Topic: Government shouldn't outlaw Private Insurance and Democrats know that (Read 505 times)

There should never be a monopoly on any product. This includes health insurance. In some ways a government monopoly is even worse than a private corporation monopoly.

If public health insurance is good enough, people should not find any reason to use private plans. Private insurance exists because there is a market for it. People who feel that what the government provides is inadequate should be free to spend their money for a product they want.

It doesn't work that way, a lot of people have became better off by sound investments, with quite low incomes.

Given that you don't even comprehend basic income strata in the USA, I'm hesitant to discuss taxation policy.

I'm just confused what you think the best method for taxing the super wealthy would if taxing the super high income doesn't work and you oppose taxing wealth directly.  If you can't turn high income into high wealth then you are just terribly irresponsible with money or sick enough to benefit from outlawing private health insurance. 

Not at all, I'm just noting that "Super Wealthy" refers to assets, not income.

And no, high income doesn't "should lead to high wealth."

And I'm not advocating for stealing from anyone, that's strictly you, the commie, that is taking from anyone you can slap a label on to justify the taking.

So are you advocating for a direct wealth tax? because under the current tax system, income is the main thing being taxed and income tax purposes was the context of the argument.  Over time, high income should lead to high wealth and that is indeed the correlation.  This could be a cunning way of moving the goalposts though.

I'm cool with you paying for your private doctor.

But the idea that you can join a pool of "privileged" individuals to negotiate with private doctors on your behalf is silly.

If a doctor's not helping save your life, report them to their guild/certification board/license people, duh? The Hippocratic oath is a thing.

I don't think I'd call someone "super wealthy" who was making 1, 2 or 3 million USD per year.

"Super wealthy" would really be an issue of looking at assets rather than yearly income. But for sure, someone with net assets > 100M most people would agree would be "super wealthy." Or even 50M, or 25M. Maybe.

I know people that are making millions per year and save nothing after buying a lot of fancy cars and bling.

I'm not interested in your judgmental, hypocritical comments on people you don't know.

No more than your judgmental, critical attitude in assigning "super wealthy" to people making > 300k a year.

I had not intended for this topic to have gotten out of hand in going off-topic and such, though I'm going to be locking this topic to ensure that the two of you (and others involved) find a dedicated thread for this discussion.

Maybe make a dedicated healthcare thread? Could make things interesting.

Nothing against either one of you guys though.

Edit: Has been unlocked after further discussion

Well your description of these alleged people is unconvincingly vague.  If true, its probably on them then.  I'd say they need to learn how to better manage money.  Either that or they have astronomical healthcare costs.

I know people making >300k who are just getting by. There's no reason to doggedly pursue your claim that they are Super Rich. They're not.

I'm starting to think your goal is just to derail the thread because your alleged gripe with the graphs don't have anything to do with the points that were being made and at this point, you are ignoring most of what I say.  Its like a mercator projection is being used to show the path from Florida to Mexico and you are arguing that I am fooled about the size of Greenland. 


Standard way to make THIS graph as I have demonstrated from multiple sources.

Its just not relevant in this case because that visual impact is actually contrary to my the main arguments pre-derailment.

a. There aren't many people making around 300k
b. 300k is far above "middle income"

The graph you desire to see would actually present both of those points in a more clear way.  You might have a relevant argument point if my original argument was something that matched the visual impact you are describing like " People making 250k+ are one of the largest groups of earners" / "Greenland is one of the largest land bodies" .  Me being unaware to it being used that way would be completely irrelevant unless we were talking about the size of Greenland. That should also give you more insight as to why so many organizations make the same graph the same way.  Its practical.  There just isn't much useful information by splitting all those people out to barely visible bars while making the graph several times bigger AND STILL having to do the same thing to a lesser degree at the newly defined "end".  The one you posted does it at 250 and the one I posted does it at 500.

Context, motive, and relevance are always important aspects of critical thinking
"Who is doing it?" "Why are they doing it?" "Who is it benefiting?" and "How does it apply to this discussion?" are questions you should think about before derailing the thread. 

I never claimed you made the graph. No it is not the "standard" way to make graphs, graphs are literally just pictures in a set scale that can take any form the creator desires. You are ignorant because you don't understand the mechanism used to create more visual impact using a specifically formed graph than the actual number support. There is also no lack of data to do it correctly as you proved immediately after by linking a graph without the manipulated spike by cutting off the upper end and jamming all it into the last bar. Now you are making arguments based on the authority of data collectors? Every statement you make just exposes your ignorance more. The data is fine, the way it is presented is manipulative, and the fact that you don't know how this works as a self proclaimed educator is honestly terrifying.

I know there is no table after $250k, are you now switching positions and arguing my point now so you can claim you were the one right all along? That's pretty pathetic. All you are doing is making excuse after half baked excuse why they couldn't have used an extended chart, and all of it is bullshit. The chart you originally presented was designed to be manipulative and you took the bait hook line and sinker, now you are desperately trying to pretend you didn't because you know it makes you look exceptionally ignorant. Also, I never said anything about "cherry picking" you did. I simply pointed out that you are unaware of how this graph format can be used manipulatively, and there is just no excuse for this as some one who claims to be an educator.

I didn't make the graph and its the standard way of presenting those graphs.  Thats just the way things are. Me being stupid wouldn't change that.  If it doesn't make sense or is dishonest then you're just smarter than everyone who makes these.    It saves spaces AND  the tradeoff is that its not really effective splitting hairs over just how rich the rich people are.  That also has to do with the availability of the data.  Since the data collectors understand this, they don't bother wasting resources trying to track exactly how many people make precise amounts above an amount most people agree on is really high.   So is the entire industry trying to mislead the public in the same way because it is the standard way?  

You can download the census data for yourself.  There is no table after 250k.  They just throw everyone into a total because they all have super high income and the trouble wouldn't be worth the limited application of precision in that data.  

Watch your argument that I cherrypicked a strangely presented graph get vaporized.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44705.pdf
CRS made the graph the same way

US census also made it that way


The BBC used a graph that works the same way


and researchgate



and HMRC



Look at that towering bar on the end! By your logic the British are even more dishonest.

It is very relevant, and I explained why already. Simply declaring it not the case is not an argument. You are the one who came up with the "saving space" horse shit story to make excuses for why the graph could not be extended out, not me. The point is the chart is deceptive in that it looks like all of a sudden there are a huge amount of people that make proportionally way more money by cropping the graph in such a way. The fact that we even need to have this discussion tells me you are either totally incompetent as an educator or quite disingenuous. Perhaps a bit of both?

You are doing some pretty crazy semantic back flips and inversions to try to make this make sense some how. You sourced the graph as part of your argument, now when I am critical of it I am nitpicking. You don't get to present an argument based on a source then cry when I deconstruct it, then call it irrelevant, unless you are arguing your own premise is irrelevant of course. This is all just a bunch of rhetoric and sophistry on your part. You are the verbal and intellectual equivalent of a little mechanical wind up monkey banging cymbals together.

That change is not even relevant in the context of the point.  You haven't thought about a motive for making it look bigger other than saving space.  You talk about critical thinking but never stop to think about why I would want to show a chart that made it look like there were a lot more  of these "poor rich" people than there really are.  What does that change? It makes it look like a smaller chunk of the people making 250k+ are making close to 250k.  But why stop there?  Why not add a 300,000?  350,000? 400,000?  Every chart has to draw the line somewhere or it will just go on forever until it includes the highest earner.  

Remember back to my main point that most earners are making around 60k.  A big peak at 250k+ does not help that point because it makes it look like all of those people are making arbitrarily "250k" when many of them are making several times that much.  The more precise chart actually supports my point that the hypothetical doctor/lawyer making 300k and scraping by in San Francisco is an extreme example and their situation is not representative of the typical person earning that much.  My point needs the bars to appear as small as possible because I am arguing that a system which benefits everyone who makes less than 300k is a system that improves life for the overwhelming majority of Americans. 

In summary, you are angry that I posted a standard graph and not a graph that would have been in even stronger support of my point.  The last post makes me wonder if you even understand what the graphs are showing.  Shorter bars= less people  which means less people would be in the income range of the adverse affects you are worried about from the tax increase. Ie, they can afford it.  Most income distribution graphs are done like the one I originially posted.  I'd say that is the standard.  Pew research has a reputation of not being biased.   Here is another stretched out one for you.  


All of them convey the same point that most earners make a lot less than $300,000 and that that is in fact, on the high end of the distribution.   Theres an infinite number of ways to scale graphs and people who are familiar with the concepts being portrayed are generally able to interpret the visual deficiencies and scale tradeoffs of the graphs.  I guess when you run out of points you can start nitpicking graphs in ways that aren't relative to the argument being made.

It amazes me how densely the ignorance is packed into almost every one of your statements. Graphs can take any form the creator decides. It is called scale. The fact that you have seen so many manipulated charts that purposely scale in such a way to bring the most visual impact regardless of the numbers, and you think that is just how charts work demonstrates to me clearly you have zero awareness of how this is used to manipulate perception.  

https://econographics.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/household-income-distribution.jpg]https://econographics.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/household-income-distribution.jpg]https://econographics.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/household-income-distribution.jpg

Here we show just the next $50,000 increment of earnings up, and oh look at that, suddenly that huge spike on the end is not so imposing is it? Charts are all about scale. Try not to be so impressed by flashy gifs and pretty charts. This is why I always demand sources from you, because you don't have the capability to do this kind of critical examination yourself. This again is terrifying from some one who's claimed profession is that of an educator.

The graphic stops for the simple reason that a scale graphic that went all the way to the top income would be several times wider than the screen. 
Most of them are but that doesn't mean you can't laser focus on the tiny percentage of them who make a lot more than the typical salary to end up over 300k.  No understanding of outliers...

They absolutely can.   San Francisco is the most expensive housing market in the country and there are homes under 1.7M all over the city.  
Never said that.  You just made that up.  Probably changed the second to last word from "any" to "a" which completely changes the statement.  You can't quote someone and change the words around.   Its probably the most dishonest thing you could do.

Well thats the point.  The top 5% are "few" people.  They can save up 170k making 25k per month.  Even if they are frivolous and only save 5k per month, they would have 170k in about 31 months.   Keep in mind providing the entire country with top quality healthcare is only costing them an extra $666 per month. (%4-10,000)

 You just completely ignored the pew research graph I posted to continue the narrative that these people are middle income.  Show me anything that says 300k per year is middle income or that someone in the 95 percentile is in the "middle".  Thats mathematically absurd.  

Yeah, why would taking more than half of what some one earns working way harder than everyone else make people want to work less right? What kind of weirdo doesn't want the fruits of his labor taken at gunpoint while he grinds himself into the dirt? Also this has been studied. You are wrong.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp

BTW, as usual, you use deceptive charts. Notice how your cute little animation cuts off at $200k? That means anyone earning more than 200k is going to be included in that last bar, giving it a manipulatively larger visual impact than if you were to expand it out like the rest of the bar graph. Just because most people earn very little doesn't make these people power brokers for earning more.

You started off claiming that the 300,000$ person could buy a home in the most expensive districts.

Then you backed off that claim, and talked about how he could buy the AVERAGE home at 1.7M.

Now you've found some junker likely next to the neighborhood crackhouse, for 1M. Plus you are now claiming "not every super wealthy person can buy a house."

Purchase price = 1.7M... 1.7M * 90% = 1.53M .... Assumes the person can pay 170,000 down. Few people can do that.

 4.25% /12 ... Interest per month, taking midpoint of recent rates

(taxes, insurance, HOA fees) = 0.012% of purchase price per month

Payment for the average SF house of 1.7M would be = Interest (5757) + taxes, insurance, HOA (1700) = 7457

This poor "SUPER WEALTHY" guy's available income for all expenses after his house payment would be ...

11250 - 7457 = 3793

But it's the nature of communism to go after and persecute the small businessmen, and take what they earned. One way to start would be to call them the SUPER WEALTHY. I think you've defined SUPER WEALTHY as someone you'd simply like to gorge and take their money away.

They are, and you are correct.

Coinsforcommies, in his own mind and nobody else, they are Super Wealthy.

Not only that, but all those type of statistics look at family income, and the typical family earning over 300,000 have slightly more that two wage earners.

You guys have a weird way of defining "middle".  No one looks at a distribution curve and calls the extreme tip of it the "middle"



Median salary for doctors is 208.  Lawyers are at 119.
https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/rankings/best-paying-jobs

A salary job that pays over 300k is extremely rare.  Most of the people with that much income are earning it through means other than labor.  Some people try to ignore statistics and laser focus on a few extreme examples though.  The

The cherrypicked is claim is still weak on its own.  You're laser focused in on the hypothetical "middle class" anestesiologist who lives in san francisco making 450k who now has to pay 18,000in healthcare taxes ( 4% payroll tax in "sanders plan as opposed to the 10,000 they were paying for private insurance).  Somehow you're convinced that the extra 8,000 in taxes to help cover the entire population is too much because this person is already limited to only being able to easily afford to buy homes under 2 million dollars. 

You can quote what people pay now here
https://www.coveredca.com/

Keep in mind the "middle income" folks would only be paying 2400.  The overwhelming majority of people would be saving massive amounts of money at the expense of ultra high earners and, of course, the private insurance company profits. 

    I am really confused why someone would consider an income of $300,000 per year would be considered part of the "wealthy" class. I would think that would be the expected income of a successful doctor, lawyer or small business owner. I always thought people in these professions were considered Upper Middle class, not Lower Upper or Upper Upper class. I also thought these progressives were going to go after the upper classes with their taxes, not the middle classes. It appears that once again, the middle class are going to be the ones who truly shoulder the burden to assist the working and lower classes, while the people in the upper classes will find all kinds of loopholes to pay as little tax as possible.
  To get back on topic, if some form of "Medicare for all" ever gets implemented, I certainly hope it works out better for me than the current system. People on Medicaid have better coverage than I do. 

Well those people have income that is in the 95 percentile so statistically I don't really have to prove anything.  We're talking about incomes that are more than 5 times the national median and in the top 5%.  There is no way of talking your way out of those facts.  300,000 is super wealthy relative to the median income of 60,000.  

My prior claim still stands and was supported by all of those zillow links.  Those aren't maybes.  Those are properties on the market that could be bought right now at less than 28% of gross monthly income.  Its not my fault that you confused yourself by using income after taxes instead of gross income to make the rich seem poor.  
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,condo,land_type/89237732_zpid/2-_beds/globalrelevanceex_sort/37.853847,-122.351475,37.702973,-122.592488_rect/11_zm/2_p/0_mmm/
Its a million dollar home at a cost of 5400

That is 22% of the gross monthly income of someone with an annual income of 300,000

and of course the expectation is not that any wealthy person can buy any house.  There are obviously multiple levels of being wealthy.  Theres a 1% that these people can't touch and a .1% that they can't even touch.  San Francisco is full of 20+ million dollar homes but just because someone making 300,000 can only afford a 1 million dollar home doesn't mean they aren't rich.  

If your only incentive for working is to become as wealthy as possible, paying tax is not going to take that away.  If anything, the tax would incentivize you work a little more just to get back to where you would have been before the tax. Paying a little tax isn't going to cut anybody off.

The bolded question is a great question and actually supports the reasoning for taxing the rich.  Their excess wealth is literally coming from the labor of others.

So now you are claiming the "super wealthy" can maybe buy an "entry level home" in the SF area by spending 2/3 to 3/4 of their take home pay.

Let's go look at your prior claim. After I said this:

LOL, at current rates that's about 11,250 per month in NY or CA. Is that enough to buy a house in those areas?

You replied:

Its easily enough to buy a house anywhere.   That amount is precisely enough to buy a median home in the most expensive market of San Francisco.    

Well, which is it? The most expensive market or the "average" market? Looks to me like your "super wealthy" is pretty close to poor. And if he follows your advice, he's chained to a ridiculous mortgage forever and likely winds up dead broke.

Why should anyone follow your advice on the wonderful world of communism?

They'd likely find out the hard way you were grossly mistaken or lying.

You said -

This entire sidetrack is a cherry pick in itself because we are discussing an extreme subset of conditions in rare extreme markets.  The overwhelming majority of this tiny fraction of people earning 300,000 would easily afford a home in most markets. Its all just a distraction and a reach for you to desperately try to prove a point. 

It's YOUR ARGUMENT and YOUR PHRASE "Super wealthy." Live with it.

The point that these are still the employing class is quite a valid point. You act like these people live like royalty, and you want to remove their incentive for working as hard as they do, but they employ a large percentage of the people who make less than them. It is a lot like a food chain in nature. You can't just cut off the top half and expect everything to work out just fine. Also there is the very simple question of what entitles you to the labor and resources of others?

Public corruption is not the only form of corruption.  

As for your scenarios.  You have switched a lot of things around in your calculations that have thrown everything off.  I will try to break everything down

1. "super wealthy" is a relative term.  These are people who have income in the 95 percentile so they are super wealthy relative to most people.  

2.  I don't agree with what you are calling the "conservative model" because it is not meant to be applied to the typical person and does not apply to the "super wealthy"  in the same way because 75% of the median income leaves an individual with 45000 in other living expenses while much less than 75% of 300,000 is necessary to fulfill other expenses.  The higher your income, the more percentage of your income you can spend.   The most important part of this is that you have changed the actual number.  The number should be based on gross income and you based it on "take home" which makes it significantly lower.  No one uses that.  You snuck that in to make it look like I was the one lying.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/05/030905.asp
Again, the higher your income, usually the more sense it makes that you can afford to spend a larger percentage of it.  

3.  You used the average home price instead of median home price which again is misleading.  The average home price is a pretty meaningless number that is skewed by ultra high value homes.  If anything, it would be most appropriate to use a "entry level home price" to figure out if someone can afford to buy a home.
https://sf.curbed.com/2019/7/10/20689307/median-home-price-house-sf-san-francisco-2019
Median sale price is 1.7 million. Keep in mind the median home price in the US is $226,000.  
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/San-Francisco-CA/house,condo,land_type/80743196_zpid/20330_rid/0-500000_price/0-1907_mp/globalrelevanceex_sort/38.183688,-122.161789,37.581045,-123.12584_rect/9_zm/0_mmm/
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/San-Francisco-CA/house,condo,land_type/2124214951_zpid/20330_rid/0-500000_price/0-1907_mp/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.374648,-121.978455,36.974032,-125.834656_rect/7_zm/0_mmm/
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,condo,land_type/59792371_zpid/2-_beds/0-900000_price/0-3432_mp/globalrelevanceex_sort/37.853848,-122.351475,37.702973,-122.592487_rect/11_zm/0_mmm/
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,condo,land_type/2121141340_zpid/2-_beds/0-900000_price/0-3432_mp/globalrelevanceex_sort/37.853847,-122.351475,37.702973,-122.592488_rect/11_zm/0_mmm/
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,condo,land_type/89237732_zpid/2-_beds/globalrelevanceex_sort/37.853847,-122.351475,37.702973,-122.592488_rect/11_zm/2_p/0_mmm/

4. This entire sidetrack is a cherry pick in itself because we are discussing an extreme subset of conditions in rare extreme markets.  The overwhelming majority of this tiny fraction of people earning 300,000 would easily afford a home in most markets.  Its all just a distraction and a reach for you to desperately try to prove a point.  

5. Is "no one can afford to buy a house" really even the argument you want to be making on behalf of more expensive healthcare?

And "what you would like' is just about as bad an idea as the many time you've stretched or completely ignored the truth in things you have said here.

Your plan involves increasing taxes, so it involves increasing the pot from which corruption is engendered.


Really? The 11,250 is net take home of 300k / year which is what you call "super wealthy." And you consider that "super wealthy?"


I assume you'd agree with the "conservative model" used in the banking industry that the house payment should not exceed 25% of take home income. That'd be $2812 payment including taxes, interest, and insurance, and PMI.

Please show me examples of houses in the most expensive market of San Francisco for which the monthly payment is $2812 or less. Zillow is fine.  Actually, I think you are just making things up again. Median prices in those neighborhoods are 3-5M. Taking the lower number, 3,000,000 and assuming an interest rate of 4.5%, monthly interest paid would be 11,250. To that you must add principal pay down, insurance, taxes, and PMI.

So you are just lying again, and poorly.

I'm seeing the average house in SF running a mortgage of 6-7000 per month, way outside what someone with a take home pay of 11250 could afford.

Maybe you want to reconsider what you consider "super wealthy?"

And that's the reason nobody should pay any attention to your rosy claims about the wonders of communism. So much of what you say is untrue, why should those things you say about communism be any different?

Enough to buy a house, yes, but you're still going to have it mortgages as you're most likely still going to live out of your means (It's a great American thing that we do here)

After taxes from the Fed and NY though, that amount is going to be much much lower. You're walking away with about $191k after taxes.


I'm confused on what you're trying to touch on here. Are you saying that these small business deductions are leading to people paying no taxes and that's a bad thing? There's a reason for these taxes, and its to incentivize investment and growth. It also allows you to deduct expenses of doing business (which makes sense, as it would never make any sense to pay taxes on your revenue instead of income)

Can you clarify this portion?

You are correct about corruption but wrong about what I would like.  My plan involves reducing the size of the pot and would significantly reduce the amount of money being extracted from the system.


This is an invalid point.  This fake person makes 50k not 300k.  Income taxes are not based on revenue and the fact that you don't know that means you are either intentionally dishonest or way too rich or too poor to be in touch with basic tax concepts.  Besides, most people in that sort of situation described could use small business deductions like property depreciation or smart accounting to report their adjusted gross income to near 0 to pay minimal taxes.  The business isn't doing great.

Corruption is based on available corruptables, and you would like a large pot of money there.

It's obviously a target for taking by those who would do so.

A blanket system that everyone uses with no qualifiers actually reduces the amount of bureaucracy and red tape.  Less corruption because there is no work to be done in regards to finding out how something will be paid for or by who or for whom. 



And yes.   Its easily enough to buy a house anywhere.   That amount is precisely enough to buy a median home in the most expensive market of San Francisco.    Funny how that works huh?  Its almost as if a lot of thought has been put into coming up with a plan that works for everyone. 

The hordes of deadbeat civil servants? The corrupt officials that scrape their share of the money before anyone else?

LOL, at current rates that's about 11,250 per month in NY or CA.

Is that enough to buy a house in those areas?

You might be honest, while I have my doubts, you are most certainly ignorant. Who do you think is employing the other 95%? What if that guy who makes 300k a year spends $250k in payroll every year? Suddenly this works for the 0%.

Well yeah thats 5%.  This is bad for 5% and good for 95%.     I'm just being honest.  No program or policy benefits everyone. 

LOL. Anyone who earns more than 300k a year is super wealthy. K.

I'll assume that by "corrupt communists" you mean a system that provides everyone with top quality healthcare so I can answer the question.  The answer is the top 5%.  Those who profit off of everyone's health insurance premiums.  If you hold shares of insurance companies, of course you don't want those shares to go to zero and simultaneously have to pay more in taxes.  Its a lose-lose for the super wealthy.  We're talking about people who earn more than 300,000 per year.  

Who would want private companies to get in the way of corrupt communists?

Its not odd.  Its what always happens when they have to compete with private companies.
This is why access to free education/housing and or UBI is important. It gives people a strong safety net until they can find a real job. 

Odd, a lot of public health care systems have a goal of providing as little service as possible while collecting as much money as possible....

Allowing the people who bear the burden of the costs to opt out of a public system would open the door for them to defund and neglect it because it wouldn't be their health they're neglecting.  Think about it, if everyone's health depends on the public system, everyone has a vested interest in making the system work well.  There can be no workaround. 

If private insurance remained, neglect would be inevitable because the goal of private companies is not to provide the service, but to maximize profits which means provide as little service as possible while collecting as much money as possible. Private insurance companies can profit more by weakening the government system and will have the political power to do just that. 

Of course the government cannot compete.  We don't even want the government to compete.  Thats the whole point. We want them to focus on providing the best service possible instead of tricking people into paying the most possible for the least possible in return (what private companies do)

This is a focus on the results, not the initiative.

What they want is to take another 10-25% of peoples' income in taxes.

Then there are the promises.

Then there is what is actually delivered.

Just look at the "takings." They want to take your money. Then say "No."

The current Medicare system has part C, which allows for a participant to have a private insurance company take over their Medicare benefits, (a Medicare advantage plan.) Furthermore, a participant can opt out of part B. ( A participant should have other insurance if they opt for this.) Furthermore, Medicare claims are usually handled by government contractors. (These are private companies.) However, what many of the Democratic candidates are actually pushing resembles this very little. In fact, it appears what they are offering is closer to VA health benefits for all. This program is totally run by the government and like most government run programs is totally inefficient. I'd be all for a "Medicare for all" program if what they offer is actually closer to what Medicare currently offers. However, I am feeling like many democratic candidates are actually pushing for something that I think would be disaster and labeling it "Medicare for all," since Medicare is a popular program, and they are trying to bamboozle their voters.

Now that the first Democratic primary has come to a close, we've seen a significant shift in the minds of Democrats relating to a substantial question -- "Should Americans be able to keep their private insurance" and the answer, now, for most Democrats is "Yes."

Bernie is the only person to deviate from this, saying that private health insurance companies should be outlawed. Which I think we all know is never going to happen, but even thinking about the government coming into an industry (with such a large amount of people employed) and telling them that they're no longer needed is appalling. Just think, an entire sector is gone (one that employs hundreds of thousands of Americans) just like that.

If the Government can do a better job with their whole Medicare for all Plan for cheaper, then so be it. More to them, but I don't think the government should outlaw private insurance -- nor should they force them out with regulations, fees, taxes, etc. in a way to make their plan seem better. I'd like to see if the government can compete and if they can then so be it -- if it brings costs down for Americans, then I'm happy.

What does everyone else think?