Here is the link to the calculator:

https://elizabethwarren.com/ca...tor/medicare-for-all

article:

Warren released her $52 trillion Medicare for All proposal on Friday, which she says will not require a tax hike on middle class Americans, despite the fact it will harm workers in the form of suppressed wages, as Breitbart News reported.

Warren actually goes a step further, proclaiming that her plan could save families thousands per year, which she “proves” via a “Medicare for All Calculator” designed to assist individuals and families to “find out what Elizabeth’s plan for Medicare for All will mean for you.” However, the calculator largely issues the same canned response no matter how the user answers the questions.

The calculator asks, “Where do you get your health care right now?” and provides six options. Those are as follows:

My Job
Medicaid
Health Care Marketplace (Like Healthcare.gov)
Medicare
VA/TRICARE
I Don’t Have Health Care Right Now

Four of the options – Medicaid, Medicare, VA/TRICARE, and I Don’t Have Health Care Right Now – do not require further information.

Medicaid and Medicare’s answer states, “You’re already covered, and under Elizabeth’s Medicare for All plan, you’d get even better coverage at almost no cost to you.”

“You’re already covered under VA/TRICARE, but you’d also have the option of enrolling in Medicare for All,” users who select VA/TRICARE are told.

Those who indicate that they do not already possess coverage are told that they will get “practically free health care for you and anyone else who needs it.”

The two remaining options require more information, asking the user “Roughly, how much do you spend each year on health care?” It appears, no matter the cost the user puts in, the calculator proclaims that the amount provided is the exact amount the user will save under her Medicare for All plan, displaying, “MORE MONEY IN YOUR POCKET” in call caps.

For example, if the user indicates they spend roughly $7,038 per year on health care, Warren’s calculator claims that “you’d bring home an estimated $7,038 more per year under Elizabeth’s Medicare for All plan.” If the user puts in a figure $999 or less, it simply states, “You’d bring home more money per year under Elizabeth’s Medicare for All plan.”

“That’s because you won’t have to pay for premiums or copays or any of the other ways health insurance companies stick you with the bill. What’s more, Elizabeth’s plan for Medicare for All doesn’t raise middle-class taxes by one penny,” the calculator states.

Warren claims she will fund her $52 trillion proposal via tax hikes on the wealthy, cuts to defense spending, and amnesty for illegal aliens.

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...aims-everyone-saves/

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"amnesty for illegals" funds her healthcare proposal. ???

It is a disgrace and embarrassment that this woman is the most likely DEM 2020 presidential candidate

How are those VA hospitals working out, Liz?

Notice there is no definition there what is Middle Class.

She claims to not be taxing anybody but the "rich" but she plans to tax stock and bond sales. If you have a retirement account or IRA and at 70 1/2 years of age and are forced to take distributions, the IRA will be selling shares in your fund to pay these distributions, you will pay a tax.

Don’t be too hard on her. Yeah. She’s crazy. She’s a liar. She’s bad at math. But she’s Trump’s best chance to get re-elected.

She's a methmatician.

Where we live the only Medicare doctors are associated with the regional hospital. They are overworked with long waits for an appointment. We interviewed some of those doctors and found them lacking not only in experience but patient care. Imagine the wait for an appointment if the country were under the former Native American's plan.

None of the long practicing good family care physicians want to deal with Medicare. We pay out of pocket to keep the doctor we trust.

I look forward to being paid less for professional services. I did not see the calculation for number of physicians willing to accept rock bottom prices. I am sure that physicians will gladly accept all the additional paperwork and hassle from the one size fits all plan. Go get your healthcare in Cuba, it is a short boat ride away. Older physicians are already retiring, let's add to that number.

I think that soon we would run out of Doctors. Who in their right mind, would go into deep debt to get out and basically work for peanuts.

Ok- just for fun:

https://www.statista.com/stati...after-tax-in-the-us/

This statistic shows corporate profits after tax in the United States from 2000 to 2018. Corporate profits are defined as the net income of corporations in the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA). In 2018, corporations made profits of over 1.84 trillion U.S. dollars after tax.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/c...e-2016/#7d39143437ac

Here’s the full list of all American billionaires, who are worth a collective $2.4 trillion

So, the Two trillion dollar new taxes on billionaires would take care of one year.

The corporate taxes would wipe out ALL corporate profits every year...except...

... Billionaires (and millionaires also) do not keep their money in banks or in the mattress. Almost all of it is in corporate stocks and bonds. To pay the 100% tax would wipe out the equity base of the corporation... whoopsie! No more corporations!

Just as the old Democrat authored Inheritances tax damn near destroyed relatively small family businesses, Warren would destroy ALL corporations.

I welcome a rebuttal from our SF Economists...

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
She's a methmatician.

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
Where we live the only Medicare doctors are associated with the regional hospital. They are overworked with long waits for an appointment. We interviewed some of those doctors and found them lacking not only in experience but patient care. Imagine the wait for an appointment if the country were under the former Native American's plan.

None of the long practicing good family care physicians want to deal with Medicare. We pay out of pocket to keep the doctor we trust.

Having been on Medicare for 11 years (Advantage plan @ no cost over traditional Medicare) I've never found myself in a situation you are describing. I had a very extensive surgery last year requiring 22 days in the hospital nine hours in the OR followed by 7 days in intensive care. No lines, no doctor refusals and pretty damn good care. Cost was over 1.4 million and I paid around $1800 out of pocket that year. Now what will happen when the enrollment skyrockets I don't know but it surely will not be near as good.

quote:

aving been on Medicare for 11 years (Advantage plan @ no cost over traditional Medicare) I've never found myself in a situation you are describing. I had a very extensive surgery last year requiring 22 days in the hospital nine hours in the OR followed by 7 days in intensive care. No lines, no doctor refusals and pretty damn good care. Cost was over 1.4 million and I paid around $1800 out of pocket that year. Now what will happen when the enrollment skyrockets I don't know but it surely will not be near as good.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Good to hear. The problem is supply and demand. It is location specific. For a time, MD Anderson would not take MA plans, regular Medicare yes. The system for billing (CPT codes) are beyond complicated. Some specialties do very well, some do not. It is largely a matter of the Big Boys, Hospitals and Insurance companies that determine the outcome. Psychiatrists in my area, do not take Medicare unless the practice is owned by the hospital which allows for additional facility billing. Orthopedic surgeons are on a case by case basis. Mississippi is a poor state, and many doctors have to take Medicare or go out of business. It is a different story in other parts of the country. MA plans can be great and they are making plenty of money for Cigna and United Healthcare who administer these plans. Traditional Medicare is a better option for some people in certain areas. Probably more than you want to know. Hope you had a good recovery!

I forgot to add that the Largest and most dominant hospital on the Coast, stopped seeing ALL Medicare Advantage patients as of January 2019. That meant that all the business went to the other hospital in town which is PRIVATE. Patients who did not have regular Medicare were frozen out. The largest hospital which is NONPROFIT was big enough to not need the business and Cigna and United Health refused to budge on their rates. I chose regular Medicare and had no problem continuing with my physicians. Of course it is more expensive, premiums are fairly high and since I am working pay even more. With my medical history it was worth it. I do not need rides to the doctor, like Joe Namath does.

If you live in a major metro area, it will be different for you than for folks out in the sticks. What's going to happen will be a huge increase in the number of doctors and NPs who just say "eff it" and then start their own cash-only concierge practices, by invitation only, and don't deal with insurance whatsoever. My doc in NoVA did this 12 years ago. The invitation letter said it was a $1500 annual fee, they'd give me all the paperwork I needed to fight it out with my insurance company on my own, but that they would accept no insurance whatsoever - cash only.

Bottom line is that Medicare reimbursement rates are in most areas of the country less than those with private insurance, sometimes significantly so. Most doctors have a mix of private and Medicare patients and are OK with the lower reimbursement rate for only some of their practice. If everybody is on Medicare and care for all their patients is reimbursed at lower rates, the result - a significant cut in income for doctors. Ten years after this is implemented, this will absolutely mean fewer doctors and longer waits. I also have to believe that eventually this will mean medical rationing at some level. Example, my father in law was 76 when he had a procedure that cost over 100 grand to Medicare. He is in his 90s and is currently doing well. Medicare had to approve the procedure. At some point with the budgetary pressures I can't believe that Medicare would approve such a procedure for someone in their 70s. That's the future with Medicare for all.

Another issue. Senator Chris Coons to his credit said after one of the Democratic debates that he spoke to several hospital administrators at smaller rural hospital. They all said they would have to close if all their patients were reimbursed at Medicare rates.

Medicare for all is a horrible idea. Those who should oppose it the most (besides people in the health care business) are people who currently have Medicare.

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:
Bottom line is that Medicare reimbursement rates are in most areas of the country less than those with private insurance, sometimes significantly so. Most doctors have a mix of private and Medicare patients and are OK with the lower reimbursement rate for only some of their practice. If everybody is on Medicare and care for all their patients is reimbursed at lower rates, the result - a significant cut in income for doctors. Ten years after this is implemented, this will absolutely mean fewer doctors and longer waits. I also have to believe that eventually this will mean medical rationing at some level. Example, my father in law was 76 when he had a procedure that cost over 100 grand to Medicare. He is in his 90s and is currently doing well. Medicare had to approve the procedure. At some point with the budgetary pressures I can't believe that Medicare would approve such a procedure for someone in their 70s. That's the future with Medicare for all.

Another issue. Senator Chris Coons to his credit said after one of the Democratic debates that he spoke to several hospital administrators at smaller rural hospital. They all said they would have to close if all their patients were reimbursed at Medicare rates.

Medicare for all is a horrible idea. Those who should oppose it the most (besides people in the health care business) are people who currently have Medicare.

I think you have that correct. I'm shocked when I check my EOB and compare what the doctor/hospital charges and what medicare actually pays. It's like 25% in many cases. There are some specialists that currently can't get away from medicare due to the service they provide. Nephrologist (Kidney) for example deal with mostly elderly people. If they turned away those on medicare they'd lose a large majority of their patients.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
If you live in a major metro area, it will be different for you than for folks out in the sticks. What's going to happen will be a huge increase in the number of doctors and NPs who just say "eff it" and then start their own cash-only concierge practices, by invitation only, and don't deal with insurance whatsoever. My doc in NoVA did this 12 years ago. The invitation letter said it was a $1500 annual fee, they'd give me all the paperwork I needed to fight it out with my insurance company on my own, but that they would accept no insurance whatsoever - cash only.

That's exactly why, under Hillary's plan, doing that would have been a crime. No working outside the system or you get sent to the gulag.

Bruce

Has Elizabeth Warren Really Thought about Her Tax Plan?
By Norman Rogers

Elizabeth Warren says her plan will result in "everyone get[ting] the care they need, when they need it, and nobody goes broke." It appears that senators, such as Ms. Warren, are excused from the worst effects of Medicare.

I have a friend with a chronic back problem that needed an operation. She got a run-around from her Medicare program for years and finally paid $13,000 to have the operation done privately. My parents were briefly resident in a Medicare nursing home. It was terrible, with demented people wandering around screaming, etc. When they moved to a non-Medicare nursing home, the difference was between a zoo and a 4-star hotel. The cost was only marginally higher. However, doctors declined to visit the patients in the nursing home because the reimbursement was extremely low under Medicare. If you go to a medical facility that mostly deals with seniors, such as an eye clinic, you will find assembly-line medicine: long waits and brief visits to the doctor.

If you have a problem with a private insurance company, it is feasible to sue it, and the company fears that. If you have a problem with Medicare, forget about it. You're dealing with a giant government bureaucracy that is very difficult to sue and that will deal with you in its own sweet time. I know of a case where an appeal was not answered for years. You may be dead long before you get satisfaction.

In Britain, everyone who can possibly afford it has private insurance and has nothing to do with the National Health Service. In the U.S., every effort is made to force seniors to enroll in Medicare Part A. They are denied Social Security if they refuse to enroll. The optional parts of Medicare and the necessary supplement from a private insurer are not cheap, either, for seniors above the poverty level. Medicare is far from free and pays only 80% of expenses.

Medicare tries to be a monopoly for seniors. There are price controls that prevent going to the best private doctors who don't accept Medicare. The monopoly is not tightly enforced currently. There are loopholes, such as concierge doctors that are allowed by the government.

In Canada, they have what amounts to Medicare for All. You may have to wait months to get a C.T. scan or years to get a knee replacement. It is illegal to bypass the system by paying a private doctor. People with serious medical problems routinely go to the United States to get medical care, paying from their own pockets. If the Elizabeth Warren system is implemented, to which country will Americans go to for medical care? Some possibilities are Germany, Taiwan, and Singapore. Likely, major American medical organizations would move across the border with Mexico in order to be free to practice good medicine.

The Medicare system tries to control the vast medical industry by an elaborate system of regulation. For example, there are CPT codes used to identify different medical conditions. There are 68,000 numerical codes. In spite of the vast effort to control the system with elaborate regulation, Medicare fraud is a huge industry, stealing billions from the government.

Warren's proposed tax system to pay for Medicare for all is truly a nightmare. She seems oblivious to the practical problems with her proposals. Or maybe she does understand the problems and likes the problems since they give the government the upper hand in any tax dispute. For example, she proposes to abolish the feature of estate tax law that unrealized capital gains are forgiven on death. This is a practical matter, because it can be difficult to figure out the basis of property purchased many years ago. She also wants to boost long-term capital gains taxes from 20% to 37% or perhaps to 41%. So if someone dies and has stock purchased 50 years ago for $5,000 that is now worth $100,000, the estate would be taxed 41% of the 95% gain, with a 40% estate tax on the remainder. The heirs would be left with $23,000 of the original $100,000. Keep in mind that in the last 50 years, there has been 534% inflation, and the original $5,000 purchase would be valued at $32,000 today just due to inflation. If Warren's proposal were accepted, many estates would require forensic accountants to dig through the records or have the government assign an arbitrary basis favoring the government. In tax matters, you have to prove innocence.

Currently, the tax on corporate profits is 21% at the corporate level and 20–24% on dividends at the stockholder level. The overall tax on profits distributed to the owners of the corporation is 40%, in line with the maximum tax on earned income of 37%. Previous to Trump's tax reform, the tax at the corporate level was 35%, and the overall tax on the owners was 48% compared to the previous tax on earned income of 40%. Self-employed people pay additional taxes on income.

Warren proposes an annual tax on assets, 2% of assets above $50 million and 6% above $1 billion. We know that the camel is just getting its nose under the tent and that in the end, we will be sharing our bed with it. The mechanics of this will be formidable. For stocks traded on an exchange, calculating the asset value is easy. But what about a partnership running a business? That gets complicated. Appraised value is normally what a buyer would pay to purchase something. What if the something is filled with poison pills? Suppose that the partnership agreement obliges a certain portion of the profits to be paid to the founder's favorite charity — say, his daughter? Who is going to want to buy that something for anything but a low price? These sorts of schemes have been used for a long time to avoid estate taxes, and it is not easy to distinguish between an arrangement devised to avoid estate taxes and a legitimate business arrangement. Lawyers are paid to make it hard to distinguish the two.

Put in a wealth tax, and the wealthy will start spending their time figuring out how to avoid the tax rather than how to invest their wealth in a manner profitable for themselves and thus for society. Really rich people may renounce their U.S. citizenship and take up citizenship in a friendlier jurisdiction, such as Sweden.

Of course, Warren does not utter a peep about the student loan scam. That's how law professors make money.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.co...n.html#ixzz64Jr4Lkba

quote:

Originally posted by RNshooter:
That's exactly why, under Hillary's plan, doing that would have been a crime. No working outside the system or you get sent to the gulag.

Bruce

That would never survive a court challenge. And if it did, the system would collapse in a few months from all the retirements.