I never commented on the whole plan, merely the specified financial components.
As I stated at the outset, these numbers can be bounded by reasonable approximations of what the actual numbers are likely to end up being (you don’t need detailed accuracy or lots of expertise to do some “back of the napkin” approximated maths on this).
You want the focus to be on the transformation of the healthcare industry and citizenry itself, that’s great, that wasn’t/isn’t the focus of my comment.
The proposal described, as part of the transformation, some financial components to fund this post-transformed healthcare world involving HSAs supplied via a NHSA funded by some new taxes. When I considered it, as stated, it seemed quite apparent to me that the sources provided insufficient funding against reasonably projectable costs. I then communicated that.
Yes there is a lot of waste, greed, bad habits, and all the other things mentioned that could be significantly, or even entirely removed/improved. However, even assuming success in all that, regardless of the transformations done, there is still no way to fund all HSA eligible costs for 350 million Americans via the proposed sources.
It’s like proposing to replace the power load of a nuclear, coal fired, or natural gas power plants with solar panels. If you go through with it, then you’re setting up the people under the system for blackouts, or higher prices, because no configuration of solar panels by themselves are sufficient to meet the energy demands of the American People in reality. The solar panels, by themselves, are insufficient; you can show that with the data and reasonable projections that we have on hand, right now, without being an energy industry expert.
Similarly, you don’t need to be a medical industry or healthcare expert to see that the numbers, as proposed, don’t add up. Some reasonably bounded approximations given existing known numbers, and then adjusted for perceived errors/understatements/overstatements, in the US, throughout history, and around the world for comparisons can show us this.
You can accept the feedback, or not.
My advice, if you’re not going to provide real world approximated numerical values, would be to take the funding system out of the proposal entirely. If you can’t estimate how much is going to be raised via those sources, you’re doing your audience a disservice by recommending it. “A lot” or “more than you imagine” are not values for a proposal that wants to be taken seriously.
No, you mischaracterized the specified financial components, from the beginning, as “taxes” and proceeded to expound, wrongly, on the whole plan, from the overarching concept to the finer details, from there.
-The proposal taps two, never before considered–but should have been, long ago–revenue streams, neither one being a proposed tax, nor handled as “tax revenue.”
Comes out of the “donations,” which are completely under the discretion of the donor in amount and timing, which are, in reality, blatant (and also quite illegal) buying, by donors, and selling, by government officials, of government authority, including, most importantly, how taxes are spent.
Partially closes a gaping tax loophole created by “wealth-ist” prejudice working for the IRS and diverts 10% of business “expenditures” made to AVOID paying taxes to public health, to be held by individuals under State oversight, only.
These two NEW sources of “preventive savings” (to go along with ‘preventive’ medicine–that needs always to be a largely personal, individual responsibility) are uniquely fitted to be used to provide financial coverage for specifically AMERICAN total population health care which an individual cannot provide for her or him-self even when educated properly (and truthfully) in the realms of nutrition, behavioral choices, individual variation, and preventive medicine.
No, they cannot, for all of the reasons already discussed. (and no one who does not begin to grasp the proposal, and has no expertise whatsoever in the manifold considerations and problems with our current, out-of-any-sane-control, failing, corrupt, and legitimately criminal medical service and research payment system, has any business making wholly inaccurate calculations on the back of a napkin or anywhere else, to draw totally flawed, completely incorrect conclusions about the proposal.
The focus of your comments has been on a proposal you clearly do not understand (demonstrated again, here), and your own assumptions that are not, and were not, presented as part of the proposal. As such, you have/had no business making the comments you have (including this distorted characterization). What you’ve written comes very obviously out of your negativity-driven fears, anger, know-it-all ego, and preoccupied self-interests. You can’t even seem to grasp the proposal, as stated, addresses many of the primary actors creating all this stress in your life (and that of hundreds of millions of other Americans) and demands these actors’ rightful financial responsibility in correcting the situation.
-The proposal is NOT about new taxes of any kind.
-You never calculated the projected costs, “quite apparently” because you couldn’t make a few quick “clicks” to get some “numbers” which you apparently, like the federal government, only know how to “add.” Most of the cost part of the proposal requires a great deal of subtraction from the existing, hideous, overspending and backdoor taxation (calling it something other than “taxes”) of businesses by government—about which you very apparently do not know or understand a thing. You might want to study-up on subtraction. “Math” involves a whole lot more than plus + signs.
-Besides not learning to do subtraction in order to make any reasonable estimate of “costs,” you never even attempted to calculate the revenue to be had from the second half of the proposal, because you have zero grasp of the primary gaping and unchecked loophole in American business tax code that allows anything or anyone defining as a “business” to avoid, and more importantly evade (which is illegal) paying federal income taxes. The proposal makes no attempt to correct this ongoing financial affront to the entire population, especially to working Americans and their future generations, it merely seeks justice and real social security, eventually, for everyone by “capitalizing” on it (the revenue stream from the Internet, alone, in the “advertising” direction, is readily, “back of the napkin” estimated in the trillions of dollars).
The analogy is totally inappropriate, making your conclusions irrelevant.
No, it can’t. Spoken like a true politician who hasn’t got a clue, but is hoping to get people who know even less than he does to believe him.
The feedback has been graciously accepted and countered, to none of which have you responded. You simply keep repeating your foredrawn, Google U diploma, instant (and thus lazy) answer, conclusions (PS there’s a difference between constructive dialog leading to further research by both parties and refinement of ideas–the goal of legitimate “feedback,” and repeating your ill-informed and thus irrelevant opinions.) As such and as already stated, I am DONE, with you, and your ego, and have no interest in your “advice.” I will, however, continue to try to help your son and the rest of his generation.
I explained the terminology distinction quite early on in the discussion.
A “tax” is an involuntary, compulsory payment demanded by law backed by the penalty of the sanctioned use of physical force by the government against you for non-compliance.
What happens when someone doesn’t make the appropriate “donations”?
How does it get enforced?
The involuntary nature of the proposed sources is what makes them a tax, not what institutions or people end up with the money.
A “tax” has far less to do with whether or not it is part of the government revenue and far more to do with the fact you ultimately end up in jail or have it forcibly taken from you by the government if you don’t pay it. There is no contractual agreement between the parties involved that could otherwise enforce the proposal.
Political donation diversions, are effectively a 50% tax on those donations.
Mandating 10% of advertising spending be “donated” to the NHSA is literally the same thing as a “sales tax” on advertising with the money being delivered to a bank account.
The only entity you have capable of enforcing these “donations” is through force of law by the government which has the power to levy taxes. The government does not have the power to mandate donations, except via its power to tax.
You can try and rename it whatever you want, but the only mechanism by which the proposal can be executed and enforced is the government’s power of taxation. There is no other means to enforce cooperation with the proposal.
Think through what happens when I don’t donate my required 10% of business advertising spend to the NHSA account and I look you square in the eye and say to you “I ain’t gonna do it. I choose not to participate. You’re going to have to make me.” Outside of the power to levy and enforce taxation, the government has no basis to enforce this proposal.
I did, and I did it several ways, which is more than you’ve ever done in this entire discussion, including the original proposal as far as actually putting numbers to these things.
I provided a link to the detailed document for where the $4.5 trillion healthcare number quoted comes from, and I even calculated a rounded up figure of the proposal’s citation to an 80% reduction in the current healthcare costs putting the costs in the range of $1 trillion to $2 trillion dollars annually.
Bullcrap, I said $500 billion dollars in advertising spend in the US annually, which results in a $50 billion contribution to the NHSA.
I even linked to the location I got the number from which provided the methodology used to calculate it. Even if the actual number is double that amount to $1 trillion dollars annually, that would result in doubling that NHSA contribution to $100 billion dollars.
Yes, there is, like when you’re attempting to nail down numbers to attach to things, actually focusing on the numbers to attach to things.
I’ve proposed $20 billion in political campaign contributions and $1 trillion in business advertising spending annually as the sources that feed the NHSA. I have also proposed a reasonable guess at the expected HSA spend by Americans annually can be reasonably guesstimated to be in the $1 to $2 trillion range.
You have accepted no numbers at all, including the numbers suggested from the original proposal, and you continue to refuse to provide any numbers.
You have spent more time attempting to insult me and attack both my intelligence and my character than you have engaged with the content of quantifying the proposal.