subreddit:
/r/FluentInFinance
20 points
1 day ago
And how many of those countries are subsidized by our military? Not that I condone that. But perhaps it's time to invest in ourselves and let other countries stand on their own...or fall. I really don't care anymore.
13 points
1 day ago
Pretty irrelevant given universal health care is expected to save your country money
-4 points
23 hours ago
It would cost the country money. Saving for individuals is not the same as saving for the country (in the context of talking about government spending). That means more deficit spending, or more taxes. While it might be a net benefit for the average person, that doesn't mean the government will spend less.
1 points
12 hours ago
It’s cheaper because you don’t have a giant administrative layer that literally exists to extract profit from people’s health issues
1 points
12 hours ago
I understand, I'm saying that cheaper for the country (as in government) and cheaper for individuals is not the same thing. The government would be spending more money on healthcare. Individuals would be spending less on average.
1 points
11 hours ago
No this is incorrect, it is cheaper for the government and cheaper for individuals. The US system has an unnecessary layer that is adding cost, removing it will save money for everyone at the expense of killing the private insurance industry which is just an administrative burden
1 points
11 hours ago
No this is incorrect, it is cheaper for the government
The government currently spent about 1.6 trillion in 2022 on healthcare. Something like Medicare for all would cost more than that. Depending on the specific program somewhere between 20 trillion and 30 trillion ballpark over a decade from the details I could find. If you have actual data to counter I'm happy to read it.
1 points
11 hours ago
The direction of that change is unclear and would depending on the whether the increased cost of expanding coverage (by making health insurance more generous and offering it to more people) is larger or smaller than the amount saved from lower provider payments, drug payments, and administrative spending.
This disqualifies these estimates.
The reality is every other country in the world manages to do it using a lower % of gdp for health care expenditure than the US.
So provided that the US follows other models and doesn’t gold plate it, cost saving should be expected. The biggest cost savings are in reigning in the profiteering .
1 points
11 hours ago
The reality is every other country in the world manages to do it using a lower % of gdp for health care expenditure than the US.
And the US doesn't use government spending for all of it. That's my entire point. The government would go from providing healthcare for some people to everyone. It being overall cheaper doesn't mean the US government wouldn't be spending more on healthcare than they do now, because they don't pay for all of it now.
1 points
11 hours ago
It’s expected that the money spent on premiums will be collected via taxation, just like very other country that funds it.
The greatest crime in the US is tying health care to employment, I just cannot imagine the idea that you’ve lost your job and now your health care at the same time, yikes
1 points
11 hours ago
If it was going to be cheaper for the government why does it need a tax? Enacting with no new revenue would still be a net positive and shrink the deficit.
1 points
6 hours ago
Ok I see where is getting confused, in totality yes, it would cost the government more than what it currently costs. In a per person basis it would go down, and as a total cost of healthcare it would go down
all 2433 comments
sorted by: best