Dems Urged Not to ‘Waste a Second’ Negotiating
This is the preferred way of far too many Democrats. Throw money at it. Bullying. Authoritarian. A reasonable compromise is off limits. Bernie Sanders and his ilk epitomize their attitude.
Showing posts with label Bernie Sanders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bernie Sanders. Show all posts
Monday, January 25, 2021
Thursday, April 9, 2020
Coronavirus - death of a campaign
Bernie Sanders suspended his presidential campaign. A New York Post article attributes the death of Sanders' campaign to COVID-19. Bernie Sanders’ socialist fantasies lost their appeal when coronavirus hit. The news media's attention is monopolized by COVID-19. It has pushed aside the huge amount of attention the news media previously gave to Sanders and his campaign. The following copies liberally from the article.
Socialism and Medicare for All, the subjects Sanders has hammered home with metronomic monotony for many years don’t matter right now. Sanders is a politician with an ever handy villain. But the coronavirus "can’t be blamed for its greed or taxed [or regulated by government] into submission." It's useless to yell at the virus, and yelling at things is Sanders’ political métier.
Sanders prefers "to traffic in fantasies rather than provide realistic and workable solutions to glaring and inescapable realities."
"Who among us hasn’t noodled on what it would mean to win the lottery, to consider what you would do to fix things if you had unlimited money and power and were unconstrained by tradition or precedent or reality?"
"That is the seduction of socialism — it monopolizes resources and power and then distributes the goodies. But resources don’t work like that; if you seize them and centralize them, you pull them from their roots, and they begin to die."
'Whatever the world is going to look like once this [pandemic] is over, it won’t be a world that will have time for the ludicrous [ ] delusions of Bernie Sanders."
It is often said that Bernie Sanders' greatest support comes from young people. They aren't swayed by the common arguments against socialism or the history of socialism when put into practice. Why do they support Sanders, or more accurately, socialism? An audio on this page by Professor Stephen Hicks tries to answer this question. Starting at about 17 minutes Professor Hicks describes several mindsets he has found among young people who consider themselves socialists and the values on which they base their support of socialism. He calls these positions anti-cronyist, altruistic, central-planning, free stuff, communalist, welfare state, environmentalist, and emotionalist. His goal is only to explain, without criticism.
In an earlier audio Professor Hicks described socialism in theory or put into political practice by eight historical people. Their ideas of socialism are very different from those of modern young people.
Socialism and Medicare for All, the subjects Sanders has hammered home with metronomic monotony for many years don’t matter right now. Sanders is a politician with an ever handy villain. But the coronavirus "can’t be blamed for its greed or taxed [or regulated by government] into submission." It's useless to yell at the virus, and yelling at things is Sanders’ political métier.
Sanders prefers "to traffic in fantasies rather than provide realistic and workable solutions to glaring and inescapable realities."
"Who among us hasn’t noodled on what it would mean to win the lottery, to consider what you would do to fix things if you had unlimited money and power and were unconstrained by tradition or precedent or reality?"
"That is the seduction of socialism — it monopolizes resources and power and then distributes the goodies. But resources don’t work like that; if you seize them and centralize them, you pull them from their roots, and they begin to die."
'Whatever the world is going to look like once this [pandemic] is over, it won’t be a world that will have time for the ludicrous [ ] delusions of Bernie Sanders."
It is often said that Bernie Sanders' greatest support comes from young people. They aren't swayed by the common arguments against socialism or the history of socialism when put into practice. Why do they support Sanders, or more accurately, socialism? An audio on this page by Professor Stephen Hicks tries to answer this question. Starting at about 17 minutes Professor Hicks describes several mindsets he has found among young people who consider themselves socialists and the values on which they base their support of socialism. He calls these positions anti-cronyist, altruistic, central-planning, free stuff, communalist, welfare state, environmentalist, and emotionalist. His goal is only to explain, without criticism.
In an earlier audio Professor Hicks described socialism in theory or put into political practice by eight historical people. Their ideas of socialism are very different from those of modern young people.
Friday, April 3, 2020
Coronavirus - Medicare for All #2
On March 27 I wrote about an article using the coronavirus pandemic
to make propaganda favoring Medicare for All. I was unaware of
the website before then, and I guess it has a small audience.
Only three days later comes more
propaganda rationalized on the pandemic, this time from The New Yorker with
many readers and the presumptive title "Reality Has Endorsed
Bernie Sanders."
The author writes: "In the last
Democratic debate, former Vice-President Joe Biden insisted that the
U.S. doesn’t need single-payer health care because the severity of
the coronavirus outbreak in Italy proved that it doesn’t work."
She quickly moves on, ignoring Biden's statement as not
worth considering.
Fittingly on April Fools Day, the site
of the first propaganda follows with this
story. Engaging in fantasy, it is oblivious to the toll of the pandemic in Italy and Spain, the countries with health care systems most like Medicare for All.
The Hollywood Reporter gives Bernie Sanders another opportunity to air his propaganda amid the pandemic. BS asks how is it that in the USA, with the highest per capita spending on healthcare in the world, there are shortages of protective equipment and ventilators. He names his usual scapegoats -- for-profit insurance companies and drug companies. He fails to address why there are even greater shortages of beds in hospitals and ventilators in Italy and Spain, the countries with healthcare systems most like Medicare for All. BS's mindset has no use for such a reality check.
Bernie wants the USA to guarantee healthcare to all its people. "Guarantee" is hyperbole. A government can promise all it wants. Delivery is what matters. Like Italy and Spain demonstrate, promises can be broken. No bed in a hospital and no ventilator for a horde of seniors.
A Washington Examiner article is far more objective. It isn't based on fantasy and does a reality-check. The reality is Italy and Spain, the countries with healthcare systems most like Medicare for All. Comparing them to Switzerland -- with nothing like Medicare, less tragic, and much less governmental interference -- would have been a plus. The article is still excellent.
The Hollywood Reporter gives Bernie Sanders another opportunity to air his propaganda amid the pandemic. BS asks how is it that in the USA, with the highest per capita spending on healthcare in the world, there are shortages of protective equipment and ventilators. He names his usual scapegoats -- for-profit insurance companies and drug companies. He fails to address why there are even greater shortages of beds in hospitals and ventilators in Italy and Spain, the countries with healthcare systems most like Medicare for All. BS's mindset has no use for such a reality check.
Bernie wants the USA to guarantee healthcare to all its people. "Guarantee" is hyperbole. A government can promise all it wants. Delivery is what matters. Like Italy and Spain demonstrate, promises can be broken. No bed in a hospital and no ventilator for a horde of seniors.
A Washington Examiner article is far more objective. It isn't based on fantasy and does a reality-check. The reality is Italy and Spain, the countries with healthcare systems most like Medicare for All. Comparing them to Switzerland -- with nothing like Medicare, less tragic, and much less governmental interference -- would have been a plus. The article is still excellent.
Monday, March 30, 2020
Coronavirus #5
Five days ago I computed and showed elsewhere Deaths/Cases from the coronavirus for Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the USA. The ratios for Italy and Spain were several times those for Switzerland and the USA. Calculating the same ratios today shows (a) higher ratios for all four countries, and (b) Italy and Spain remain several times those for Switzerland and the USA.
This Worldometer page says the following about such ratios. "Once an epidemic has ended, [the case fatality rate] is calculated with the formula: deaths / cases. But while an epidemic is still ongoing, as it is the case with the current novel coronavirus outbreak, this formula is, at the very least, "naïve" and can be "misleading if, at the time of analysis, the outcome is unknown for a non negligible proportion of patients."
Of course, the ratio might be "naïve" and "misleading" if used to predict the ratio when the pandemic will end. However, that was not my purpose. My purpose was clearly to compare the countries' healthcare system's effectiveness of response to the pandemic, and I don't believe the above argument undercuts that. There is a competing explanatory hypothesis -- Italy and Spain have a higher fraction of their populations ages 65+. But I am keeping my doubt that age differences fully explain the fatality differences.
This Worldometer page says the following about such ratios. "Once an epidemic has ended, [the case fatality rate] is calculated with the formula: deaths / cases. But while an epidemic is still ongoing, as it is the case with the current novel coronavirus outbreak, this formula is, at the very least, "naïve" and can be "misleading if, at the time of analysis, the outcome is unknown for a non negligible proportion of patients."
Of course, the ratio might be "naïve" and "misleading" if used to predict the ratio when the pandemic will end. However, that was not my purpose. My purpose was clearly to compare the countries' healthcare system's effectiveness of response to the pandemic, and I don't believe the above argument undercuts that. There is a competing explanatory hypothesis -- Italy and Spain have a higher fraction of their populations ages 65+. But I am keeping my doubt that age differences fully explain the fatality differences.
Italy and Spain both have far more
government control of healthcare and health insurance than
Switzerland and the USA. Italy and Spain also spend far less per capita. They are indicative real world examples of single-payer healthcare and Medicare for All. Bernie Sanders and Medicare for All promoters advocate both much more government control and spending far less.
Doctors in Italy have said there is a severe shortage of ventilators and younger patients have higher priority than older patients. This doctor tearfully says the same about Spain. Yet an advocate of Medicare for All, whom I wrote about three days ago, naïvely asserts by innuendo that there will be no waiting lines if there is Medicare for All. Tell that to those older patients in Italy and Spain. At the latest count Switzerland has more cases per 1,000 population than Italy and is not far behind Spain. Yet in Switzerland there is much more concern about a shortage of staff than there is a shortage of ventilators (link).
Doctors in Italy have said there is a severe shortage of ventilators and younger patients have higher priority than older patients. This doctor tearfully says the same about Spain. Yet an advocate of Medicare for All, whom I wrote about three days ago, naïvely asserts by innuendo that there will be no waiting lines if there is Medicare for All. Tell that to those older patients in Italy and Spain. At the latest count Switzerland has more cases per 1,000 population than Italy and is not far behind Spain. Yet in Switzerland there is much more concern about a shortage of staff than there is a shortage of ventilators (link).
Friday, March 27, 2020
Coronavirus - Medicare for All
This article
argues that ‘The coronavirus
is making the case of Medicare For All even stronger.’ In my
opinion the argument is feeble and includes plenty of cherry-picking.
It
describes the USA as merely a
“for-profit” healthcare system, whereas the USA is already
Medicare-for-all-over-age-65 and
the majority of hospitals are non-profit. It
insinuates that rationed care and waiting lines are symptomatic of
a “for-profit”
healthcare system, and
implicitly assumes rationed
care and waiting lines will
not be the case if
the USA adopts Medicare-for-All.
Their comparison fails to include Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Italy and Spain have two of the most Medicare-for-All like systems in the world. Their healthcare spending per capita is much less than Switzerland's or the USA's, like Medicare for All advocates assert it should be. Italy and Spain are doing comparatively poorly dealing with the coronavirus pandemic. Based on the Worldometer's latest statistics, Italy’s mortality rate (deaths/cases) is 10.19%. Spain’s is 7.58%. Switzerland has nothing like Medicare. While the government subsidizes its purchase, all health insurance is provided by private insurers. While Switzerland has even more cases per 1,000 population, the mortality rate (deaths/cases) is 1.65%, much less than Italy or Spain. The USA’s is close, 1.52%.
Their comparison fails to include Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Italy and Spain have two of the most Medicare-for-All like systems in the world. Their healthcare spending per capita is much less than Switzerland's or the USA's, like Medicare for All advocates assert it should be. Italy and Spain are doing comparatively poorly dealing with the coronavirus pandemic. Based on the Worldometer's latest statistics, Italy’s mortality rate (deaths/cases) is 10.19%. Spain’s is 7.58%. Switzerland has nothing like Medicare. While the government subsidizes its purchase, all health insurance is provided by private insurers. While Switzerland has even more cases per 1,000 population, the mortality rate (deaths/cases) is 1.65%, much less than Italy or Spain. The USA’s is close, 1.52%.
The
article lauds South Korea’s and Taiwan’s healthcare
systems and cites the low impact of
the coronavirus in the two countries. The author
uses
them as innuendo to assert that
it’s because their
healthcare systems are instances of Medicare-for-All. In fact South Korea’s
is far from it. There is a national health plan. However: “77% of
the population have private insurance. This is due to the fact that
the national health plan covers at most 60% of each medical bill” (link).
Taiwan’s
healthcare system is more
like Medicare-for-All. The mortality rate from COVID-19 is very low, but so is the
number of cases per 1,000 population. I
can’t explain the latter. See update below. The
author asserts the existence of “high traffic with mainland China,”
an innuendo that Taiwan's exposure to
the coronavirus is as high as, maybe higher than, other countries.
Anyway, the healthcare
system has not faced
a stress test similar to
Italy, Spain, Switzerland, or even
the USA.
Switching
the topic, Bernie Sanders is
the most vocal advocate of Medicare for All in the USA. He has also expressed his contempt for billionaires. His world view implicitly
takes for granted a fixed supply of goods and services. How that supply comes about doesn't interest him. He has shown no understanding of it. He views billionaires as “profiteers” and greedy hogs of that supply he takes for granted, depriving other
people of their “fair share.” He regards the existence of billionaires as a "moral outrage." Contrary to his world view, multi-billionaires Elon Musk and James Dyson
are working on producing more ventilators in the battle against the
coronavirus. In Bernie’s
ideal world, they would not have the money they are pouring into these
efforts.
Update 3/27: Fear of China Made Taiwan a Coronavirus Success Story
Update 3/27: Fear of China Made Taiwan a Coronavirus Success Story
Tuesday, March 24, 2020
Coronavirus #4
Italy has been the country hardest hit by the pandemic. News coverage here in the USA often refers to Italy. I haven't heard or seen news stories about its neighbor Switzerland. (Italian is the main language in a southern part of Switzerland bordering Italy.) The following are stats captured only minutes ago from the Worldometer for the two countries.
The number of cases per thousand population aren't greatly different, but the number of deaths per thousand population are very different. Why is that? I cannot thoroughly explain it. Part is probably that Switzerland's over age 65 population is somewhat smaller, 18.4% versus Italy's 23%. However, this might be offset by Switzerland's higher percent of smokers. I have some suggestive ideas. One big difference is per capita health care spending. Switzerland is second highest in the world -- the USA being #1 -- and Italy below average among OECD countries. Switzerland's per capita spending was $7,719 in 2016; Italy's only $3,391 (Link). Switzerland had more hospital beds per 1,000 population in 2017 -- 4.53 versus Italy's 3.18 (link).
Public and compulsory spending on healthcare as a percent of the total in Switzerland is somewhat lower than Italy. I suspect the compulsory part for Switzerland is much higher, because the people are required to buy insurance with the government subsidizing the purchase. This page doesn't mention anything like Medicare. The compulsory health insurance is provided by private insurers. Unlike the USA, there appears to be no employer-provided health insurance.
Italy appears to have a Medicare-like system, but for all ages. In other words, it's Medicare for All. It's called the National Health Service. "In 2019, Italy's healthcare system was regarded, by World Health Organization's ranking, as the 2nd best in the world after France." Link. The WHO ranked Switzerland #20. Isn't that ironic? Yet Bernie Sanders wants the USA to be a lot more like Italy!
Edit 3/25/2020: Markets vs socialism: South Korea, Italy, COVID-19 Hat tip to dream_weaver.
Addenda 3/26/2020: Somebody replied to the above with the following point. There is no treatment for coronavirus, so I doubt that the healthcare system is what makes it different in this case.
I replied as follows. It seems more accurate to say there is no good cure for coronavirus. This article is about treatment. Some patients have been given drugs experimentally, which has helped some, and many are recovering from the virus. Aren't ventilators, which are often in news stories such as this one, a treatment? If a patient with COVID-19 has great difficulty breathing, can be put in a hospital on a ventilator, and survives, that strikes me as better than no hospital and no ventilator. It sounds plausible to me that the patient is better off in Switzerland than Italy or Spain.
The number of cases per thousand population aren't greatly different, but the number of deaths per thousand population are very different. Why is that? I cannot thoroughly explain it. Part is probably that Switzerland's over age 65 population is somewhat smaller, 18.4% versus Italy's 23%. However, this might be offset by Switzerland's higher percent of smokers. I have some suggestive ideas. One big difference is per capita health care spending. Switzerland is second highest in the world -- the USA being #1 -- and Italy below average among OECD countries. Switzerland's per capita spending was $7,719 in 2016; Italy's only $3,391 (Link). Switzerland had more hospital beds per 1,000 population in 2017 -- 4.53 versus Italy's 3.18 (link).
Public and compulsory spending on healthcare as a percent of the total in Switzerland is somewhat lower than Italy. I suspect the compulsory part for Switzerland is much higher, because the people are required to buy insurance with the government subsidizing the purchase. This page doesn't mention anything like Medicare. The compulsory health insurance is provided by private insurers. Unlike the USA, there appears to be no employer-provided health insurance.
Italy appears to have a Medicare-like system, but for all ages. In other words, it's Medicare for All. It's called the National Health Service. "In 2019, Italy's healthcare system was regarded, by World Health Organization's ranking, as the 2nd best in the world after France." Link. The WHO ranked Switzerland #20. Isn't that ironic? Yet Bernie Sanders wants the USA to be a lot more like Italy!
Edit 3/25/2020: Markets vs socialism: South Korea, Italy, COVID-19 Hat tip to dream_weaver.
Addenda 3/26/2020: Somebody replied to the above with the following point. There is no treatment for coronavirus, so I doubt that the healthcare system is what makes it different in this case.
I replied as follows. It seems more accurate to say there is no good cure for coronavirus. This article is about treatment. Some patients have been given drugs experimentally, which has helped some, and many are recovering from the virus. Aren't ventilators, which are often in news stories such as this one, a treatment? If a patient with COVID-19 has great difficulty breathing, can be put in a hospital on a ventilator, and survives, that strikes me as better than no hospital and no ventilator. It sounds plausible to me that the patient is better off in Switzerland than Italy or Spain.
One thing I read about recently that is attributed to the high prevalence of coronavirus in Italy (and Iran) is the “One Belt and One Road” (OBOR) initiative. See here and here.
Hope that helps.
Monday, March 23, 2020
Coronavirus - finance
I wrote the following three days ago elsewhere:
Since then I have learned some more details about McConnell's proposal. For low income folks the amount could be less than $1,200 and as low as $600. Also, any amount received could result in a lower tax refund after 2020. Finally, the IRS lacks the ability to act quickly or accurately. It will not be able to send so many payments as quickly as the pols want, and will make plenty of mistakes in the process (link).
Bernie Sanders wants to outdo both Trump-Mnuchin and McConnell (link). The latter two proposals of $1,000 or $1,200 stipulate a one-time event, with maybe a repeat later, e.g. in a few months. Bernie Sanders wants to give everybody -- no income test -- $2,000 "each month for the duration of this pandemic!" I thought he hated billionaires. Why does he want to start handing Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Mike Bloomberg et al $2,000 per month? The dictator-wannabe fascist shows total ignorance about producing and market distribution of goods or services and the skills and efforts needed to run a business. He often condemns profit like it is the root of all evil, and fails to understand that his salary as a Senator and his book royalties are or nearly are also 100% profit (since the costs incurred to obtain them are zero or negligible).
Trump-Mnuchin, Sen. McConnell, and Sen. Schumer have all proposed "stimulus" plans in response to financial hardships due to the coronavirus.
Relying on the news stories I have seen, Trump-Mnuchin's plan is stupid in my opinion. It pays everybody and hence is far off-target. Why send $1,000 to Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, the Clintons, or even me? Why send $1,000 to people who are retired, people who still have good paying jobs, or are wealthy? Sen. McConnell's plan is quite a bit better. His plan gives $1,200 to singles with 2018 adjusted gross income (AGI) < $75,000 and married filing jointly couples with 2018 AGI < $150,000. It gives $0 to singles with 2018 AGI > $99,000 and married filing jointly couples with 2018 AGI > $198,000. However, the link between 2018 AGI and current financial difficulty is weak. While Sen. Schumer's plan lacks detail, I believe his basic idea of expanding unemployment compensation is far more on-target -- people who were employed, but lost their jobs due to the coronavirus. Many of them were in low-paying jobs that were hit hard, e.g. at restaurants. His plan is probably slower to implement, but its aim is far better.
Bernie Sanders wants to outdo both Trump-Mnuchin and McConnell (link). The latter two proposals of $1,000 or $1,200 stipulate a one-time event, with maybe a repeat later, e.g. in a few months. Bernie Sanders wants to give everybody -- no income test -- $2,000 "each month for the duration of this pandemic!" I thought he hated billionaires. Why does he want to start handing Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Mike Bloomberg et al $2,000 per month? The dictator-wannabe fascist shows total ignorance about producing and market distribution of goods or services and the skills and efforts needed to run a business. He often condemns profit like it is the root of all evil, and fails to understand that his salary as a Senator and his book royalties are or nearly are also 100% profit (since the costs incurred to obtain them are zero or negligible).
Elon Musk has said he could convert part of his business to produce ventilators and masks to deal with the pandemic. He has talked with Medtronic (symbol MDT), a maker of medical devices about ventilators and respirators. Suppose Musk's business or Medtronic do achieve said production. (Medtronic has already increased its ventilator production by more than 40%, and is on track to more than double its capacity in response to demand triggered by COVID-19. Link.) If revenues minus costs < 0, would Bernie Sanders say that is morally acceptable, even heroic? However, if revenues minus costs > 0, would Sanders say it is evil? Suppose an anti-coronavirus drug or combination of drugs is found that saves millions of lives and results in a drug manufacturer getting millions of dollars in revenue. Ditto for a vaccine. A big part of costs would likely be unclear. Regardless, I pose the same questions to Bernie Sanders.
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Forbes: Climate change alarmist incoherence
Forbes: If They Are So Alarmed By Climate Change, Why Are They So Opposed To Solving It?
Dreams are the end. Fascism is the means. Only intended consequences matter; unintended consequences and reality don't.
Dreams are the end. Fascism is the means. Only intended consequences matter; unintended consequences and reality don't.
Saturday, February 29, 2020
Bernie Sanders' deceptive tax numbers
News stories say some posted on Facebook that Bernie Sanders proposed a 52% tax rate on all income over $29,000. The posts went viral. The assertion is false, so many in the mainstream media pounced. Yet Google News search results for {Bernie Sanders 52% tax $29,000} show significant media bias. Defending Sanders far outweighs any critical analysis of his proposals. BS proposes to pay for his spending spree here.
The Facebook posters conflated two things. The truth is BS wants a payroll tax of 4% of income over $29,000 and an income tax of 52% of income over $10 million. He also wants to increase the Social Security payroll tax rate 6.2% on income over $250,000 (the smaller maximum wage base more accurately and the rate is now 0%). Adding them makes a tax rate of 62.2% of income over $10 million. None of the media stories I read reported the 62.2% or even 56% (= 52% + 4%). (For Schedule C income it may be more, 68.4%, since the person must also pay the employer's 6.2% Social Security payroll tax. On the other hand, it may be somewhat less due to the qualified business income deduction.) Most also gloss over the other income tax hikes Sanders proposes on incomes much lower than $10 million, starting at 40% on income over $250,000 (link), which the first Sanders link above even omits.
The marginal income tax rate at $250,000 for married filing jointly is 24%; for a single it is 35%. So BS proposes a 16% tax rate increase for married filing jointly; 5% for single.
Regarding his proposed tax of 4% over $29,000 to pay for Medicare For All, the first link says: "In 2018, the typical working family paid an average of $6,015 in premiums to private health insurance companies. Under this option, a typical family of four earning $60,000, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All on income above $29,000 – just $1,240 a year – saving that family $4,775 a year. Families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium."
If the current 1.45% payroll tax for Medicare isn't eliminated, then BS sweeps it under the rug. Also, the picture is quite different for an income of $250,000, which is middle class in some places (e.g., Silicon Valley, NYC). 4% * ($250,000 - $29,000) = $8,840. So there is more tax and likely no savings for them! Even for a $200,000 income 4% * ($200,000 - $29,000) = $6,840, which is still more tax and likely no savings.
To fund the Green New Deal he proposes "collecting $2.3 trillion in new income tax revenue from the 20 million new jobs created by the plan." He says nothing about how many jobs his plan would eliminate. The number of unemployed people in the U.S. last month was only 5.89 million! So that implies eliminating several million jobs. The $2.3 trillion, which is very likely for 10 years, looks inflated in two ways -- number of jobs and tax rate. 20 million * $60,000 * 0.20 tax rate * 10 years = $2.4 trillion. For an income of $60,000, the average effective income tax rate is only about 10%. So the $2.3 trillion appears to be several times a realistic number.
The Facebook posters conflated two things. The truth is BS wants a payroll tax of 4% of income over $29,000 and an income tax of 52% of income over $10 million. He also wants to increase the Social Security payroll tax rate 6.2% on income over $250,000 (the smaller maximum wage base more accurately and the rate is now 0%). Adding them makes a tax rate of 62.2% of income over $10 million. None of the media stories I read reported the 62.2% or even 56% (= 52% + 4%). (For Schedule C income it may be more, 68.4%, since the person must also pay the employer's 6.2% Social Security payroll tax. On the other hand, it may be somewhat less due to the qualified business income deduction.) Most also gloss over the other income tax hikes Sanders proposes on incomes much lower than $10 million, starting at 40% on income over $250,000 (link), which the first Sanders link above even omits.
The marginal income tax rate at $250,000 for married filing jointly is 24%; for a single it is 35%. So BS proposes a 16% tax rate increase for married filing jointly; 5% for single.
Regarding his proposed tax of 4% over $29,000 to pay for Medicare For All, the first link says: "In 2018, the typical working family paid an average of $6,015 in premiums to private health insurance companies. Under this option, a typical family of four earning $60,000, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All on income above $29,000 – just $1,240 a year – saving that family $4,775 a year. Families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium."
If the current 1.45% payroll tax for Medicare isn't eliminated, then BS sweeps it under the rug. Also, the picture is quite different for an income of $250,000, which is middle class in some places (e.g., Silicon Valley, NYC). 4% * ($250,000 - $29,000) = $8,840. So there is more tax and likely no savings for them! Even for a $200,000 income 4% * ($200,000 - $29,000) = $6,840, which is still more tax and likely no savings.
To fund the Green New Deal he proposes "collecting $2.3 trillion in new income tax revenue from the 20 million new jobs created by the plan." He says nothing about how many jobs his plan would eliminate. The number of unemployed people in the U.S. last month was only 5.89 million! So that implies eliminating several million jobs. The $2.3 trillion, which is very likely for 10 years, looks inflated in two ways -- number of jobs and tax rate. 20 million * $60,000 * 0.20 tax rate * 10 years = $2.4 trillion. For an income of $60,000, the average effective income tax rate is only about 10%. So the $2.3 trillion appears to be several times a realistic number.
Saturday, February 22, 2020
Sanders' and Warren's lack of sacrifice
Forbes: Senators Sanders And Warren Strongly Endorse The Benefits Of Private Jet Travel
I don't believe Sanders or Warren is sacrificing or inconveniencing themselves enough. Why are they riding in private jets when commercial flights are available? The Forbes article says they buy carbon offsets, but the payment is probably from campaign funds that other people have contributed, not Sanders' or Warren's personal money. They also preach aplenty about "saving the planet" and against carbon dioxide emissions. Shouldn't they make a greater effort to practice what they preach? Or are they simply taking advantage of their elitist status, which we in the unwashed masses aren't entitled to?
I believe the comparison to CEOs taking private jets is weak. That was 12 years ago when the climate doomsayer talk wasn't so loud, and the CEOs weren't preaching doom.
I plan to make three round trip flights this year. The fares will be paid from my own pocket and the only private jet I have ever used is in my name. 😇
Bernie Sanders is being greedy and stingy with all the campaign money he has amassed, too. Why doesn't he redistribute the wealth to his more needy campaign rival Amy Klobuchar? 😉
I don't believe Sanders or Warren is sacrificing or inconveniencing themselves enough. Why are they riding in private jets when commercial flights are available? The Forbes article says they buy carbon offsets, but the payment is probably from campaign funds that other people have contributed, not Sanders' or Warren's personal money. They also preach aplenty about "saving the planet" and against carbon dioxide emissions. Shouldn't they make a greater effort to practice what they preach? Or are they simply taking advantage of their elitist status, which we in the unwashed masses aren't entitled to?
I believe the comparison to CEOs taking private jets is weak. That was 12 years ago when the climate doomsayer talk wasn't so loud, and the CEOs weren't preaching doom.
I plan to make three round trip flights this year. The fares will be paid from my own pocket and the only private jet I have ever used is in my name. 😇
Bernie Sanders is being greedy and stingy with all the campaign money he has amassed, too. Why doesn't he redistribute the wealth to his more needy campaign rival Amy Klobuchar? 😉
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
Three more questions nobody asks Bernie Sanders about M4A
This video shows some young people's opinions about Medicare for All. When they first hear about it from the likes of Bernie Sanders -- political sound bites and propaganda -- their response is favorable. "Great. Free stuff." After they learn a little more about it -- what it would cost them, how some people would lose their jobs, and how it would eliminate health insurance that about half the population now has through and largely paid for by their employers -- they are shocked and many no longer favor it.
I am not surprised by how little young people know about health insurance. It's way down the list of their concerns and they don't question the pied pipers of Medicare for All. Health insurance is largely a concern of older people. Here I asked some questions that nobody asks Bernie Sanders about M4A that affect mostly people who have health insurance via employers.
I searched for the terms {Bernie Sanders eliminate private insurance advantage supplement} using Google and DuckDuckGo. Sanders proposes to "eliminate private insurance" but I am not aware that he has specifically proposed eliminating Medicare Advantage, Medicare supplement (Medigap) policies, and Medicare Part D prescription drug policies. His own press release in April doesn't mention them. The links on the page don't either. All are products of private insurers. Looking at a few of the results from my search, I saw none that mentioned eliminating these three kinds of coverage. Sanders' primary target is employer-based health insurance coverage, at least private sector employers (link). His wanting "no copays or deductibles" at least suggests eliminating Medicare supplement (Medigap) policies.
Thus the three additional questions are: Do you propose to eliminate Medicare Advantage? Do you propose to eliminate Medicare supplement (Medigap) policies? Do you propose to eliminate Medicare Part D prescription drug policies?
Replacing them with Medicare would either eliminate what they cover beyond current Medicare or require a large expansion of Medicare benefits. Most likely Bernie proposes the latter. He surely does when he talks about no copays or deductibles and small maximum costs to patients for prescription drugs.
Medicare Advantage is a substitute for original Medicare. The federal government, more specifically the Center for Medicare Services, heavily controls Medicare Advantage. The policies must cover at least what original Medicare does. The insurers receive most of their funding from Medicare. How much is pretty complicated (link). The national average was about $10,000 per person enrolled in 2018. Those enrolled -- about 20.4 million people now -- also pay copays, deductibles, and some pay premiums (link). Medicare also subsidizes Part D prescription drug insurers.
A Wall Street Journal article (paywalled) reports that Sanders wants his young supporters to help him win over their parents. If they try, they better not mention health insurance! Sanders wants to eliminate their parents and grandparents private health insurance.
The Atlantic reports: "Bernie Sanders, by contrast, leads all candidates among voters under 30 and polls just 5 percent among voters over 65. In a national Quinnipiac poll asking voters which candidate has the best ideas, Sanders crushes Biden 27 percent to 4 percent among those under 35 and receives an equal and opposite crushing at the hands of Biden among voters over 65: 28 percent to 4 percent."
I am not surprised by how little young people know about health insurance. It's way down the list of their concerns and they don't question the pied pipers of Medicare for All. Health insurance is largely a concern of older people. Here I asked some questions that nobody asks Bernie Sanders about M4A that affect mostly people who have health insurance via employers.
I searched for the terms {Bernie Sanders eliminate private insurance advantage supplement} using Google and DuckDuckGo. Sanders proposes to "eliminate private insurance" but I am not aware that he has specifically proposed eliminating Medicare Advantage, Medicare supplement (Medigap) policies, and Medicare Part D prescription drug policies. His own press release in April doesn't mention them. The links on the page don't either. All are products of private insurers. Looking at a few of the results from my search, I saw none that mentioned eliminating these three kinds of coverage. Sanders' primary target is employer-based health insurance coverage, at least private sector employers (link). His wanting "no copays or deductibles" at least suggests eliminating Medicare supplement (Medigap) policies.
Thus the three additional questions are: Do you propose to eliminate Medicare Advantage? Do you propose to eliminate Medicare supplement (Medigap) policies? Do you propose to eliminate Medicare Part D prescription drug policies?
Replacing them with Medicare would either eliminate what they cover beyond current Medicare or require a large expansion of Medicare benefits. Most likely Bernie proposes the latter. He surely does when he talks about no copays or deductibles and small maximum costs to patients for prescription drugs.
Medicare Advantage is a substitute for original Medicare. The federal government, more specifically the Center for Medicare Services, heavily controls Medicare Advantage. The policies must cover at least what original Medicare does. The insurers receive most of their funding from Medicare. How much is pretty complicated (link). The national average was about $10,000 per person enrolled in 2018. Those enrolled -- about 20.4 million people now -- also pay copays, deductibles, and some pay premiums (link). Medicare also subsidizes Part D prescription drug insurers.
A Wall Street Journal article (paywalled) reports that Sanders wants his young supporters to help him win over their parents. If they try, they better not mention health insurance! Sanders wants to eliminate their parents and grandparents private health insurance.
The Atlantic reports: "Bernie Sanders, by contrast, leads all candidates among voters under 30 and polls just 5 percent among voters over 65. In a national Quinnipiac poll asking voters which candidate has the best ideas, Sanders crushes Biden 27 percent to 4 percent among those under 35 and receives an equal and opposite crushing at the hands of Biden among voters over 65: 28 percent to 4 percent."
Monday, April 22, 2019
Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All #2
The executive summary linked in my previous post was for Sanders' Medicare for All Act of 2017. Its only mention of long-term care is: "Long-term care for seniors and people with disabilities will continue as it is currently covered under Medicaid." It says nothing about limiting co-pays for prescription drugs.
This story (April 10) reports that Sanders has since added to his wish list. "In this latest version, Sanders added coverage for long-term care." "Brand name prescription drugs would be subject to copays totaling no more than $200 annually."
Of course, he omits saying what all this will cost. To him cost doesn't matter. In his view health care is a "moral right" and a license to coerce others to pay or provide whatever he or the government commands. However, a "right" to coerce others to pay or provide for this alleged "right" cannot be a legitimate right, because it violates the rights of those coerced. He also wishes his audience and supporters to believe (1) it will cost them little or nothing, (2) "the rich" will pay for all or most of the cost, and (3) there will be no bad consequences such as hospitals closing and cutting staff.
Per the story White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement that his plan would entail “a total government takeover of health care that ... (would) cripple our economy and future generations with unprecedented debt.” True and true.
The last paragraph of the story says: "Earlier this year, a poll from the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation found that Americans like the idea of Medicare for All but that support flips to disapproval if it would result in higher taxes or longer waits for care."
I found the poll results here. In other words, the majority of Americans approve of Medicare for All, if they don't have to pay more for it. But see slide 11. The majority oppose it if it requires most Americans pay more taxes, results in delays in treatment, or eliminates private health insurance.
What a surprise. Sure, I'd like a $10 million mansion and a couple of brand new Lamborghinis if somebody else is willing to pay for them. On the other hand, I won't spend my own money on anything near that extravagant.
Addenda: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who worked as an organizer for Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign, said the following according to FoxNews:
"In an interview with Jorge Ramos last week, Ocasio-Cortez was asked how she would pay for the multibillion-dollar health care plan promoted by liberal lawmakers like Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Kamala Harris, D-Calif. Ramos noted critics say the program would be "more expensive" than the current system, to which she answered that people would "just pay for it."
“People often say, like, how are you going to pay for it and I find the question so puzzling because ‘How do you pay for something that’s more affordable? How do you pay for cheaper rent?’ You just pay for it,” she said." Gibberish.
This story (April 10) reports that Sanders has since added to his wish list. "In this latest version, Sanders added coverage for long-term care." "Brand name prescription drugs would be subject to copays totaling no more than $200 annually."
Of course, he omits saying what all this will cost. To him cost doesn't matter. In his view health care is a "moral right" and a license to coerce others to pay or provide whatever he or the government commands. However, a "right" to coerce others to pay or provide for this alleged "right" cannot be a legitimate right, because it violates the rights of those coerced. He also wishes his audience and supporters to believe (1) it will cost them little or nothing, (2) "the rich" will pay for all or most of the cost, and (3) there will be no bad consequences such as hospitals closing and cutting staff.
Per the story White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement that his plan would entail “a total government takeover of health care that ... (would) cripple our economy and future generations with unprecedented debt.” True and true.
The last paragraph of the story says: "Earlier this year, a poll from the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation found that Americans like the idea of Medicare for All but that support flips to disapproval if it would result in higher taxes or longer waits for care."
I found the poll results here. In other words, the majority of Americans approve of Medicare for All, if they don't have to pay more for it. But see slide 11. The majority oppose it if it requires most Americans pay more taxes, results in delays in treatment, or eliminates private health insurance.
What a surprise. Sure, I'd like a $10 million mansion and a couple of brand new Lamborghinis if somebody else is willing to pay for them. On the other hand, I won't spend my own money on anything near that extravagant.
Addenda: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who worked as an organizer for Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign, said the following according to FoxNews:
"In an interview with Jorge Ramos last week, Ocasio-Cortez was asked how she would pay for the multibillion-dollar health care plan promoted by liberal lawmakers like Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Kamala Harris, D-Calif. Ramos noted critics say the program would be "more expensive" than the current system, to which she answered that people would "just pay for it."
“People often say, like, how are you going to pay for it and I find the question so puzzling because ‘How do you pay for something that’s more affordable? How do you pay for cheaper rent?’ You just pay for it,” she said." Gibberish.
Sunday, April 21, 2019
Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All
The USA's population is becoming more and more enamored with Medicare for All. Bernie Sanders touts it often as the cure to health insurance and health care. There are different versions of it, but Sanders' version is a massive government takeover of health insurance. This post will focus on health insurance, not health care.
The basics of his proposal is given in this story. He wants to eliminate private insurance in favor of government-run universal coverage. That includes eliminating health insurance now provided by employers. Almost half the US population has it. Everybody goes on Medicare. So whatever is being paid by employers now (I believe it's around $1 trillion per year) would be shifted to being paid for by increasing taxes, payroll or income. Of course, Bernie refrains from honestly saying how much.
Per here, federal, state, and local governments will spend $1.7 trillion for health care in fiscal year 2019 ($1.25 trillion federal). So the increase in taxes would be huge.
Per page 10 here 217 million people, 67% of the population, have private health insurance coverage that Bernie Sanders wants to eliminate, i.e. take away those people's health insurance, and put them on Medicare. Medicare in 2017 covered 55.6 million people. It's much closer to 60 million now. He doesn't want to eliminate employer-provided insurance instantly. He's willing to phase in the elimination over 4 years. But him wanting to eliminate it is clear in his executive summary -- "there would be one insurance plan for the American people with one single payer", Medicare.
His executive summary does not mention Medicare Supplemental (Medigap) or Medicare Advantage. However, these are private insurance, so lets take his elimination talk seriously. People buy Medicare Supplemental coverage, paying a premium, so that the policy pays for a lot of what Medicare does not. Replacing Medicare Supplement coverage will be in addition to the added cost of Medicare covering more people.
Medicare Advantage is a government-approved alternative to Medicare. The federal government pays a lot of money to the private insurer for each person covered. With a wholesale government takeover, the extra cost to the government would be the premiums Medicare Advantage insureds pay. These premiums on average aren't as much as for Medigap, but there would be some amount.
If you believe I'm exaggerating Bernie's proposal, think again. UnitedHealth Group -- often called UnitedHealthcare -- is the largest healthcare company in the world by revenue with $226.2 billion in 2018. Per this story Sanders tweeted to the CEO of UnitedHealthcare: “Our message to Steve Nelson and UnitedHealthcare is simple: When we are in the White House your greed is going to end. We will end the disgrace of millions of people being denied health care while a single company earns $226 billion and its CEO makes $7.5 million in compensation.” He says "end the greed", but his wanting to eliminate private insurance and single payer imply destroying UnitedHealthcare.
If employers will no longer provide health insurance for their employees, where will their cost savings go? You can bet that Bernie wants to confiscate it. And I'd like to see Bernie tell a huge crowd of federal and state government employees that he wants to eliminate their employer-provided health insurance.
The basics of his proposal is given in this story. He wants to eliminate private insurance in favor of government-run universal coverage. That includes eliminating health insurance now provided by employers. Almost half the US population has it. Everybody goes on Medicare. So whatever is being paid by employers now (I believe it's around $1 trillion per year) would be shifted to being paid for by increasing taxes, payroll or income. Of course, Bernie refrains from honestly saying how much.
Per here, federal, state, and local governments will spend $1.7 trillion for health care in fiscal year 2019 ($1.25 trillion federal). So the increase in taxes would be huge.
Per page 10 here 217 million people, 67% of the population, have private health insurance coverage that Bernie Sanders wants to eliminate, i.e. take away those people's health insurance, and put them on Medicare. Medicare in 2017 covered 55.6 million people. It's much closer to 60 million now. He doesn't want to eliminate employer-provided insurance instantly. He's willing to phase in the elimination over 4 years. But him wanting to eliminate it is clear in his executive summary -- "there would be one insurance plan for the American people with one single payer", Medicare.
His executive summary does not mention Medicare Supplemental (Medigap) or Medicare Advantage. However, these are private insurance, so lets take his elimination talk seriously. People buy Medicare Supplemental coverage, paying a premium, so that the policy pays for a lot of what Medicare does not. Replacing Medicare Supplement coverage will be in addition to the added cost of Medicare covering more people.
Medicare Advantage is a government-approved alternative to Medicare. The federal government pays a lot of money to the private insurer for each person covered. With a wholesale government takeover, the extra cost to the government would be the premiums Medicare Advantage insureds pay. These premiums on average aren't as much as for Medigap, but there would be some amount.
If you believe I'm exaggerating Bernie's proposal, think again. UnitedHealth Group -- often called UnitedHealthcare -- is the largest healthcare company in the world by revenue with $226.2 billion in 2018. Per this story Sanders tweeted to the CEO of UnitedHealthcare: “Our message to Steve Nelson and UnitedHealthcare is simple: When we are in the White House your greed is going to end. We will end the disgrace of millions of people being denied health care while a single company earns $226 billion and its CEO makes $7.5 million in compensation.” He says "end the greed", but his wanting to eliminate private insurance and single payer imply destroying UnitedHealthcare.
If employers will no longer provide health insurance for their employees, where will their cost savings go? You can bet that Bernie wants to confiscate it. And I'd like to see Bernie tell a huge crowd of federal and state government employees that he wants to eliminate their employer-provided health insurance.
Thursday, April 18, 2019
Bernie Sanders lies about Amazon income taxes
Bernie Sanders declared that Amazon paid no federal income taxes for 2018 (story).
He lied. I went to Morningstar to look at Amazon's financial data. Clicking on "All Financial Data" here reveals the relevant numbers:
Income before taxes $11,261 million
Net income $10,073 million
Provision for income taxes $1,197 million
Cash paid for income taxes $1,429 million
Bernie very likely lied about Netflix, too. Morningstar showed a $15 million provision for income taxes (on pretax income of $1,226 million), but did not show the amount of cash paid for income taxes. Anyway, from the story linked above: "A Netflix spokeswoman said in an email that it is "inaccurate to say that we paid $0 in federal income taxes in the U.S. in 2018"."
He lied. I went to Morningstar to look at Amazon's financial data. Clicking on "All Financial Data" here reveals the relevant numbers:
Income before taxes $11,261 million
Net income $10,073 million
Provision for income taxes $1,197 million
Cash paid for income taxes $1,429 million
The
provision for income taxes is a GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles) accrual
amount
which includes adjusting for deferred or prepaid taxes. However, cash
paid for income taxes is obviously cash paid. 1429/11261 = 0.127, or
12.7%. That is not as much as one might expect based on the 21%
corporate rate, but it is nowhere near Bernie's lie that Amazon paid
zero taxes.
Bernie very likely lied about Netflix, too. Morningstar showed a $15 million provision for income taxes (on pretax income of $1,226 million), but did not show the amount of cash paid for income taxes. Anyway, from the story linked above: "A Netflix spokeswoman said in an email that it is "inaccurate to say that we paid $0 in federal income taxes in the U.S. in 2018"."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)