Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (97) |
Author: Steve203 🐝 HONORARY
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84351 
Subject: Re: Medicare Buy-In
Date: 08/19/26 11:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 2
the fact that the government can't raise enough taxes to match current expenditures without dramatically increasing the total cost burden of the people being taxed from current levels. The savings is what makes it possible.

But it's not enough to cover the increases in costs due to new consumption and the raising of Medicaid (and possibly Medicare) rates. Which makes it all-but-impossible for the government to find enough money to pay for this in a politically feasible way.


How many different ways do I need to explain it?

We already pay more than enough to cover everyone. Change the pipes the money flows through

Currenty: employer pays most of the employee's health insurance, and adds the cost to the goods and services sold.

End state, when the last employee on private insurance retires: employer pays VAT on his inputs, and adds the cost to the goods and services sold. He no longer is paying employee health insurance, so that cost is no longer added to goods and services sold.

Transition years: VAT is stepped up, as the portion of the workforce covered by national health increases, meanwhile employer costs for private employee insurance declines.

For the individual covered by national health: pays a bit more for goods and services, due to the VAT, but does not have paycheck deductions for health insurance or Medicare.

For the individual not covered by national health: pays for employer provided insurance, but not for Medicare, unless he voluntarily moves to national health, when he sees the paycheck deduction for insurance vanish too, while paying a bit more for purchases, due to the VAT.

"JCs" do not duck the VAT by offshoring production, because VAT is charged on imports.

I have been having flashbacks to an ep of "Yes Minister", and "creative inertia"

two relevant clips;

Yes, Minister - Sir Humphrey's Stalling Technique

YouTube: Yes, Minister - Sir Humphrey's Stalling Technique (Karthik Subramaniam)

Jim's TV Announcement | Yes, Minister | BBC Comedy Greats

YouTube: Jim's TV Announcement | Yes, Minister | BBC Comedy Greats (BBC Comedy Greats)

Steve

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to Steve203 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (97) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community