WSJ Top Bipartisan Issues
- Thread starter fatpiggy
- Start date
Some of these are obvious and some ignore business reality.
Stop illegals at the border, require photo ID to vote …. Totally obvious. Both could be enacted tomorrow.
Stoping the institutional money in single family homes seems like another that could be enacted. Same with the government website for pharmaceuticals.
For things like CC rates, how does this work in the real world? The prime rate is 7%. 10% doesn’t allow for enough margin to account for the administration costs, collection risk, profit, etc. If you actually passed this, you would see a dramatic tightening of creditworthiness based approval, restricting CC access for 10s of millions of Americans. This would then throttle consumer spending and hurt the economy. Just a reality.
Requiring insurance companies to cover more things is fine, but that will just get baked into the premiums. There’s a financial tradeoff there. So expect higher premiums if you push for something like that.
Capping childcare costs? Now that actually requires government funding to subsidize these costs, which means more spending and more taxes. I’d prefer expanding tax deductions for childcare expenses. A far more logical and administratively practical approach.
Instead of pathway to citizenship, I think there’s a more practical and near-term approach of simply a pathway to legal work status, which is the real goal and market need.
Capping prescriptions sounds good in theory. I like Trumps approach of most favored nation pricing. But there needs to be enough margin to make the risk and extreme development and research costs worth it. But we could potentially cap profit margin on certain classes of drugs, even though I don’t like that in practical free market theory.
Stop illegals at the border, require photo ID to vote …. Totally obvious. Both could be enacted tomorrow.
Stoping the institutional money in single family homes seems like another that could be enacted. Same with the government website for pharmaceuticals.
For things like CC rates, how does this work in the real world? The prime rate is 7%. 10% doesn’t allow for enough margin to account for the administration costs, collection risk, profit, etc. If you actually passed this, you would see a dramatic tightening of creditworthiness based approval, restricting CC access for 10s of millions of Americans. This would then throttle consumer spending and hurt the economy. Just a reality.
Requiring insurance companies to cover more things is fine, but that will just get baked into the premiums. There’s a financial tradeoff there. So expect higher premiums if you push for something like that.
Capping childcare costs? Now that actually requires government funding to subsidize these costs, which means more spending and more taxes. I’d prefer expanding tax deductions for childcare expenses. A far more logical and administratively practical approach.
Instead of pathway to citizenship, I think there’s a more practical and near-term approach of simply a pathway to legal work status, which is the real goal and market need.
Capping prescriptions sounds good in theory. I like Trumps approach of most favored nation pricing. But there needs to be enough margin to make the risk and extreme development and research costs worth it. But we could potentially cap profit margin on certain classes of drugs, even though I don’t like that in practical free market theory.
Public Opinion and Polling Data- Data for Progress (Late 2025/2026): Found 65% initial support for Medicare for All, which remained resilient at 58% to 63% even after respondents were informed that it would raise taxes or replace private insurance. [1, 2]
- Medicare for All PAC Survey (September 2026): Reported that 60% of participants favored universal health care, including 55% in key political battleground districts. [1]
- The Economist/YouGov Poll: Indicated that 59% of Americans back the idea of Medicare for All, with opposition resting around 27%. [1]
‘Stunning’ Level of Support for Universal Health Care: Jayapal - The American Prospect
Even more people want Medicare for All than did last December, a new poll shows.
prospect.org
They want it til they’re waiting 6 months for a routine visit and having to pay 10x to go see an out of plan doctor.
Democrats just unanimously voted no on voter id and insider stock trading just yesterday lol
Keep in mind that the majority of democrats voters are in favor of a military coup against Donald Trump today. They’re as radical as any political party has ever been in the history of this country. They’re also absolute lunatics.
Canada has already shown us the medical utopia that the left offers in policy. You can either wait for a year to be seen or they can medically assist you in dying today. Right now, in fact. They even advertise this service and recommend it as a pathway to people with things as mild as general depression.
Of course the Canadians with money just fly to the USA and spend out of pocket for American healthcare instead.
- Data for Progress (Late 2025/2026): Found 65% initial support for Medicare for All, which remained resilient at 58% to 63% even after respondents were informed that it would raise taxes or replace private insurance. [1, 2]
- Medicare for All PAC Survey (September 2026): Reported that 60% of participants favored universal health care, including 55% in key political battleground districts. [1]
- The Economist/YouGov Poll: Indicated that 59% of Americans back the idea of Medicare for All, with opposition resting around 27%. [1]
‘Stunning’ Level of Support for Universal Health Care: Jayapal - The American Prospect
Even more people want Medicare for All than did last December, a new poll shows.
I don't really put much stock in the popularity of free stuff that most people won't have to pay for. I mean, sure free stuff is popular. It doesn't make it good policy.
Check the popularity of this policy: The bottom 90% of earners each get $10,000 cash from the government each year and this will be financed by raising taxes on the top 1%. I bet it's pretty popular.
Wut?
The bottom 90% is roughly 230 million adults. At $10k each, that's about $2.3 trillion a year. The top 1% doesn't earn that much after they pay the taxes they already pay, so your numbers don't jive. The costs would be paid with taxes, not premiums and the top 10% are not the only ones who pay taxes. Besides, I was only responding to the previous poster's claim that the polling must be wrong, not advocating one way or another.
Anywho, you started with "it's popular" and ended up at "it's popular, so it's bad." Pick one.
It's not a real proposal... Just saying that of course free stuff that is paid for by others is popular. In this case, free government healthcare that's paid for by tax hikes on "the rich" is somewhat popular. I'm not surprised. But that doesn't make it good policy.
I didn't argue that popularity made it good but at least you agree that it's popular.
Two things:
"Paid for by others" is inaccurate framing. Most M4A financing proposals lean on broad-based taxes, like payroll taxes and income taxes across brackets, not just "the rich." Households may pay more in taxes but will drop premiums, deductibles and co-pays so it stays roughly even.
It's been discusssed here before but other wealthy countries with universal coverage spend far less per person than the US, with comparable or better outcomes.
Doesn't make this a slam dunk because there are other factors to consider but this is not just a tax on the wealthy.
Right, but you know how the math works. Payroll taxes and income taxes are based on .... income. Premiums, deductibles and co-pays are flat regardless of income. So by tethering the financing to income, it is very clearly a shift in financial responsibility to higher earners.
Lots of reasons for our higher cost v outcome issue, most of which have nothing to do with "who" pays for it.
people haven't yet gone through the negative side advertising on the topic. If this gets more serious we'll see the projections on how high federal taxes have to go, the negative impacts on the entire medical profession, poor care, low reimbursement rates, loss of over a million jobs in the insurance field, poor care as evidenced in Canada, the UK...the powers that be will scare the bejesus out of the population. And of course the politicians who vote on the proposals will be exempted.
here's a serious question, out of curiosity, what % of Americans supported the ACA back in 2010?
- Data for Progress (Late 2025/2026): Found 65% initial support for Medicare for All, which remained resilient at 58% to 63% even after respondents were informed that it would raise taxes or replace private insurance. [1, 2]
- Medicare for All PAC Survey (September 2026): Reported that 60% of participants favored universal health care, including 55% in key political battleground districts. [1]
- The Economist/YouGov Poll: Indicated that 59% of Americans back the idea of Medicare for All, with opposition resting around 27%. [1]
‘Stunning’ Level of Support for Universal Health Care: Jayapal - The American Prospect
Even more people want Medicare for All than did last December, a new poll shows.
the fact that other countries spend less has to be explored a little further...Maybe they spend a little more because they get fewer tests, don't spend as much on research, pay their medical professionals less...or any multitude of other reasons. I know from personal experience, over the past year I've have neurological tests (2) (I passed out and hit my head), at least 5 heart checks in CT scans, echocardiograms, EKGs , at least 7 appointments with cardiologists. And I've gotten all the appointments within 2 weeks from asking.
I play golf with a cardiologist from Canada when he comes to Florida in the winter. When I told him of all the tests and the appointments, his only statement to me was that it would take a couple of years to get those tests/appointments in Canada. I've had all mine in less than a year..
take it for what it's worth.
Bumping this @dpic73 since you doubled down above on this not being a tax on the wealthy. If you are shifting the cost from premiums, deductibles and copays to payroll taxes and income taxes (all your words btw), how is it not a shift in financial responsibility to higher earners? That's nearly the same as a tax on the wealthy, yet it's even worse because it's a tax on people still working hard and earning good money for their families, even if they aren't actually "wealthy."
What changes would you make to the tax code, under the assumption that we can’t cut taxes because even if we cut spending, our debt is out of control?
I throw out some ideas...first of all, as a minimum we need to freeze spending..not exceptions.
but that's not what you asked...so on taxes, we need to raise the rates, on everybody, As a minimum we go back to the 39% tax bracket: next we do away with the no federal taxes on the bottom 50%...doesn't have to be much, but everyone has to realize the seriousness of our situation and have some skin in the game.
almost finally, because I'm sure others will have ideas, institute a surcharge on incomes over $1million...we've done it before, we can do it again. And, even more controversial, institute a 1% federal sales tax...
I have no idea how much this would generate, but it's a start for discussion.
maybe not poverty as described by the government. But I wager that quite a few on here grew up in households that were not considered middle or upper middle class. I recognize that there are a relatively significant number of Americans that started from very little that today we might consider wealthy.
There's a big difference in starting poor and ending poor. There are still significant opportunities for someone in the former category to grow to one of the latter. I've posted many times, anyone can come from a poor family, join the military, retire and become a millionaire. In fact, there's a youtube video account that describes just that.
I might have misinterpreted what you posted. If so, sorry
Last edited:
I'm not interested in getting in a long back and forth here because I only wanted to point out that universal healthcare is popular, but a few things:
Of course people who are higher earners pay more but that doesn't equate to "free stuff paid by others" meaning most people pay nothing, even though you then re-framed it as a tax hitting hardworking middle and upper middle income people. Both can't be true.
Premiums are already a tax on hardworking people but whose budget is being hit harder - A $20k family premium takes a much bigger bite out of a $70k household than a $400k one. A household paying $4k more in taxes but $9k less in premiums, deductibles, and copays is ahead, not further behind. You may pay more in a progressive tax system but premiums are regressive and take a bigger chunk of a lower earning household's budget.
Maybe the savings estimates are too optimistic and that's why we'd need to see the plan's design before we can make conclusive statements about how well it controls costs. In the meantime, I'm not pretending to be an expert, just shooting the sh*t but strongly believe we need some type of plan that covers all Americans, even ones that can't afford to contribute much of their income.
I’m not complaining about having to pay taxes. I complain about paying a massive amount of taxes, yet am told that I don’t pay my fair share and politicians on one side of the aisle consistently propose policies to force my family to pay even more. You would think that facing the full brunt of the progressive tax code and contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the federal coffers each year would be enough. But apparently it isn’t for some. THAT is what I complain about.
we have a plan that covers all Americans. It was passed in 2010, called the affordable care act. One of the goals was to provide coverage for all Americans....
I'd argue that while we live in our own heads, its shaped by our experiences and exposure to others not like us. Many magas, including on this site, grew up in poverty or were lower class (they'll probably never admit it here though). Many liberals on here did too.
But there are so many factors that shape people into who they become, why they think and believe what they do, and why they support certain ideologies and not others. People are nuanced
If you've ever taken a communication course...you're 100% right...we all have "filters" that are created by our upbringing, experience, education, environment or whatever. When we hear something our filter determines what it means to us, individually. That's why two people can see or hear exactly the same thing at the same time and come away with exactly opposite opinions.
I didn't reframe it as hitting middle and upper middle people. There are hardworking families who earn above middle/upper middle incomes, but aren't really wealthy, who will be smacked with higher net costs. Just look at most dem tax proposal thresholds.
The regressive argument can be made about literally anything and is a completely irrelevant argument here. Gas costs are regressive. Grocery costs are regressive. Car insurance is regressive. Clemson football tickets are regressive. That doesn't mean any of these things - including health insurance - should be shifted to income-based taxation.
That income-based taxation is already wildly skewed to higher earners. A family of 4 earning $100,000 pays a mere $3,000 in federal income tax... That same family of 4 making $500,000 pays over $100,000 -- 33+ times more despite only earning 5 times more income. We absolutely, 100%, no question, should not be adding anything else to income-based funding.
If we want to lower costs, improve population health. Regulate the food supply. Incentivize self-care. Penalize not taking care of yourself. Then work on tort reform. Then accelerate tech advances with AI and robotics to lower care delivery costs. Limit prescription drug costs. These are things that actually lower the cost of healthcare - not simply changing who pays for it.
We also have a plan that covers all Americans. Obama passed it. It was called the ACA. Nobody is excluded for preexisting conditions. Poor people also get Medicaid. The solution already exists.
I would work on reducing spending before increasing taxes. We spend way too much money.
If I absolutely had to increase taxes, I would look at where there are actual breaks in the effective tax rate paid. Chart income relative to effective rate and look for inequities. We would likely need to close loopholes. Maybe work on changes to AMT to ensure everyone is contributing a fair amount. Maybe an additional income tax tier at $2.5M/$5M or so. Perhaps an additional cap gains tax tier in the 10s of millions.
I also posted not long ago about increasing the SS tax from 12.4% to 14% - on everyone. A far more fair and logical approach than eliminating the income threshold. This more than covers the annual shortfall based on 2025 numbers. SS is a horrible program and should have never been implemented in its current form, but I don't see a way to eliminate it, so I guess we need to boost funding. And this is the better than any other proposal I've seen.
Absolutely. And hopefully someone smart will upgrade a lot of systems in the govt to increase efficiency.
We did miss a big opportunity to privatize SS when W was president. Unfortunately terrorism took over the agenda and we created so much redundancy in the IC that it created more waste. But I can understand doing what you need to do to ensure that 9/11 never happens again. I would’ve liked to see the Trump accounts as a replacement to social security and have it phased out as those folks approach earnings years.
I would also increase capital gains taxes. Doesn’t feel right that people pay higher taxes than capital, but I won’t argue that it helps spur investment in the US.
That plus closing corporate tax loopholes and subsidies would make a big dent.
Latest
-
01
Tiger Illustrated Football
Here's what we know about Clemson's football team entering the open date
-
02
Tiger Illustrated Football Recruiting
MONDAY INSIDER
-
03
Tiger Illustrated Football
Right now Clemson Football is hard to watch
-
04
Tiger Illustrated Football
CLEMSON FOOTBALL: The Day After
-
05
Tiger Illustrated Football
Clemson outclassed by No. 4 Miami in 41-13 loss