Putting Medicare for All affordability under scrutiny
I am writing in response to Mr. Farr’s letter of Feb. 18 entitled Medicare for All.
In addition to the definition of conservative versus liberal I would add that many studies conducted have concluded that conservatives tend to be more giving with their charitable contributions.
Read the link at the end of this paragraph. The author quotes multiple NY Times columnists and studies. For example: “The more Republican a county is, the more its residents report charitable contributions.” “U.S. households in the top 10 percent of income accounted for at least a quarter of all money donated.” “U.S. households with a net worth of over a million dollars were the source of over half of all charitable gifts.” Another study I read in the past indicated a reason for this is liberals tend to believe it’s governments job to tax and distribute accordingly. As a result liberals aren’t compelled to provide charity, whereas conservatives tend to do so on a larger scale.
The below article was written a year before the election. There are excellent points in this article, but most importantly, even if we adopt a single-payer system, employers no longer provide healthcare [insurance], and the government now foots the bill. As a result, paychecks could increase, but there would be new taxes collected as a result of increased income (from having no healthcare premiums withheld). It is estimated that would only provide a quarter of the anticipated $32T in 10 years to cover the MA expense. Three-quarters of $32T is $24T, should we add that to the debt? (Currently $28T and climbing)
Finally, the below article compares taxation in other countries to the U.S. Our total tax revenue is roughly 24 percent of GDP. All other countries, including Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the UK, have higher tax burdens for their citizens. Most are around 35 percent. Many of the European countries are at 40 percent or more, with France topping the list at 46 percent. Anyone want to be forced to give up a massive chunk of their income?
Health care for all is a noble idea, and perhaps should be a reality. But you can’t discuss it without the discussion of affordability. Tax and spend is not a strategy. With the new $1.9T stimulus package our debt will hit $30T. Can we afford to add $24T more in the next 10 years?
Clay Gabhart, Charlestown
Populism NOT a dangerous leadership plan
In response to Daniel Suddeath’s column:
First search on Google states: “a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.” That approach is why Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton. Positive populists are not going away. They are awake now. They expect those that they elect to represent them, to be responsive to the voters. Period. It used to be the Democratic Party that was concerned with everyday Americans, but that is no longer the case. They have fully embraced the socialist wing of the Democratic Party and it looks like AOC is their leader.
The last time a populist movement made a run was the Tea Party. I think Obama effectively shut it down by weaponizing the IRS against many of the leaders, but they did get a lot of conservatives elected.
Donald Trump did not lose because he could not stay off Twitter. LOL. Not all of them were good, but at least you knew where he stood. He could not depend on the press to truthfully report, so he did so himself. He spoke directly to anyone that followed him. The Democrats began their impeachment strategies the day of his inauguration. It was the headline of the Washington Post that day. How soon we forget!
I suggest Suddeath read the Time Magazine article from Feb. 4, 2021: “The Secret Bipartisan Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election. It wasn’t “rigged”, it was “fortified.” I think Trump and his voters have every right to question the results in Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Arizona. Too many irregularities. Should have been a full forensic audit. At least the PA Attorney General resigned for her part in changing election laws without going through the legislature. The treatment of observers in MI and the covering of windows was uncalled for from the intolerant folks running the election offices.
I don’t think Trump will run again. If he does, he probably won’t donate his salary again. We’ll see what he has to say on 02/28/2021, when he makes his first public appearance.
If I were Daniel Suddeath, I’d be writing Joe Biden and telling him no more town hall events. His comments about Blacks and Hispanics and their ability to use the internet were totally off base.
Elizabeth Madden, Georgetown