View Single Post
Old 5th November 2019, 07:27 PM   #150
rdwight
Muse
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 566
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Why not look at what it actually costs rather than just wondering.
Because both sides of the equation are best guesses. And being optimistic for the lowest cost and highest revenue to make a plan work seems like a bad recipe. Do you think a backup funding plan is necessary? And at what point should it be implemented?

If after the change is made, deficits become apparent that run large but decreasing yearly, should that burden simply be added to the national debt for however long it takes? So funding lacks 800b first year, 700b second, 600b third, 575b fourth, the trajectory is right but the timeframe until even is troublesome and would reflect a need for some modifications to the funding. When you run on 'no middle class tax increase', the political ramifications for fixing it become a deterant.

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
There are examples of myriad of different universal healthcare schemes, what they all have in common is cheaper and more people covered. The USA is in one way in an enviable position in that it has decades of emperical data to draw on to determine the best system. It needs no hypotheticals, no trials no further research, it simply needs the will to change.
How many of those examples we can draw from finance in the same way as Warren's plan? Since we are discussing a specific plan, we should focus on that I would think.
rdwight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top