A Green New Deal

[Rockfish1]

Scientists say that if we don't limit global warming to X, we will face catastrophic global consequences. Those who are proposing a Green New Deal take this conclusion seriously enough to propose that we undertake policy responses that would be sufficient to stop global warming before it reaches X. Apparently the specific Green New Deal proposals haven't been thought through very carefully, so they can surely be criticized for that. There's nothing worse than a wonky policy idea with shitty wonkery.

But that fundamentally isn't why the Green New Deal is being derided not only by Republicans -- who gleefully see only the opportunity to demagogue an issue where they're both deeply stupid and profoundly irresponsible -- but also by all the Very Serious People who claim to be on the Right Side of this issue. The VSPs all claim to understand that we're in deep shit if we don't limit global warming to X. But they all claim it's ludicrous to actually suggest what the Green New Dealers do -- that we should in fact take the actions that recognized science says are necessary to avert catastrophe. Instead, say the VSPs, the only responsible thing is to limit debate to a tiny fraction of what would be necessary to avert the catastrophe that science tells us is coming. This, of course, is regarded as the moderate position.

I get that global warming is a heavy lift. Unfortunately for our species, it may be way too heavy a lift. And yes, it really sucks to be the only developed country in the world that's burdened by a Republican Party that's decided, as a matter of tribal identity, to deny climate science because it has ideologically impermissible consequences. But could we not at least get better VSPs? Shouldn't you VSPs be helping those crazy kids clean up their messy proposals instead of mocking them for taking a serious problem seriously? For all your Very Seriousness, what good are you, anyway?

 

[Lucy01]

Scientists say that if we don't limit global warming to X, we will face catastrophic global consequences. Those who are proposing a Green New Deal take this conclusion seriously enough to propose that we undertake policy responses that would be sufficient to stop global warming before it reaches X. Apparently the specific Green New Deal proposals haven't been thought through very carefully, so they can surely be criticized for that. There's nothing worse than a wonky policy idea with shitty wonkery.

But that fundamentally isn't why the Green New Deal is being derided not only by Republicans -- who gleefully see only the opportunity to demagogue an issue where they're both deeply stupid and profoundly irresponsible -- but also by all the Very Serious People who claim to be on the Right Side of this issue. The VSPs all claim to understand that we're in deep shit if we don't limit global warming to X. But they all claim it's ludicrous to actually suggest what the Green New Dealers do -- that we should in fact take the actions that recognized science says are necessary to avert catastrophe. Instead, say the VSPs, the only responsible thing is to limit debate to a tiny fraction of what would be necessary to avert the catastrophe that science tells us is coming. This, of course, is regarded as the moderate position.

I get that global warming is a heavy lift. Unfortunately for our species, it may be way too heavy a lift. And yes, it really sucks to be the only developed country in the world that's burdened by a Republican Party that's decided, as a matter of tribal identity, to deny climate science because it has ideologically impermissible consequences. But could we not at least get better VSPs? Shouldn't you VSPs be helping those crazy kids clean up their messy proposals instead of mocking them for taking a serious problem seriously? For all your Very Seriousness, what good are you, anyway?

This is your funniest post yet I bet you even think the world is round too

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Does everyone recall the 1970s movie The Posiedon Adventure? After the ship capsized, the reverend tried to get everyone to follow him "down" the ship, but they would rather wait on the captain to save them? That is where we are. Unfortunately, unlike the movie, it just isn't possible for a handful to strike out and save themselves.

For some reason large segments of America enjoy being inertia. Maybe the fake Churchill quote was right, America will do the right thing after exhausting every other possibility.

 

[Lucy01]

Does everyone recall the 1970s movie The Posiedon Adventure? After the ship capsized, the reverend tried to get everyone to follow him "down" the ship, but they would rather wait on the captain to save them? That is where we are. Unfortunately, unlike the movie, it just isn't possible for a handful to strike out and save themselves.

For some reason large segments of America enjoy being inertia. Maybe the fake Churchill quote was right, America will do the right thing after exhausting every other possibility.

Ok Marv, If this is real, Everyone 16 and older should work 20 hrs a week on top of their regular jobs to pay for the green deal. Or implement a 10% sales tax on everything that is purchased, no exceptions.

 

[SSB]

Ok Marv, If this is real, Everyone 16 and older should work 20 hrs a week on top of their regular jobs to pay for the green deal. Or implement a 10% sales tax on everything that is purchased, no exceptions.

The irony here is incredible. We just reduced taxes! A country that was running half trillion dollar deficits REDUCED taxes. We didn’t cut anything of substance, and now we’re running trillion dollar deficits. The last thing we need is a lecture on the fiscal challenges we face from anyone who supported that policy.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

The irony here is incredible. We just reduced taxes! A country that was running half trillion dollar deficits REDUCED taxes. We didn’t cut anything of substance, and now we’re running trillion dollar deficits. The last thing we need is a lecture on the fiscal challenges we face from anyone who supported that policy.

Rs only piss and moan about debt and deficits when a D is in office. Their principles will change depending on the outcome of the 2020 election.

 

[Lucy01]

The irony here is incredible. We just reduced taxes! A country that was running half trillion dollar deficits REDUCED taxes. We didn’t cut anything of substance, and now we’re running trillion dollar deficits. The last thing we need is a lecture on the fiscal challenges we face from anyone who supported that policy.

I am not lecturing anyone, If this is really a true doomsday end of life as we know it. Then everyone will have to contribute to the green deal to save humanity. Everyone whether they are on welfare or retired can contribute.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I am not lecturing anyone, If this is really a true doomsday end of life as we know it. Then everyone will have to contribute to the green deal to save humanity. Everyone whether they are on welfare or retired can contribute.

I have not looked at numbers, but my quick perception is that poorer people are far less likely to own/drive a car and more likely to use mass transit. They are also less likely to use air conditioning, which is a major user of energy. I would think they are less likely to fly. So in a quick guess, I would suggest there is a significant likelihood that as far as energy goes they are doing better.

 

[Lucy01]

I have not looked at numbers, but my quick perception is that poorer people are far less likely to own/drive a car and more likely to use mass transit. They are also less likely to use air conditioning, which is a major user of energy. I would think they are less likely to fly. So in a quick guess, I would suggest there is a significant likelihood that as far as energy goes they are doing better.

I don’t understand where you are going with the poor people don’t do this and that.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

And yes, it really sucks to be the only developed country in the world that's burdened by a Republican Party that's decided, as a matter of tribal identity, to deny climate science because it has ideologically impermissible consequences.

It really sucks to be the only developed country that is burdened by belief that climate politics is the same as climate science. The Democrats smugly proclaim that anybody who disagrees with their climate politics "denies climate science". Actually, the Democrats deny the real world as they leverage every wild fire or weather event into their climate crisis agenda*

The scientific literature on disasters and climate change continues to be at extreme odds with frequent public representations found in the media and put forward by some leading scientists.​

The real world is not in "crisis" because of real world climate conditions. This belief is a hyped-up product of the political/media machine that is not about science but is instead about power, influence, and authority. The latest iteration of this movement is the Green New Deal.

This is not to say we should do nothing. There is no important dispute about climate, whether its changing or how its changing. There is a dispute about the extent of human caused change and how humans cause the change. Taking sides on this issue is not being in denial. There is a dispute about the urgency of remedial measures. Taking sides on this issue is not being in denial. There is a dispute about the politics of climate. Taking sides on this issue is not being in denial. There is a dispute about the effectiveness of carbon taxes and other measures intended to retard climate change. Taking sides on that issue is not being in denial.

Screaming "Denier!" at every political flash point about policy serves no purpose. That's simply name-calling and demagoguery which has contaminated not only politics, but science also.

The solution to energy, climate, and policy, won't be found in the halls of congress. It will be found in the scientific laboratories. While this guy may or may not be on the right track, there is no doubt that once issues about superconductivity are solved, the climate debate will be finished and we will move on to a new way of producing and using energy. In the meantime, we serve no useful purpose with the name calling and demagoguery.

*Conceding for the moment the issue that there is a cause and effect between climate change and extreme weather.

 

[All4You]

The Green New Deal...14 pages of environmental Utopian wonderment, a panacea for all that pains us...long on noble idea(l)s and short on specifics.

Nevermind that the potential costs are an impossible burden to shoulder:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...o-cortez-s-green-new-deal-costing-93-trillion

Nevermind that India and China account for nearly 40% of the world's population and emissions. China already accounts for 30% of the world's emissions, and as India tries to catch up to them as one of the world's emerging economies, we can expect their emissions to rise exponentially. Both country's emissions are increasing @ a rate higher than that of the US.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...ase-by-6-3-this-year/articleshow/66963109.cms

So yeah, even if we were able to come up with the 90 plus trillion dollars to become carbon neutral in the US in 10 years, and even if the EU could manage to do the same, we will only succeed in lowering global carbon emissions by 25%...and that is provided the rest of the world is able to hold their own carbon emissions at or lower than their current levels. What is more likely to happen is those countries will continue to see increases in their own emissions that would offset some, if not most, of the US and EU efforts. I have no reason to believe that these burgeoning and emerging economies will constrain themselves from the excesses that come with the emerging or burgeoning economy.

 

[mashnut]

Back when America was great we were the country willing to do impossible things. We were willing and excited to be the first country to put a person on the moon. Now we’re waiting around for India and China to figure it out so we can buy their innovation. I’d rather see us be great again and lead the world in solving this problem.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Back when America was great we were the country willing to do impossible things. We were willing and excited to be the first country to put a person on the moon. Now we’re waiting around for India and China to figure it out so we can buy their innovation. I’d rather see us be great again and lead the world in solving this problem.

I thought we were great again.
#winning

 

[Cortez88]

David Roberts from The Atlantic is a very good source for climate change information. I heard him recently say that those who don’t appreciate the economic impact of climate change will be looked at the same way we all look at climate change deniers now.

The Green New Deal is a huge, sprawling, pie in the sky idea. To take that to actual policy and action will be the lift. It will also be expensive. But there is a substantial cost to doing nothing. Republicans refusing to consider that cost is bad faith and analogous to the healthcare debate where they refuse to consider cost of doing what we currently do.

 

[Capitol Hoosier]

Does everyone recall the 1970s movie The Posiedon Adventure? After the ship capsized, the reverend tried to get everyone to follow him "down" the ship, but they would rather wait on the captain to save them? That is where we are. Unfortunately, unlike the movie, it just isn't possible for a handful to strike out and save themselves.

For some reason large segments of America enjoy being inertia. Maybe the fake Churchill quote was right, America will do the right thing after exhausting every other possibility.

Any post that references The Poseidon Adventure is top notch in my books!

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It really sucks to be the only developed country that is burdened by belief that climate politics is the same as climate science. The Democrats smugly proclaim that anybody who disagrees with their climate politics "denies climate science". Actually, the Democrats deny the real world as they leverage every wild fire or weather event into their climate crisis agenda*

The scientific literature on disasters and climate change continues to be at extreme odds with frequent public representations found in the media and put forward by some leading scientists.​

The real world is not in "crisis" because of real world climate conditions. This belief is a hyped-up product of the political/media machine that is not about science but is instead about power, influence, and authority. The latest iteration of this movement is the Green New Deal.

This is not to say we should do nothing. There is no important dispute about climate, whether its changing or how its changing. There is a dispute about the extent of human caused change and how humans cause the change. Taking sides on this issue is not being in denial. There is a dispute about the urgency of remedial measures. Taking sides on this issue is not being in denial. There is a dispute about the politics of climate. Taking sides on this issue is not being in denial. There is a dispute about the effectiveness of carbon taxes and other measures intended to retard climate change. Taking sides on that issue is not being in denial.

Screaming "Denier!" at every political flash point about policy serves no purpose. That's simply name-calling and demagoguery which has contaminated not only politics, but science also.

The solution to energy, climate, and policy, won't be found in the halls of congress. It will be found in the scientific laboratories. While this guy may or may not be on the right track, there is no doubt that once issues about superconductivity are solved, the climate debate will be finished and we will move on to a new way of producing and using energy. In the meantime, we serve no useful purpose with the name calling and demagoguery.

*Conceding for the moment the issue that there is a cause and effect between climate change and extreme weather.

Do you recall the Oak Ridge scientist, later at Purdue, who proved bubble fusion circa 2003? We still haven't reaped the benefits of that one, oh, and now it has been proven to have been a hoax. So a deus ex machina may well arrive and provide completely clean, limitless energy. I can't discount that possibility. But should we put all our eggs into that basket?

So what is a reasonable response to the issue? Wait on some possible technology, or develop a plan based on what we know today?

 

[Cortez88]

I also think that Republicans demagoguing the Green New Deal might be surprised by the amount of public support it has. Aside from baby boomers, my guess is that it will be a rallying cry for younger generations. You know, those people concerned about living on this planet. Fox News can keep making jokes, but there will be a lot of voting age people who don’t find them funny.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Do you recall the Oak Ridge scientist, later at Purdue, who proved bubble fusion circa 2003? We still haven't reaped the benefits of that one, oh, and now it has been proven to have been a hoax. So a deus ex machina may well arrive and provide completely clean, limitless energy. I can't discount that possibility. But should we put all our eggs into that basket?

So what is a reasonable response to the issue? Wait on some possible technology, or develop a plan based on what we know today?

The first thing we need to do to arrive at a reasonable response is remove the word "denier" from the conversation. The next thing we need to do is understand the nature of a changing world because of changing climate--whatever the cause. There are too many political interests in misrepresenting that change. I don't think it is all doom and gloom. Nor is it a crisis.

The progress we have made thus far with reducing carbon emissions is because of advancing and new technology, not because of politics. I don't think the answer lies in impoverishing millions of workers and families with the hope that a billionaire tax will solve that problem. The future is indeed in new technology. As I've said before, the money wasted on subsidizing retail climate change unicorns, like Tesla's and roof-top solar, can be put to much better use in basic research, like research into superconductivity and fusion.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The first thing we need to do to arrive at a reasonable response is remove the word "denier" from the conversation. The next thing we need to do is understand the nature of a changing world because of changing climate--whatever the cause. There are too many political interests in misrepresenting that change. I don't think it is all doom and gloom. Nor is it a crisis.

The progress we have made thus far with reducing carbon emissions is because of advancing and new technology, not because of politics. I don't think the answer lies in impoverishing millions of workers and families with the hope that a billionaire tax will solve that problem. The future is indeed in new technology. As I've said before, the money wasted on subsidizing retail climate change unicorns, like Tesla's and roof-top solar, can be put to much better use in basic research, like research into superconductivity and fusion.

The problem is we are not flat out guaranteed room temperature superconductivity is possible. There is some evidence an earlier claim was, well, not accurate. How long has man looked for cold fusion, and we ain't close to finding it. I love scientific research. I wish instead of sitting on billions of dollars cash, our corporations would conduct more research. I wish the government conducted more. But just sitting in the Titanic saying "I'm sure the engineer will find a solution" is a solution.

As to taxes, a lot of what people can do doesn't really involve taxation. Some items like increased mass transit use, switching more plants from coal to NG, keeping the planned increase in CAFE standards all help and hardly through millions of workers out onto the street. If we had improved light rail in more of the country, someone would have to be hired to build it. Yes, I am sure some items will introduce pain points. The angle of deflection gets worse every year we do nothing. If you see a tree ahead of you 2 miles away, it takes very little movement of the steering wheel to avoid it. At 2 feet you are going to have a hard time cranking it hard enough. If the world had done more the last 15 years, what we have left to do would be much easier. And if we wait on room temperature superconductivity for 15 more years and it doesn't turn out to be viable, we are even in worse shape.

 

[CradleofBasketball]

Here is the text of the Green New Deal house resolution for those that haven't read it, yet.

 

[hoot1]

What is the probability that science will solve the problems associated with global warming before it is too late?

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

I thought we were great again.
#winning

We won't be until we "Build That Wall!"

Oh, and put HRC in jail.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

The first thing we need to do to arrive at a reasonable response is remove the word "denier" from the conversation

Yep, you’re a republican. You want everyone to treat you with respect and not use mean words like “denier”, but you can say whatever you want about anyone else.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

We won't be until we "Build That Wall!"

Oh, and put HRC in jail.

First we have to lock up the guy who lead the “Lock her up” chant.

 

[Lucy01]

First we have to lock up the guy who lead the “Lock her up” chant.

Wow you are a one Smart SOB

 

[HillzHoozier]

Any post that references The Poseidon Adventure is top notch in my books!

Right up there with this gem

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Right up there with this gem

Sums up both

 

[twenty02]

I'd be happy to debate some real policy proposal that actually existed. Wake me up when anyone ever gets around to it.

Passing - or even voting on - these sense of the Senate resolutions is cartoonish.

Votes to name Post Offices have more real world impact.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Back when America was great we were the country willing to do impossible things. We were willing and excited to be the first country to put a person on the moon. Now we’re waiting around for India and China to figure it out so we can buy their innovation. I’d rather see us be great again and lead the world in solving this problem.

We are developing technology to get cleaner. We have been for quite some time. We did not put people on the first rockets that were developed because of the inherent danger of failure in the new technology. And even when we did start putting humans on the rockets, the number of lives impacted by any potential failure was small.

The Green New Deal is talking about a complete societal, governmental, and economic overhaul. If you don't strap one person to an idea to test it out, you sure as shit don't strap everyone in the country to one as drastic as that.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

What is the probability that science will solve the problems associated with global warming before it is too late?

This question is the problem. You assume that science will solve the problems with global warming. Nobody knows if that is possible--except for maybe the GND proponents.

If your question is about reducing carbon emissions, we have the tech to substantially do that tomorrow. But it doesn't fit with the anti-capitalist and anti-business agenda that the many global warming advocates live by.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

This question is the problem. You assume that science will solve the problems with global warming. Nobody knows if that is possible--except for maybe the GND proponents.

If your question is about reducing carbon emissions, we have the tech to substantially do that tomorrow. But it doesn't fit with the anti-capitalist and anti-business agenda that the many global warming advocates live by.

LOL.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

The irony here is incredible. We just reduced taxes! A country that was running half trillion dollar deficits REDUCED taxes. We didn’t cut anything of substance, and now we’re running trillion dollar deficits. The last thing we need is a lecture on the fiscal challenges we face from anyone who supported that policy.

I didn’t support this tax cut, except for the corporate tax rate (which has long had bipartisan support), but the estimated cost of those cuts was less than $1.5 trillion over 10 years. That’s not close too $500 billion per year. The estimated costs of Medicare for All is much more than $1.5 trillion per year - it’s about double that. Add the GND on top and we’re talking real money.

 

[SSB]

I didn’t support this tax cut, except for the corporate tax rate (which has long had bipartisan support), but the estimated cost of those cuts was less than $1.5 trillion over 10 years. That’s not close too $500 billion per year. The estimated costs of Medicare for All is much more than $1.5 trillion per year - it’s about double that. Add the GND on top and we’re talking real money.

I wonder what percentage of the total healthcare bill is paid by government (us) now? Between Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Tricare, active military, and federal and state employees it has to be very significant. Obviously, we would need to subtract that from the total in order to get at the increase. The next thing to remember is that we are paying for healthcare now. It isn’t free, it’s in the price of everything we buy. The increase that isn’t already baked in is coverage for people that do not have access, but even those people have access to emergent care. If they get hit by a bus they will be cared for, by law.

Many people fear reduced access. I’ve read about examples, supposedly from Canada, of people waiting for extended periods without care. That evidently is the outcome of the single payer system. But Medicare is a single payer system. It’s a single payer system for the demographic with the highest demand for healthcare and yet, I don’t hear anything about reduced access.

Healthcare is a problem. I will happily listen to options that would improve the system, but if the two options are doing nothing or looking at Medicare for all then let’s evaluate Medicare for all.

 

[Rockfish1]

I wonder what percentage of the total healthcare bill is paid by government (us) now? Between Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Tricare, active military, and federal and state employees it has to be very significant. Obviously, we would need to subtract that from the total in order to get at the increase. The next thing to remember is that we are paying for healthcare now. It isn’t free, it’s in the price of everything we buy. The increase that isn’t already baked in is coverage for people that do not have access, but even those people have access to emergent care. If they get hit by a bus they will be cared for, by law.

Many people fear reduced access. I’ve read about examples, supposedly from Canada, of people waiting for extended periods without care. That evidently is the outcome of the single payer system. But Medicare is a single payer system. It’s a single payer system for the demographic with the highest demand for healthcare and yet, I don’t hear anything about reduced access.

Healthcare is a problem. I will happily listen to options that would improve the system, but if the two options are doing nothing or looking at Medicare for all then let’s evaluate Medicare for all.

As a percentage of GDP, our government spends about the same amount on health care as other developed countries. (See the next-to-last chart.) We just get a lot less for that money than everyone else does. Then on top of that, our out-of-pocket expenditures are about three times what everyone else's are. Think about that the next time someone claims the real problem is that Americans just don't have enough skin in the game.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

As a percentage of GDP, our government spends about the same amount on health care as other developed countries. (See the next-to-last chart.) We just get a lot less for that money than everyone else does. Then on top of that, our out-of-pocket expenditures are about three times what everyone else's are. Think about that the next time someone claims the real problem is that Americans just don't have enough skin in the game.

We often hear how the profits in the US drive innovation. There probably is some truth to that, but the huge profits may not drive innovation to be cheaper. Maybe we need some of that innovation?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Think about that the next time someone claims the real problem is that Americans just don't have enough skin in the game.

You need to think about that. You don’t seem to know what “skin in the game” means. The “pay for everything” coverages with fees, deductibles and copays negotiated by bureaucrats in the case of Obamacare and Medicare, and middlemen in the case of private insurance and drugs, raises patient out-of-pocket expenses but it does not give patients skin in the game. Like paying a sales tax, health care has come to the point where we stand in line and pay what we are told. Unless of course you want something like breast augmentation.

 

[Rockfish1]

You need to think about that. You don’t seem to know what “skin in the game” means. The “pay for everything” coverages with fees, deductibles and copays negotiated by bureaucrats in the case of Obamacare and Medicare, and middlemen in the case of private insurance and drugs, raises patient out-of-pocket expenses but it does not give patients skin in the game. Like paying a sales tax, health care has come to the point where we stand in line and pay what we are told. Unless of course you want something like breast augmentation.

LOL

 

[hoot1]

.

This question is the problem. You assume that science will solve the problems with global warming. Nobody knows if that is possible--except for maybe the GND proponents.

If your question is about reducing carbon emissions, we have the tech to substantially do that tomorrow. But it doesn't fit with the anti-capitalist and anti-business agenda that the many global warming advocates live by.

By future scientific solutions I was thinking along the lines of storing and transporting solar and wind energy. This along with capturing and storing greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. These are two possibilities along with whatever the future might bring.

I mention scientific solutions because changing human lifestyles just seems improbable to me. Then when you factor in the growing emissions from countries such as China and India the situation over the next decades appears bleak.

As to the politics surrounding global warming, CoH, your side appears to have a winning hand.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I wonder what percentage of the total healthcare bill is paid by government (us) now? Between Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Tricare, active military, and federal and state employees it has to be very significant. Obviously, we would need to subtract that from the total in order to get at the increase. The next thing to remember is that we are paying for healthcare now. It isn’t free, it’s in the price of everything we buy. The increase that isn’t already baked in is coverage for people that do not have access, but even those people have access to emergent care. If they get hit by a bus they will be cared for, by law.

Many people fear reduced access. I’ve read about examples, supposedly from Canada, of people waiting for extended periods without care. That evidently is the outcome of the single payer system. But Medicare is a single payer system. It’s a single payer system for the demographic with the highest demand for healthcare and yet, I don’t hear anything about reduced access.

Healthcare is a problem. I will happily listen to options that would improve the system, but if the two options are doing nothing or looking at Medicare for all then let’s evaluate Medicare for all.

That question needs to be answered, of course, but what I've seen so far is that it would cost nearly twice what the federal government already spends to pay for Medicare for All. I was assuming that was subtracting what we're currently spending, but I don't know. However, even if it wasn't it's a huge increase in federal spending and it will have to be paid for unless we want to go bankrupt even more quickly than we're going to be going bankrupt as things stand now. Since about half of Americans effectively pay no income taxes now, they're obviously going to make out big time if something like this passes. Those of us that actually do pay taxes may or may not make out. I'd guarantee someone in my bracket will not. We'll spend many times more in taxes than we'd ever pay in premiums for health insurance. It's a mathematical certainty. That's not going to be a bad thing for 50ish percent of the country, but it will be for the rest of us. Americans will have to be convinced that's just peachy.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That question needs to be answered, of course, but what I've seen so far is that it would cost nearly twice what the federal government already spends to pay for Medicare for All. I was assuming that was subtracting what we're currently spending, but I don't know. However, even if it wasn't it's a huge increase in federal spending and it will have to be paid for unless we want to go bankrupt even more quickly than we're going to be going bankrupt as things stand now. Since about half of Americans effectively pay no income taxes now, they're obviously going to make out big time if something like this passes. Those of us that actually do pay taxes may or may not make out. I'd guarantee someone in my bracket will not. We'll spend many times more in taxes than we'd ever pay in premiums for health insurance. It's a mathematical certainty. That's not going to be a bad thing for 50ish percent of the country, but it will be for the rest of us. Americans will have to be convinced that's just peachy.

Two things:

First, you're not suddenly paying for a bunch of poor people's brand new health care. Between subsidies for Obamacare and higher costs associated with emergency room visits by uninsured people, you're already paying a good chunk of that. Would your individual contribution rise? Likely. But some of that rise you're already paying for, anyway.

Second, what Americans need to be convinced of is simple: Our society is advanced enough that it's a moral imperative that adequate health care be provided to every member. If we believe in that moral imperative, then we will pay whatever it costs. If we balk, then we must admit we are more comfortable with poor people being turned away from doctors and dying in streets than we are with having our tax bill raised.