track for a couple of years. That "4% GDP growth" being touted is a short-term benefit of the tax cuts, just like every tax cut prior. Reagan implemented the largest tax cut in history, the economy took a shit, and then he had to implement the largest tax increase in history to fix it. Duhbya had 2 tax cuts and 2 wars coupled with an unregulated banking system that caused the financial collapse. For the last 38 years, Republicans have proved their policies don't work or only work for the super rich. You have Google. All of this is supported with hard evidence so educate yourself.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Republicans and democrats have had weak policies. It's a good thing we finally have a president that doesn't fit the usual mold.

It can be clearly seen that since Trump has been president there has been a change to the nature of the graph. Rather than the roller coaster style ups and downs that have been the norm, Trumps policy has replaced the downs with steady flat curves. This has allowed our the GDP's upward accents to maintain their advances. This is very healthy for the economy.

You still haven't figured out how the US would actually pay for the healthcare. Do you give up?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
This will be the second time I've posted this link that answers your question of how it gets paid for:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/

Do you have a source link for that graph? You could've replied with a picture of sunshine and rainbows and it would mean the exact same nothing as that graph.
1 up
Source is on the graph in bottom right hand corner.

So instead of raising taxes 100% like I estimated he wants to raise taxes by 50%. The people hit hardest will be the educated and the wealthy. So anyone who actually contributes something special to the economy will be punished.

Raising the taxes like that will never work. It won't ever happen. Nobody, democrat or republican, will vote to pass that legislation. It's political suicide, and probably actual suicide.

The only way Bernie will get his healthcare payed for is by doing exactly what the DNC has planned for him.

You still haven't figured it yet. I guess I'll give you a hint. Why is the value of the dollar going down?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Is this an actual question?
reply
1 up
Only if you have an actual answer.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
the Aliens
reply
1 up
Might wreck the value of the dollar.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
Rich people that don't currently pay their fair share, i.e. Trump.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Why wouldn't they just move out of the country and take their money with them?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
They would, like they've left many European countries as taxes rose.
reply
0 ups
Yikes, so much for taxing the rich. That would leave even less money in the country's pool to be pulled from.

So where can we get 32 trillion from? Nobody's figured it out yet. I wonder who else knows the answer...
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
If rich people have to pay their fair share in taxes, then everyone else should have to pay their fair share in labor. Personally, I don't think that taxes or labor should be forced. It would be much better if multiple governments could peacefully coexist in the same country, and people could choose which one (if any) they wanted to subscribe to.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
What do you think is a fair share? Currently, households with income over 100k make up only 16.8% of the U.S. population yet pay 80.6% of the income taxes collected. (Source Pew Research Center)
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Fair is not equal...it's equitable. Those WITH the money have it to give. Those without it....don't. Pretty easy concept. Those WITH the money usually are the ones employing those without the money. Those without the money haven't seen their real wages increase in 40 years. Those with money have seen leaps and bounds of wealth increases in that time. Corporate profits are sky high. Why aren't people earning more?

The money is there for our society to be as good or better than any other in the world. Why isn't it?

hint: GREED
reply
1 up
Greed, yes. But not the greed of who you think. Who owns the Federal Reserve? Who owns them? Follow that process to the top and you'll understand what greed really is.
reply
0 ups
Greed by those who pay next to nothing asking for more.
reply
0 ups
I think $0.00 is the fair share. Taxation is theft. and the fed is nothing but a gang with a false sense of legitimacy.
reply
2 ups
reply
3 ups
https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-cost-save-money-2018-7
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up
i.imgflip.com/2ff7lc.gif (click to show) waiting for comments
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Like a "FREE" border wall with Mexico.

The question is how much medicare for all would cost YOU?
reply
1 up
It’s only free if you are poor.
reply
1 up
In Bernie Sander's mind, FREE = $30 Trillion, $60 Trillion, or $100 Trillion or higher.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
To put things into a bit of perspective, according to Charles Blahous of the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University, whose analysis shows that total health spending would actually decline under the Sanders plan, compared with the status quo.

Currently, American businesses pay ~5 times as much on health care each year than they do in federal taxes.Over 10 years, that comes to $12 Trillion. Considering that the US is the only industrialized nation that requires companies to do so (just to get good workers) If those taxes were tripled with the loss of the required healthcare costs, businesses would come out ahead.

Americans pay out ~$365 Billion a year in health care costs: either through private policies or services not covered by their current insurance. Taxes would have to be raised by 23% for private citizens to see a wash. Not likely individual taxes would go up that much. Ask your elected officials in Washington if that would actually happen in one fell swoop.

Will it go over in one big swoop? Not likely on the federal level, but some states are already proposing that for themselves. It's not the first time states adopted something long before the federal government because it was best for their citizens. Social Security was that way when it was implemented, first on a state by state basis, with old age pensions, then, starting in 1935, the Social Security Act. Even then, not everyone was covered by the federal plan. That moved forward during the 50s.

The one demographic that will be hurt? The private insurers that make sure that 18% of the US economy goes towards healthcare.

source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/medicare-save-businesses-trillions-dollars-190500400.html
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Bernie's own website shows a 50% increase in taxes collected primarily targeted at the middle and wealthy classes. Maybe I'm missing part of the equation.

If the Hollywood aristocracy and Silicon Valley can dish it out for the state with the highest number of homelessness I'd definitely reconsider my position against it. Let California try it first.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
What I like about it is that it'll put the US on equal footing with other developed nations. Without the direct cost for health insurance, part time workers might actually be able to get a full 40 hours a week. While that doesn't affect skilled labor, as we've shifted to a service based society, even minimum wage earners will have a shot at making a liveable wage. Papa John's used the "don't allow them to work enough hours to qualify for benefits" strategy for decades, and, like most fast food places, wound up having a high turnover rate that translated to poorly trained staff. people would stick around long enough to actually learn the jobs.

That's just on the low end of the scale. In factories that have offered health insurance, they've sought the lowest price that ended up costing their employees a LOT! Those out of pocket expenses and high deductibles were really difficult on wage earners. That headache gone, businesses can get back to doing business.

Another advantage of this is military readiness. Only the extremely poor with Medicaid could hope to be healthy enough to join the military and the higher income households, those making like $75K a year (current dollars) would have physically healthy enough kids that could serve in the military. The kids in poverty would have other problems, mostly psychological, from growing up in poverty, but mental health care would be something that would be worked into it. Hopefully to the point that the "welfare queens (and kings)" realize that working and having a paycheck can give them some pride, even with a crappy job.

As the article stated, Massachusetts, New York and California all are working on state backed plans. I'm sure we'll see something in the coming years.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Very good points. If it actually lowers the cost businesses have to pay then it will definitely help the economy. I don't like that it will do the most harm to successful individuals but if California and New York can show it works I'll be convinced.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
It's always good to be able to see how things progress in real life. Countries that have socialized medicine seem to be doing well: not perfect, but their citizens feel they're better off this way. When their success rate is pointed out, detractors say, "But that's another country". Seeing how Americans deal with it will be interesting, especially if reciprocal services are offered with other countries. Too often, though, if it flies in the face of their logic, they deny it.

One such domestic "lab test" was, of course, extreme right ideas of taxation vs extreme left's ideas. Two states that have gone to the extreme are Kansas and Minnesota. In the US News & World Report, (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings) Kansas after cutting taxes repeatedly, comes in at #30 while Minnesota came in at #2. Kansas dropped from #29 in 2017 while Minnesota moved up from #3. These are two widely diverse methods of government, especially when it comes to taxation and revenue spending. Neither is best, Iowa stayed at #1 both years. and neither is worse, as Louisiana has that dishonor this year.
reply
0 ups
I think 47 might be more than 32
Flip Settings

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
WHEN "FREE" COSTS $32 TRILLION
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback