I left it completely open regarding what those taxes would be, but it seems very myopic to say that all taxes are difficult to pass without looking at them individually. Sin taxes can be very lucrative, and people SHOULD spend an extra 5 cents on every plastic bag.
Also, I'm not going to get into political fiat with you. Every single thing in this entire world has detractors. It's not my job to say whether or not something will pass. I've always prefaced this with that it's an issue of political will.
UHC SHOULD happen and it CAN happen. Whether or not it will happen is up to the voters and who wins the next election. There are simply way too many variables to even guess what will or will not pass in the next 4 years.
It isn't myopic to say that passing taxes are difficult. It is fact. To really drive that point, I'll say it this way:
IT IS FACT!
Now that we have that out of the way, I can fully explain why it is fact:
1. Even if Bernie Sanders becomes President, we will still have to deal with at minimum a Republican controlled House of Representatives until 2021. The current state of the Republican Party sees almost all taxes as evil.
2. You're right that passing all taxes is impossible. Some forms of raising revenue has more support than others such as raising taxes on the rich, sin taxes, etc. But trying to pass tax increases on the middle class? That's a nonstarter. No politician is going to want to be labeled as a supporter of raising taxes on the average American. It's why the Obama Administration refused to even consider things such as increasing gas taxes to fund his infrastructure plans. Also keep this in mind, we're a country that became independent, because we didn't want to pay our ****ing taxes.
3. Not even the Democratic Party will be on board of Bernie's tax plan. I quote House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: "We're not running on any platform of raising taxes," and to go even further on Bernie's universal health care plans: "That's not going to happen."
Excuse me? A child gets a debilitating fever but his mom can't afford to take him to the doctor. A an elderly father is on disability but can't afford emergency when his liver fails. A single mom has to choose between having food on the table or paying for her needed heart surgery. Don't tell me that this isn't a moral imperative. People dying is a problem, and it's our dictate to help. Because when we help others, we help ourselves. Every scenario in this country in which there is needless death is a moral issue. To say otherwise is...I don't know. It's not subjective to say it's a priority that we shouldn't turn poor people away in their time of need. Their hurt is our hurt. Their loss is our loss.
I'm going to use your own words against you on this one:
MaceB said:
Let me know how those are weak arguments, and I'll try to expand on them.
Morality is an opinion based argument, not a factual based one. Now when it comes to opinion, I actually sympathize with you quite a bit on it. I really do. But if you try to use that argument on someone like my mother, who if you categorize her political ideology, is an objectivist extremist, she will get extremely angry at you for having sympathy for another human being, particularly of the poor variety.
Again, I would say a lot of that has to do with austerity. Also, like I said, people have been saying this for years and it doesn't happen because it's a national priority. Also, not every country with UHC is faltering or on the brink; that's ridiculous.
http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/
All these countries? Nope. Also, again there are multiple sources of revenue. It's a problem that needs to be worked on, but in no way is it impossible.
And just why do you think that austerity is happening? It's because the social welfare state in Europe has become too vast while hindering economic growth in that region. Even the countries that are not on the brink like the United Kingdom, Japan, and Germany are enduring extremely slow economic growth and/or implementing measures of austerity.
So? Whats your point? The earnings from such endeavors could be used for good. UHC is just one example. Are you suggesting we make cuts and not investments? Cause that's what UHC would be. It's an investment to better our cost curve and keep people healthy (which also helps the economy.)
And frankly, creating a single payer that can leverage it's influence to bring costs down is the most logical solution. Saying, well we don't need to do that is fine I guess, but why should we work to find another way when this is right in front of us?
There can be reforms to prohibit the blatant price gouging that we have seen like the infamous Pharma Bro, Martin Skhreli. There can be free market reforms to make it easier for more competition to enter into the market and reduce prices and costs, because current regulations make it hard for newcomers to enter into the market. Patent reform that benefits the consumer over the drug companies.
My point is that there are various things that can be done besides just universal health care, many of which would allow the United States system to continue being the leading source of innovation and quality while addressing the concerns of cost and access.
So under your paradigm, I shouldn't fight and argue for anything that is politically uncertain? That sounds like a great way to maintain the status quo to me. If something should be done, then that's all we need to know. I'll argue till the cows come home that we should cut the budget in places in order to give these poor suckers that healthcare they need. It's a matter of political will, not feasibility.
It's one thing to be in favor of something, but we need to accept political reality here. I completely agree with you that we should be cutting the military budget 100%. When you look at the budget of the US, we've pretty much cut everything we can, except for the military budget. That is really the only place that we can look at and cut at this point. So you're preaching to the choir here on this issue.
But there's reality to look at. And cutting the military budget just isn't going to happen. When it comes to foreign and security policy, Republicans and Democrats are pretty much lock and step. Neoconservatism dominates the Republican Party and the Democrats don't want to look weak. Plus jobs are dependent on the military budget and Congressmen and women don't want to go home to their districts where there's a bullet or tank factory and tell their constituents that they caused their plants to be shut down and lose their jobs.
So it goes beyond political will. It is indeed feasibility.
