Hacker News Reader

Comment by mlinhares | Hacker News Reader

Because we shouldn't be cutting research, healthcare and social security if we want to have a future as a society.

well we need to find a way to make these programs sustainable then. frankly, medicare is extremely friggin expensive because it encourages overutilization - which raises costs a ton for everyone.

we simply cannot afford to be yeeting historically unheard of levels of money at the elderly without raising taxes significantly on the middle-class, that is the rub of our current fiscal situation.

You know nothing. Absolutely nothing. Medicare is EXTREMELY CHEAP compared to private insurance. You're comparing Medicare in a vaccuum when you should look at private insurance.

> we simply cannot afford to be yeeting historically unheard of levels of money at the elderly without raising taxes significantly on the middle-class, that is the rub of our current fiscal situation

Oh wow, we can't raise taxes on the rich? only significantly the middle class? Why not the rich?

Medicare is extremely expensive from the perspective of the government/taxpayer. That it is extremely cheap and allows people to bid up the price of care on the consumer side is part of the problem, there is no triage or disincentive from overutilization because of how little cost share there is.

Lol so yeah, you're not comparing it to private insurance which is what TAXPAYERS actually pay themselves. You're just a right-wing hack.

"Medicare is BAD because it costs money and is cheaper than private insurance. Private insurance is GOOD because it costs even more money than we'd pay with Medicare!!"

Your position is "medicare is too expensive" but expensive compared to what??

None of what you said is what I'm saying and you're making all sorts of presumptions about what you think I believe.

I think you struggle with civil discourse and doubt this conversation will be productive, so have a nice day.

Cool. Go back to thinking we can only raise taxes on the middle class to pay for medicare and ignoring any taxes on the wealthy like you said in your first post. ( we simply cannot afford to be yeeting historically unheard of levels of money at the elderly without raising taxes significantly on the middle-class, that is the rub of our current fiscal situation )

Your current fiscal situation is only right-wing talking points.

the vast majority of economists agree that there is simply not enough income among the wealthy that we can reach a fiscally sustainable path solely by raising taxes on the wealthy. i favor raising taxes on the wealthy significantly, but there are also hard truths about tax receipts and current spending.

https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/taxes-and-mandatory-...

You just posted a poll. From 2015 Of not even 50 economists. That’s not “the vast majority” of economists in any sense. They did no statistical analysis of who said what, so this isn’t even statistically valid poll. It’s just raw numbers, with self-selection bias.

They also vary widely in their comments on what they agree with. Even if you think I’m uncharitably reading your words, you’re entirely misreading the poll and the site you posted. You’re putting your words in their mouths.

“Long run fiscal sustainability in the US will require some combination of cuts in currently promised Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits and/or tax increases that include higher taxes on households with incomes below $250,000.”

This poll question is biased and doesn’t include anything about whether taxes on those above $250k need to be increased. You’re, again, misreading the question that asked and adding in your own words about wealthy tax. There is nothing in that question that allows you to posit these polled economists don’t believe “that we can reach a fiscally sustainable path solely by raising taxes on the wealthy.”

> right-wing talking points.

You keep saying this - it’s a form of ad hominem.

Also last I checked the Trump administration is not exactly full of free market healthcare advocates. You may be remembering Paul Ryan from 2012.

Society existed before social security.

So we should go back to being hunters and gatherers?

Yep, those are only the options - social security or hunter gatherer.

What version of society are you proposing we go back to then?

I’m actually proposing a new one - not a going back. One where we fix our budget to be sustainable and better help our citizens.

I’m open to proposals about what to do about social security because it MUST change.

How about instead we have a forced savings account that you cannot withdraw from. And the government has some matching component.

Senior centers also seem to be a low cost community investment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com