57
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] dragontamer@lemmy.world -4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah, and Medicare / Social Security are already going bankrupt by 2040.

A gross expansion of those programs will make them go bankrupt even faster. You need to explain how to raise money for a "Medicare for All" program... and not just "Well fuck Taiwan / Phillipines / Far East / Ukraine / everyone else in the world".

We're going to have our hands full just keeping the programs available over the next few decades, and you want to expand them?

[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 8 points 1 day ago

By having free healthcare for all you actually save money if basically no other change is made.

People will go to the dr whenever they first start feeling ill instead of putting off until it gets so bad that it now costs 10x what it would have to catch early as well as the reduced economic potential in workers being unable to due to recovery or worse.

It will also save money by reducing er costs from above by the jobless, homeless and addicts only going at the same points but they have even higher rates of hospitalization and severity so we save a ton more there.

You cut out the middlemen on all negotiated services and products, will save manpower and labor by everything being standardized universally with one system.

Eliminating all of the inefficiencies that insurance causes will reduce the cost of healthcare.

Also, no one is trying to make private insurance illegal, look at all the different Medicare programs they already allow.

[-] dragontamer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

By having free healthcare for all you actually save money if basically no other change is made.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-02/57637-Single-Payer-Systems.pdf

In this analysis, we found that economic output would be between 0.3 percent lower and 1.8 percent higher than the benchmark economy 10 years after the single-payer system was implemented, without incorporating the effects of financing the system. Under a single-payer system, workers would choose to work fewer hours, on average, despite higher wages because the reduction in health insurance premiums and OOP expenses would generate a positive wealth effect that allowed households to spend their time on activities other than paid work and maintain the same standard of living. If the system was financed with an income or payroll tax, gross domestic product (GDP) would be between approximately 1.0 percent and 10 percent lower by 2030, depending on the specification of the single-payer system and the details of the financing policy.

Sounds like we pay by having a loss of GDP measured between 1% to 10%. That's rather substantial.

CBO is the non-partisan accountants of the US Senate/House. They are our best estimate on the true costs of various programs.

[-] Sunforged@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Your arguing that workers who would have the option under single payer healthcare to work less is a bad thing? Jesus christ dude.

Go look up GDH.

[-] dragontamer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago

That's cool and all, but GDP is related to.... You guessed it. Inflation.

I recognize that Republicans overemphasized GDP but it's a chief metric for a reason. If our top line GDP drops it will absolutely be a problem.

If you want to bring up easy inflation gremlins into your argument, be my guest. But inflation is already a weak point for Democrats and I expect y'all to get hammered on it even harder moving forward.

this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
57 points (78.2% liked)

politics

18062 readers
4347 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS