2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Supporter explain how Bernie's Healthplan and Education Plan benefits my family?
I am retired military and as a benefit of that I pay less than $600 for healthcare a year for my family of four. I also have paid for my education (BSB Information Systems) and my kids' education.
Now military retirement pay does not pay the bills. I now have a 2nd civilian career. Under Bernie's plan, I will be taxed at approximately an extra $5000 a year (using the average). Somehow I am suppose to be happy about this because I am to get $8,000 in benefits in return. But my family will get no benefit. And under Bernie's plan, Tricare would be rolled into "Medicare for All"
Why should I vote for Bernie, if my family will get a huge tax bill and lose one of my biggest benefits for serving over 20 years in the military?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)itsrobert
(14,157 posts)But what about others in my exact situation?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)then there is no argument to be made.
If you don't believe that helping your fellow citizens helps you, what can be said?
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)Am I not an "other"?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)in order to provide Education and Healthcare for everyone, just as I am happy to pay property taxes for k-12 education.
Reducing YOUR tax burden at the expense of a compassionate and just society is not the kind of "helping" that I would consider to be a priority.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Little hitch though, we need to turn back the clock to before 1995 or perhaps more likely, 1998 for this to happen. What?
Health insurance is a financial service-
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...I take that to mean you have kids.
Try thinking of the country they're going to grow up in and vote accordingly. Not everyone gets super cheap health care based on 20 years military service. Is that your plan A for how they're going to cover their medical bills throughout their entire lives? Or is their future risk of medically induced bankruptcy and crippling student loan debt (assuming you'd like them to get an education) not a concern?
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)our society at large SMH....... I thought you and others enlisted to help your country?
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)Now, Bernie wants to take it away from me.
you will still have healthcare, it seems you do not want others to have access to healthcare........
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)No Bernie wants to GIVE that basic human right to everyone, not just the privileged.
Medicare for all is not about YOU, it's about all of us.
questionseverything
(9,654 posts)afterall the suburbs are not gonna be safe if the cities are on fire
<shrug>
jeff47
(26,549 posts)On education, got grandkids? Ever going to?
Then there's the indirect effects - other people having that insurance and education mean a boost to the economy, which boosts your business.
Btw, did you serve those 20 years only because you got the greatest personal benefit from it?
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)I see.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If you think your grandkids getting an education is not something you're going to care about, that's between you and your psychologist.
So did you only serve because it offered the best personal benefit to you? I'd think you could have "cashed in" by becoming one of us evil contractor scum. Presumably, there were reasons you stuck with it for 20 years beyond a cash payout.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)their lives because choices are getting slim. I don't blame them, I blame our leaders...
jeff47
(26,549 posts)I'm trying to get him to notice that he sometimes does things that do not involve the greatest deposit in his bank account.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)I just thought I would comment on what I have heard from many younger folks as to why they join. BTW some may not want to take a chance and stay for the long haul, I don't know
revbones
(3,660 posts)I'm a disabled veteran. 40% currently with possibly review upping the percentage.
I get most if not all of my healthcare from the VA (which has been superb for me in NC). I am married and in order to maintain insurance for my wife via my employer, I have to have the policy on myself and pay for both of us. I have a very generous employer that covers a significant part of the plan I have, but I still pay about $500+ a month for us. That leaves me paying over $6k per year to have my wife covered. In my case, assuming the generalized dollar amounts hold, I would save $1000 a year.
All that said, each persons case may differ. As a liberal, I'm cool with a few more dollars in taxes if it helps society overall. I'd prefer though that we first explored cutting defense spending or other wasteful programs that suffer from corruption and graft first though.
Without delving into the specifics of the plans - which would obviously mutate if they were considered by congress and possibly include provisions for people in our cases, it's hard to just say you'd end up paying $5k more, etc... Just because it's in the proposal now, does not mean that's exactly what would result. Look at the ACA and how it mutated from the 2008 campaign.
I'd also suggest comparing other positions before letting only one force your vote.
Response to itsrobert (Original post)
Post removed
arcane1
(38,613 posts)And how would your family get "no benefit" under a single-payer plan?
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)Medicare does not pay all expenses. In fact, I am better off with Tricare than Medicare.
thanks
arcane1
(38,613 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Downthread is a link to his complaining post in the HRC group.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)It was an excuse to play "right wing talking points" again.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)to that very OP.
Specifically, for suggesting there was an ethical aspect to the question worth considering.
That was the wrong answer, apparently.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Charging money means its not single payer, then it has to be multipayer and the prohibition against unfairly competing with businesses and many other rules designed exclusively to tear apart public services that aren't completely free and have no competition, basically block it from being afordable demonizing "crowd out" - the deal has to be so bad that it does not attract anybody who away from commercial providers. that is called "competition policy" and the concept of "crowd out". the trade deals make countries privatize everything that they can irreversibly and if they need to escape it makes them vulnerable to huge arbitral law suits for "lost expected profits" for changing any laws (thats called "indirect expropriation" once the trade deal kicks in, if any foreign providers exist in the market. That happened to Slovakia recently when an insurer, sued them for trying to switch back to single payer after several years of private insurance. This is a major point of controversy when countries become aware of it.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)the best, fee for service individual insurance (NOT Obamacare!!!) - which is roughly what Canadian offers in terms of no limits on coverage and no surprises - basically they pay everything) can cost >$50k in the US right now.. a year, not a month.. Thats for one person.
So single payer - because it gets rid of insurance companies ad gets rid of the saying no - letting people get healthcare and prescriptions when they are needed, saves a real lot of money. More than half a million dollars per person over a lifetime.
dogman
(6,073 posts)I am retired and have Medicare. It would never occur to me to see others receiving help as a loss to me. I do care about the rest of our citizenry. This is a clear difference in the views of the candidates supporters.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)I will need to see numbers on why you think you will get taxed $5,000 more a year.
Bernie's payroll tax increase is 2.2% for employees. If you are making $225,000 a year at your job your tax increase would be $4,950 (feel free to double check my math). This is a payroll tax so I believe your retirement benefits will not be impacted.
Keep in mind that your children will continue to have coverage above the age of 23, or 26 or whatever the Tricare cut off is. Also, once your children have children, they will have coverage too. And their children.. etc etc etc.
Do you have siblings and if so do they have families? Do you care that Bernie's program benefits them? How about cousins? Maybe just friends, neighbors or coworkers? Don't they have families too and do you not care that Bernie's plan helps all of them?
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)I make far below $225,000 a year.
"Middle-income households, meanwhile, would pay $4,700 more on average, or about 8.5% of their after-tax income."
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/04/pf/taxes/bernie-sanders-taxes/
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)The tax increase is 2.2%
1% of 225,000 is 2,250.
2,250 X 2.2 = 4,950
I was wrong about it being a payroll tax. There is a different tax payed by employers that I had it confused with.
Again, I would need to see numbers to know what your tax increase would be. Feel free to do the math yourself but if you make far below 225K a year then your tax is far below 5K a year.
Also, does that $600.00 a year for health care include co-pays and deductibles? Your math might be off on that side of the equation too.
edit to add, from your link
Sanders would preserve the first four income tax rates on taxable income in today's code (10%, 15%, 25% and 28%) and add to those the 2.2% premium tax.
EmperorHasNoClothes
(4,797 posts)The new medicare for all tax is 2.2% on income. So to pay $5000 you would have to be making $227k per year.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/
Just goes to show you how misleading "average" is when talking about income. Average income is most definitely not the same as median income when you have some people making hundreds of millions per year.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)your benefits which are extraordinary as well as every last bit of government spending on pubic education and all those other kid related programs. That's how it works.
You know how the ACA benefited me personally? It didn't. But it changed the lives of some of my less fortunate friends. In that way it benefits me very personally because I am not an island, nor are my interests the only interests that exist.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I would much rather see my money used to cover everyone.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)Was this just baiting then?
Updated w/Hillary Group link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/110768511
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)of excellent responses he does not wish to address.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Herman4747
(1,825 posts)"Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society" -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." -- John F. Kennedy.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Thank you for serving, we owe you those benefits we promised, in full. I stand by your side in fighting to keep what you were promised.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)is helping your fellow citizens not being upset if they receive the same as you.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Gee how liberal.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I live by an army base and an airforce base and no, that does not fly. They are not SELFISH people, they are decent folks who joined and signed contracts to put themselves at risk for certain benefits. We need to modify things to consider them and keep them from being harmed. They are not wealthy. It does not pay a hundred grand a year to be a private in the army. Those benefits are half the value of their pay.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Fighting against Medicare for all is fighting against benefits for all.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)If he wanted me to believe he wasn't fighting against a basic human right for everyone he should have skipped the right wing talking points.
The mask skipped - again. That's happened a lot since a progressive challenged Hillary. Suddenly DU is swarming with right wing memes, no to Medicare for all, no to free tuition, no to family leave because it will cost $1.40 a week extra. BECAUSE OMG TAXES WILL GO UP!!!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)to support a tax exemption for veterans, bmus. Are you willing to support a tax exemption for veterans? They don't make much while in and it would help them to know they have that security of a tax exemption, if peopke are willing to listen, they'd see that the main issue is the need for a tax exemption. Sad to see people against such an easy fix to the problem.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Try harder.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)How can we strip this away from him a justify breaking a promise. We need to stop and think. If there are issues with plans they need to be modified. Promises need to be kept or how much is our word worth? We cannot unmake a promise or take back earned benefits if we are the party of honesty and integrity! Just like when big companies and states redo pensions, we do not tell those folks to suck it up be ause some are not getting as much as them! We fight for them because they were promised something that they EARNED and it's being taken from them. I find the idea of ignoring the fact that these benefits were promised and earned to be especially unfortunate. I do not agree with that at all. Most of my uncles and my stepdad fought in Vietnam and I do not like the idea of telling them that we are changing our promises. Not after what they went through.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)if everyone gets healthcare then he or your family does not lose anything. Second of all I'm sure there could be exemption for those who serve or the VA continues on and they would get a tax break. It's really not that hard to work out.......
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Make an exemption and problem solved.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)That was nice...
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)in the past and I'm pretty sure it will happening again.....
bravenak
(34,648 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)you will be feelin the April Bern
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I'm in alaska! Enough snow will be left to cool that whole thing right back down!
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)NV Whino
(20,886 posts)You seem to be short sighted.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)everyone has it?
So, on that point you just sound like a person who is being very selfish.
On the other hand, you are right if you have your healthcare and your retirement plan set and a well paying job, then Bernie may not personally benefit you.
You are welcome to vote for Clinton or Trump in that case.
However, your situation is rare and not exemplary of what most American families would see going forward with a single payer system.
Whereas you are already set, most people are not and most average people may see a tax increase but and OVERALL expenditure decrease. That's the whole point. We all pay in, the wealthiest pay the most, so that OVERALL most people get more and personally spend less.
That's what a PROGRESSIVE tax structure is about.... making the wealthiest pay more so that everyone benefits. Whereas there are slight tax increases across the board, Sanders plan really hits those with incomes above $250,000 per year (which is very very rare) and large sums of money to play stocks with (also rare).
If you don't like a progressive tax structure, then vote Republican.
In other words, Sanders can't be all things to all people.
Personally, you sound selfish however I can understand your concern. I make a lot of money and I get heavily taxed.
But to me
Iraq War = huge waste of my tax dollars
Making sure my 55 year old patients can get affordable medicine = good use of my tax dollars.
My recommendation to you is to complain more about you money going to waste bombing people instead of helping people.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)libtodeath
(2,888 posts)See how easy it is to only think little picture?
basselope
(2,565 posts)Bernie's tax plan is going to cost me a lot of money. The last 3 years I have made the majority of my money in capital gains due to selling a company I co-founded for close to 700 Million dollars. Under Bernie's plan, capital gains would be treated like income and I would have owed close to 50% of the money I got in taxes, instead of the 18%.
I also have enough money now that I can send my kid to private school AND put away enough for him to go to probably any college he wants. He won't benefit from the free public colleges and neither would I since the money has been put into a 529 plan, so we would basically lose all the benefit of that if he chose to go to a free public college.
In short.. from a PURELY PERSONAL perspective... Bernie is worst candidate for me to support. My best choice, from a personal perspective would probably be Trump. His tax plan would benefit me... I don't fall into the category of people he hates, so I would probably do, personally, well under a Trump administration.
But, it isn't just about me.. just like I don't think you spent 20 years in the military thinking ONLY of yourself. Just as I don't believe MOST doctors become a doctor solely to make a lot of money or that MOST police officers become police officers so they can bully people. There are some who fit these categories, but not the majority.
Why should YOU vote for Bernie... because you are the exception to the rule (Just as I am with my current income and holdings). Because if you think about the country as a whole and analyze both of their plans and what they have actually done in their careers, you know that Bernie has the best interest of the country in the forefront of his mind.
He wants free public colleges so we can have a fully educated population that can compete on a global scale. He wants health care as a right, instead of health INSURANCE, because he understands that dealing with an insurance company can add tons of stress to what would be an already stressful situation. He doesn't want ANYONE having to choose between going to the doctor or buying groceries b/c of a deductible.
Again, Donald Trump's plan works best for ME personally. Keep the pre-existing condition and open the borders to more competition. I can afford pretty much whatever health plan I want. But, I am STRONGLY supporting Bernie Sanders. Why? Because I want EVERYONE to be able to go a doctor w/o thinking about co-pays or what bill will come 2 months later. (MY wife is being treated for Hodgkin's Lymphoma right now... caught early stage 1A.. 96% cure rate and she just received a clean scan, so only 1 more round of Chemo to go)... However, ever couple of weeks we get a new slew of bills from various UCLA departments. Our PLATINUM health care plan has already found ways to weasel out of some of the payments and we are over what was SUPPOSED to be our out of pocket maximums... but.. no big deal, we can afford it. The reason she caught it in stage 1A is because when she sensed something wrong, she went to the doctor w/o worrying about the cost. When he suggested a fine needle aspiration.. she did it w/o worrying about the cost... when they suggested a Biopsy.. she did it w/o worry about the cost (which BTW, cost 2-3K out of pocket by the time we were done with all the charges from all the departments).
Here's reality. There are people who would have PUT OFF the first visit... put off the fine needle aspiration... PUT OFF THE BIOPSY because of cost! Her main doctor told her that 90% it was no big deal, just an inflamed lymphnode, but better safe than sorry to get the Biopsy. Too many people would have heard that, weighed the 10% chance vs the 3K and put it off. Those people may have advanced to stage II or III or even IV before finally getting what needed to be done.. done.
Why should you support Sanders... because you are a human being and if you were on the other side of this equation, you would be hoping that someone such as yourself would be supporting Sanders on your behalf.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,683 posts)It won't do me any good, either, because I have Medicare; my education was paid for years ago, and I have no children or grandchildren. But I kind of like the idea that millions of other people will have decent health care and their kids will be able to go to college without being crushed by years worth of huge student loan payments. If everybody gets health care fewer people will be sick and spread illnesses; they'll be able to work, make more money and pay more taxes, and this will generally be a better country to live in. If people can go to college without having to pay the enormous tuition bills that even the public universities now charge, they won't have to work while going to school and will be able to study and graduate in four years like we used to do. They won't have huge student loan debts to pay off so they'll be able to buy homes and start families - which benefits the economy and our entire society. I want a society like that and I'm happy to pay for it because I learned a long time ago that it's not all about me. Or you. That's GOP thinking and I'm sorry and ashamed to see it appearing on a supposedly Democratic forum.
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)I don't have the bennies from being retired mil, but I am self employed. BECAUSE I'm self employed, doing the math, my tax rate increases to at least 29% of my gross income. Given that my gross income is not high, that kind of tax increase would be a difficult pill to swallow.
The health and education plans would put me ever deeper in debt.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Let's see if it was done correctly.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)1) Do you actually think Sanders' would advance a plan depriving retired members of the military of their existing health care benefits? He's one of the most aggressive voices ever in the Senate pushing for improvement in quality of Veterans' health care. And, regardless, actually attempting to deprive ex-members of the military of their hard-earned benefits? Not going to happen.
2) You say that you've paid for you kids' education. Unless you are sending your children to private primary or secondary schools, this suggests that your children are adults. But you also say that your retiree health care benefit costs you less than $600 'for a family of four.' Are your children adults or not, and, if so, are they covered by your military retiree benefit plan?
3) Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Bernie Sanders' plan would actually deprive you of your retiree benefits:
Sanders' bare-bones proposal works like this:
1) 2.2% income-based 'premium tax' per household. Also, as the 'standard deduction' is discussed in the proposal, it looks like it's based on adjusted gross income minus deductions and exemptions. For a family of four, the 'married filing jointly' 2015 standard deduction is $12,600. Also, with 2 dependents, the standard exemption amount would be $16,000. In that scenario, only income over $28,600 (assuming no other deductions whatsoever) would be subject to the 2.2% tax. To get to $5,000 expense based on that tax, your household annual income would have to be appx. $255,873. At $70,000 annual income, for example, you'd pay $910.80.
2) A 6.2% income-based 'premium tax' paid by you employer. I'm pretty sure that's not paid at all if you're retired. I don't know how pans out in a range of scenarios, but, let's just assume that you're making $25,000 from your second military career. Remember, now, that there would be no additional cost to you or your employer for premiums most employers and employees now pay for 'employer-sponsored' health plans. I also don't know whether the employer portion would have a starting point for assessment, like the $28,600 (or more) starting point for a 2015 family of 4. But, if it didn't, your employer's tax would then be $1,550.
Including the employer portion, to get to $5,000 direct cost total (I expect he isn't proposing co-pays or deductibles) for a family of 4, assuming that the employer tax starts at $0, your household would have to be earning appx. $67,000 through employment.
I hope that helps - I can't see where you'd pay anything like $5,000. You, personally, would only pay anything if your income is over $28,600. And that's if you don't get an exemption as a current military retiree, as I expect you would.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Sen. Sanders wants to build on a program he has championed in Vermont, where the National Guard operates an innovative outreach program to provide pre-deployment and post-deployment support to family members and service members. This effort has been hugely successful in terms of making sure that veterans know about and receive the health care, mental health counseling, family assistance, transition assistance and other benefits they need to make sure they can live a healthy and productive life.
Moving forward, Sen. Sanders wants to expand veterans benefits by making comprehensive dental care available to all veterans at VA medical centers, and by expanding caregiver provisions. He believes we must do more to meet the mental health needs of our veterans, especially those who have served in harms way.
"We must fully restore cuts to military pensions that were insisted upon by Republicans in the last budget deal.
Instead of cutting benefits for the men and women who have served our country, we should ask the most profitable corporations and the wealthiest among us to pay their fair share."
https://berniesanders.com/issues/caring-for-our-veterans/
No one intelligent enough to know his record on veterans' issues actually thinks Bernie would take away their paid-for healthcare without making up for it by including tax subsidies and/or other benefits.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)That's why I provided very specific information in response to the poster's question.
He asked for feedback, and his stated problem was, well, it seemed rather made-up to me, but I addressed his question directly with exact figures and information.
But, yeah, the idea that Bernie Sanders would seek to reduce veterans' or retired military health coverage... um... not so much.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I was just adding to your most excellent post!
And yes, the op was being disingenuous, imo. Otherwise he would have acknowledged your points.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Imagine how much less vitriol we'd have on the site if we either answered provocative questions with information, if we had it, or not at all?
How many HRC supporters who might have taken a real look at Bernie have just entrenched themselves because they've had scorn in response to their scorn?
But, I guess some of it is just human nature...
Nonetheless, thanks for your kind words .
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The op has never given me any reason to think he was serious and wanted actual feedback about Bernie's policies. In addition to the right wing talking points used here he went to a protected group, started another thread, claimed he was called names and otherwise abused in this one.
I do applaud your optimism and valiant efforts to engage him though.
Kudos.
1. All I know is Tricare will be rolled up into his "medicare for all" program. I don't believe he addressed anything specific for Military retirees. I am asking for more specifics.
2. My kids are currently attending California state colleges. They will graduate prior to any implementation of his plan. They are currently covered because they are attending school.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)from people who could not possibly possess it, specifically how Bernie Sanders' 2 page rough sketch health care proposal would affect military retirees currently receiving government health care benefits?
You indicated you expected to pay $5,000 a year for a family of four in health care costs, based on what you stated as 'average', as compared to your current claimed costs of $600 annually. I demonstrated that you would have to earn around $270,000 annually for this to be the case. I also went into considerable specifics with respect to the proposed employer portion of health care 'premium tax'.
You knew that your adult children would be too old to be covered by your current plan by the time any such proposal could conceivably be made into law. Yet you made it very clear that your question was framed around your family of four. You did not indicate concern for their future health care costs in your question, although it would have been quite appropriate in the context of what you asked.
And after all the information I provided, based on the only information available on Sanders' proposed health care program, you didn't bother to thank me for the effort. Instead, you said... 'ok' after I asked for a response, and wrote two quick paragraphs, not indicating that any of the information was or was not helpful to you.
Why, exactly, did you pose the question you did, with your own stated understanding that you:
don't believe he addressed anything specific for Military retirees.
?
Your own stated understanding indicates that you believe that Mr. Sanders has not provided the specific information you are asking for. So... would it materialize out of the raw fabric of cyberspace directly into the brains of the people who might see your question on this web site?
Not cool.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Dsocialoutcast99
(11 posts)I am paying more for my benefits but am not complaining, if it were not for the labor union we had we would not have any healthcare benefits. The Affordable Care Act was not complete when it was put into law. That is because it was always meant to be a 1 payer system! It was meant to be Medicare for All but the republicans would not let it pass without a lot to gain.
I am now retired, still pay less than $300.00 for HC/Vision/Dental, but the co-pays have risen to an amount that does not meet my budget.
With open heart surgery, and many required procedures to save my life I would pay more than $200,000.00 per yr IF I HAD OR EVER WILL HAVE THAT KIND OF MONEY! I would save money with Bernie Sanders plan in the long run and would not have to worry that my care is declining as the bills add up. An extra $5000.00 per yr in taxes...chicken feed compared to what we have now. The insurance company would eventually get to that amount anyway, taxes aside.
Besides, EVERYONE should have access to healthcare, not just me or my family.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)Forgive me, but I am somewhat ignorant on how veterans' healthcare works. Does the healthcare you get for $600 per year entitle you to get treatment anywhere, or only at VA facilities?
If it's the latter, then you will get a benefit by having the much greater choice of providers that Medicare offers. Even if you already have that choice, you will probably benefit from the increased savings and efficiencies that come with having a large payer (the government) with more bargaining clout than Tricare has.
That said, you raise a valid concern. I would guess, however, that if Bernie's healthcare plan were enacted, they would offer some sort of tax break for veterans like yourself to offset the increased cost. Perhaps you should write to the Sanders campaign expressing your concerns about this. Senator Sanders has a long history of supporting veterans, so this is probably something he would be open to.
Thank you for your service, BTW.
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)about his benefits but mine is 100% coverage on any medical related including eye wear. If you live greater than 40 miles from a VA facility you can use any doctor other wise you have to use the VA. If I go to emergence room anywhere the VA will cover it. And it is kinda messed up with way the do somethings. I go for regular visit to a clink that is 10 miles away, but if I need to go to specialist or hospital I have to drive 80 miles to VA hospital because that is closest one in SC. Yet I can't go 8 miles north into NC to the VA hospital there. Has to do with bullshit state funding shit. But hey it is (no money from me) healthcare.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)Based on what you are saying, it seems like Medicare would, taxes aside, be a big upgrade for you, no?
That said, the OP convinced me that maybe a Medicare for all plan should include a special tax break for vets, at least as a transitional measure if not a permanent one, to help them cope with the increased cost compared to the healthcare they have now and thank them for their service. What do you think of that idea?
alarimer
(16,245 posts)It is similar to BlueCross or whatever, but cheaper because the government pays for it. Or rather WE pay for it. I don't care, but if we ever get single payer, EVERYONE has to be in the system and there can be no separate system for them or anyone else. I'd imagine it would be replaced with some other benefit. Maybe just increase the retirement benefit or whatever.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)I was asking whether Tricare was limited to VA facilities. From what another poster responded, it seems like the answer is in some cases yes, in some cases no. So Medicare would be an improvement in that it does not restrict which doctors you can see.
wysi
(1,512 posts)... you should definitely vote your conscience, and what's best for you and for your family.
I will not be voting republican regardless. For a number of reasons.
wysi
(1,512 posts)n/t
Nanjeanne
(4,959 posts)your single payer military healthcare.
But I appreciate your service and am glad to do that - and I accept your thanks for me doing my part.
As far as what happens under Bernie's plan - I'm sure things like VA/Medicare, etc. will be figured out. Since people in Medicare pay less for their health insurance even with the Medigap insurance and many are not working so not paying payroll taxes - I am quite sure that there will be adjustments along the way. I wouldn't worry too much about it. I'm quite sure that things like that will be finessed.
As far as your kid's education - seriously? Are you saying that since I have zero children - I should deduct a large portion of my property taxes because I'm paying for all those other people's children when I have none?
What about police and fire? I'm still paying taxes but I've yet to use either of those services. Should I stop?
Also . . . the tax "analysis" you cite the $4000 from includes all of Bernie's taxes. Not just the healthcare one - which people have already explained to you as 2.2% payroll. The other items in the so-called analysis that get to that hypothetical $4000 are (and I believe I've already given these to you):
Paid Family Leave (3 months)
Tuition Free College
Medicare for All
Jobs Bill (this is the bill he proposes to fix our infrastructure and create jobs)
a Youth Program which puts money into locally administered jobs programs for youths 16-24
a Carbon Tax to help combat climate change
And yes, I know - you already have your paid family leave, you don't need to send your own kids to college, you have government run healthcare already, you don't drive on roads or bridges and could care less about infrastructure or creating millions of jobs, you don't need your children to have any help getting jobs and you don't care about those who do - and you don't breath the air. So . . .
Yeah, don't vote for Bernie. Because he didn't work his ass for you to get those VA benefits you receive.
Dsocialoutcast99
(11 posts):drums
YOU SAID IT! SO WELL!
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts).... his health plan (as presented in many of the calculators) will cost me (likely significantly) more than my current situation (my employer pays 100% of my health care premiums on a fairly middle of the road plan). However, it is very important to me that healthcare is available to all in society.
Obama-care was a start ... a good start in a nation that was happy to site back and let people die ... I am willing to pay to improve access and care for all. if not Sanders plan then a Clinton plan.
I know you asked for input from true Sanders supporters .... I support Sanders and Clinton equally .... but I realize improving access and care is going to cost me and am OK with it. I benefit when society benefits
alarimer
(16,245 posts)That's only a benefit because the health insurance system in this country is so shitty.
Think of the Canadian system, essentially free at the point of service. There would be no need for special benefits for ex-military, with the possible exception of the VA, due to the specialized service they provide.
I highly doubt the extra tax would be $5000. THAT sounds like a right wing talking point. After all, you are currently paying for Medicare and Medicaid, you just can't use it (yet).
And the education plan again works for everyone. If your kids aren't themselves in the military, they can't use the GI Bill, for instance, so how the hell do they pay for college now?
In any case, our society would be better under a single-payer system. it's just fucking selfish for any person to complain what's in for them. Imagine your current employer not having to pay a ton of money on their employees' health care.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)I will like to thank to those who gave thoughtful replies. Everybody can judge for themselves by the responses I have received here. Some did a very good job representing their candidate, Bernie Sanders. Others might want to step back and learn from them.
I'm in California. I'm voting for Hillary. I may appear to put on a 'spirited' defense, but I still can change my mind.
I will not vote for a republican, especially a racist scumbag like Donald J. Trump. So those that told me to vote Trump instead, you really aren't helping your cause and it is not an option.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)The tax increase is 2.2%. If you make far less than $225,000 then your tax increase is far less than $5,000.
Also, does that $600.00 a year include co-pays and deductibles?
You can't believe everything you read in CNN Money. Do the math yourself.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)Didn't Obama campaign have a calculator when he campaigned in 2008 for healthcare? Or was that after he got elected?
Uglystick
(88 posts)There are two:
http://berniecare.org/
http://valadian.github.io/SandersHealthcareCalculator/
Enjoy.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)It's very specific. It addresses your questions in detail, and should provide you the comfort you need to consider Sanders' candidacy, if your concern is any effect his proposed single-payer health plan would have on you.
Since you asked and I provided an extensive evaluation in response, it doesn't seem too much to ask for a reply. I didn't denounce you or get political, I just ran the numbers.
Not that it was quick - it took about an hour. If your question was really meant to provoke people, then you successfully got me to waste an hour of my time. Over my lunch break. Which I never actually take, except today. I hope that wasn't your intent.
Omaha Steve
(99,622 posts)Bernie is offering it is covered with no deductibles. You know the cost of medicare and deductibles?
https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/costs-at-a-glance/costs-at-glance.html
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)For me and my wife when she is 65. But isn't that Bernie's plan? Medicare for all?
Omaha Steve
(99,622 posts)http://www.tricare.mil/LifeEvents/Medicare.aspx
Your right. My neighbor thought he would get dropped. Wait till I tell him.
And yes. Medicare for all. But I'm not sure where your math comes from?
Baobab
(4,667 posts)g - basically a huge global jobs for markets scheme that its hoped will push US wages way down (by using competitive bidding to award all contracts that use government money in at least 51 countries, their firms will all be bidding against one another and we cannot win with our high wages, we will have to automate.)
here is India's argument for more Mode Four.. they have our leaders ears.. more so than the US people. KEEP IN MIND THAT THE NEOLBERALS HAVE BEEN STRINGING THEM ALONG ON PROMISES FOR 20 YEARS, EVER SINCE THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.
Site with ALTERNATIVES TO CORPORATE-CENTRIC-GLOBALIZATION
We should figure out a way they can get exposure to modern workplaces WITHOUT giving up our jobs or lowering our wages- We need to raise THEIR wages THERE - in other countries too- to raise our own- Its the imbalance and CORRUPTION (in all countries now) and the HUGE information vaccuum in the US that the scheming neoliberals are taking advantage of..
-------
Working Group on the Relationship Original: English
between Trade and Investment
COMMUNICATION FROM INDIA
The following communication, dated 25 May 1998, was received from the Permanent Mission of India with the
request that it be circulated to (WTO) Members.
_______________
GLOBAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MOBILITY OF CAPITAL AND THE
MOBILITY OF LABOUR: SELECTED ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. India would like to make this contribution under the Working Group's Checklist of Issues indent on the
relationship between the mobility of capital and the mobility of labour.
2. Capital and labour are two basic and complementary factors of production in addition to other factors like
land and technology. In any production process, capital is required to provide the resources, finance, equipment,
infrastructural support, etc. to help labour produce goods and services, while labour is required to utilize capital
resources and other factors for producing such goods and services. Hence, capital requires labour as an integral
factor of production while labour is seldom capable of producing without capital.
3. Both the mobility of capital and the mobility of labour are accepted as delivery modes for trade and investment
in goods and services. If capital is mobile and flows across countries and regions, it is a natural corollary that
labour must also have comparable mobility. A liberal integrated approach is necessary to the mobility of labour
as part of the free global flows of capital, goods and services.
4. Both the mobility of capital and labour are two sides of the same coin and yet are being treated as two
separate watertight compartments. This is essentially because we have not yet appreciated the complementary
and critical role of the relationship. The countries with a relative advantage in capital resources are keen on
promoting the mobility of capital visàvis the countries which are looking for opportunities to export labour
services, given their relative advantage in such resources. Although the basic economics of the mobility of capital
and labour call for cooperation amongst countries based on competitive advantage and relative scarcity of
resources, polarization of the issues has led to controversies in international forums. The fact remains that there is
a twoway relationship between capital and labour and any discussion on the mobility of capital remainsincomplete without appropriate investigation into the scope for the mobility of labour.
5. Presently, both the mobility of capital and labour are affected by barriers against their free flow. For
understanding the differential nature of barriers relating to the mobility of capital and labour, take as an example
the GATS Schedules. While doing this one must keep in mind that in the GATS, Mode Four, namely, movement
on natural persons, was treated as the balancing factor, from the point of view of manpower surplus but capital
deficit countries, for Mode Three, namely, commercial presence. Compared to the larger issue of mobility of
capital and mobility of labour, what we are dealing with in the GATS is limited mobility of capital and limited
mobility of skilled manpower. However, the GATS enables us to have a comparison of the differential nature of
barriers relating to the mobility of capital and labour. Some of the limitations listed in the different schedules of
commitments under the GATS on market access and national treatment are worth looking at by the Working
Group, for the purpose of understanding the nature and scope of such limitations.
6. As regards the intensity of barriers, the weaker partner is, obviously, labour, which has not received adequate
coverage under the Uruguay Round. The deal has been mostly done in a manner by "keeping out" mobility of all
categories of labour except higher category of personnel and business visitors. For instance, the framework of
the GATS does not encourage mobility of labour as a mode of delivery for exporting services. For the sake of
clarity, we would like to once again emphasize that the free mobility of labour in the context of free mobility of
investment is not in any way relatable or comparable to Mode Four.
7. Not ensuring the mobility of labour as a complementary and critical factor to the mobility of capital can have
farreaching consequences on production frontiers, scales and scope of production and associated costs. If the
mobility of capital is encouraged without the mobility of labour, then it is not difficult to visualize several
consequences. Production frontiers of global firms would get affected by severe crunch of labour and achievable
scale and scope economies would get constrained by labour shortage. As a result the global firms may be forced
to adopt one of the following alternatives:
work with lower supply of labour or inferior quality of labour with lowered scales of production;
forego economies of scope thus foregoing the benefits of combining two or multiple production
processes;
look for technology to displace labour as much as it is possible;
employ illegal migrants;
spend funds, in the medium to long run, on training of local labour, as a substitute.
8. Such choices, forced on global firms, are not always easy, nor cheap, and often risky as well. Such steps
would adversely affect the efficiency and effectiveness of the capital employed by the firms, slow down global
trade and investment and also reflect on the futility of WTO's role as a facilitator for bringing a package deal for
augmenting global trade and investment.
9. At present, mostly higher level professionals are allowed under the GATS for rendering services abroad.
Whereas, in reality, there is a huge shortage of different categories of labour (including professional, managerial
and administrative work force) in the global workplace for which one basic reason lies in the difficulties regarding
mobility of labour. This implies that without guarantees for reasonable mobility of labour, either the mobility ofcapital faces constraints of different categories of labour flows or manages to attract labour through informal or
illegal channels resulting in loss of predictability and stability from the perspective of labour exporting countries.
10. With informal movement of labour (including illegal movement of labour) coming to the rescue of capital
flows to a country, international business gets deprived of any guarantee for appropriate movement of labour.
Such business also runs the risk of facing major labour constraints with sudden changes in the policy of the
country concerned.
11. Costwise, guarantees for mobility of labour is a cheaper option. In many countries readymade answers to
labour shortage seldom exist.
12. The following are some of our suggestions for the consideration of the Working Group:
(i) It is important for the Working Group on the Relationship between Trade and Investment to hold
discussions to explore the nature and extent of issues in labour resources faced by different sectors.
The Working Group can consider ways to overcome the labour crunch and improve productivity of
capital by improving the mobility of labour.
(ii) Even if the Working Group considers ways for the mobility of capital, there is little or no
guarantee that appropriate labour inputs would become available for utilization of that capital.
Hence, the Working Group can help align grassroots realities and suggest easy mobility of selected
categories of labour apart from the higher categories of personnel for which most Member
countries of the WTO have already undertaken commitments under the GATS. For complementing
immediate production purposes, the Working Group can suggest ways for selected labour to move
from surplus regions to deficit regions. The Working Group should be able to consider degrees of
mobility of labour under the aegis of the WTO.
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)how SNAP and SCHIP help my family? Why should I have to pay?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Obviously, principles differ.
Omaha Steve
(99,622 posts)Seems you could lose Tricare. Maybe you need to do some more research? I'm going back to watching the debate.
OS
Budget Proposal Includes Major Retiree Tricare Fee Hikes: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/02/09/budget-proposal-includes-major-retiree-tricare-fee-hikes.html
Lawmakers debate scrapping Tricare: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/232402-lawmakers-debate-scrapping-tricare
Sanders signed bill providing for autism treatment under TRICARE: http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Health_Care.htm
http://obamacarefacts.com/2016/01/18/bernie-sanders-single-payer-overview/
Its not clear what parts of the ACA Bernie would keep, but I think the plan is implying that only the coverage provisions and ones related to insurance go. Likely Medicaid and Medicare are kept in place. Its unclear if TRICARE, VA, and such would be affected.
It seems Bernie had your back!
http://www.military.com/benefits/2013/04/11/mil-update-obama-seeks-to-cap-pay-and-up-tricare-fees.html
Obama's support for it is conditional; Republicans must agree to close some corporate tax loopholes and to raise taxes on the wealthy. Still, Obama support of chain CPI has drawn fire from some Democrats and liberals in Congress. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who chairs the veterans affairs committee, added language to the Senate's non-binding budget resolution to oppose if. If the chain CPI is adopted, said Sanders, "veterans who started receiving VA disability benefits at age 30 would have their benefits reduced by $1,425 [a year by] age 45."
In unveiling the 2014 defense budget request, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the smaller pay raises and TRICARE changes would save $1.4 billion next year and $12.8 billion over just five years. The TRICARE changes, he said, would "bring the beneficiary's cost-share closer to the levels envisioned when the program was first implemented."