• dragontamer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months 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.

            • dragontamer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 months 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.