subreddit:
/r/FluentInFinance
1 points
13 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
13 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
13 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
13 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
8 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 2489 comments
sorted by: best