QotNews Hacker News, Reddit, Lobsters, and Tildes articles rendered in reader mode.
Scientists calculated how much money and lives ‘Medicare for All' might save. The Yale study finds that it could save $1 trillion and 114,000 lives every year
Because I know there is debates over this, I did a bit of research about the validy of the paper.
The paper it is talking about is titled "Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA" published in 2020.
Paper is published in the The Lancet journal. It is the top journal in the field of health care with a 5-year impact factor of 115. They don't publish mediocre research.
The paper itself has been cited for 197 times since publication, meaning it is a reference paper and you can trust what it is saying. I hope everyone can spare 20 minutes and read it.
I’d also interpret it as conservative if you read the considerations towards savings / lives saved. Reasonable speculations favors those numbers rather than hurts them.
In fact, I’ll give you the Koch brothers study and a few other studies that prove that Medicare for all or universal healthcare , however we want to frame it, would be cheaper while saving more lives.
Just to be clear there's almost no debate about that actual paper. None. The paper is rock solid.
Here's the situation, the reason a Medicare for all program would save money is because it would eliminate the HMO system or at the very least actually force them to compete with each other. Either way HMO's lose money. In fact, they would lose more money than the cost of say writing a check to Rupert Murdoch to have him run propaganda on why Medicare is Socialism and Socialism is scary.
I honestly am getting to the limit of my patience with these earnest people bringing ever finer and more accurate data to a propaganda fight. What does the data show about how often you win, doing that?
Anyone against this isn’t against it because of insufficient scientific accuracy. Trying to refute conservative nonsense with more and better data is always a waste of time. They don’t care, at all, about accuracy or correctness.
Well... the Lancet also published the PACE review and that was pretty bad... (I'm not against this paper, but we should bale careful just trusting a journal carte blanche)
Bs paper using unrealistic assumptions. It just assumes we can save $286 billion in fraud when one party has no interest in this. Any fraud pointed out in Minnesota or California was stigmatized.
Nobody can realistically calculate lives saved lol
I mean, they probably should since they cost so many lives.
Seriously this stuff makes me sick to think about sometimes. Top brass at health insurance companies, and the shareholders they answer to, are responsible for more deaths than any serial killer who ever lived. It's closer to lives lost in military conflicts.
And yet, no punishment at all for these horrible creatures.
Actually it is more than $1 trillion that would stop going to middle-men who's primary motivation is NOT providing healthcare. The delta is $1 trillion, but a lot of money actually goes to improve outcomes and services.
So they would be super pissed to see all that money flowing to actually provide healthcare when it is currently going into insurance companies for no value add but makes them lots of money.
That is part of it, but they also want to keep health insurance tied to employment so that workers have less negotiating power, since otherwise workers could quit toxic jobs without the risk of no longer having affordable healthcare. If people were guaranteed healthcare either way, then employers might actually have to treat their workers humanely in order to retain labor.
The insurance companies themselves are not necessarily wildly profitable; however there are endless middlemen whose jobs rely on the current, bloated system. And Execs!
A couple people trying to argue with you “no, the insurance companies are regulated?” have only part of the picture.
> The wrinkle is that the government wants that $1trillion to be wasted
The government isn't blocking progress on this. It's the insurance companies who want that trillion to be wasted (ie, go to them), and their interests are what's blocking the US from moving to a single-payer system. That, plus the ignorance of voters, obviously.
This is correct. The grift is in medical devices, administration, pharmaceutical sales, and all sorts of other ancillary shit that is only allowed because the US allows it.
For example, Rotech (CPAP supplier) billed my insurance $25 for a single paper filter the size of a stuck of gum. A filter I did not order, because I bought 50 for $7. That's a markup of 17750%. Insurers eventually set limits to what they will pay, because there's only so much bullshit they will tolerate. But it takes time, and in those gaps you find the theft. Usually it's Medicare doing the actual investigations and setting the limits, and insurance companies are able to ride their coattails. So the first time I (stupidly) ordered a resupply directly from the medical supplier, they claimed my bill after insurance would be $50. My bill was $300.
In Australia the public Medicare for all system is not-for-profit. So is the private insurance company to which I pay a relatively small amount so that I get reduced wait times compared to the public Medicare insurance alone.
Not having to extract private company profits at every step in the process means that the overall system is way, way cheaper.
Medicare for all in Australia is not tied to personal employment. Everyone gets the public medical insurance whether or not they even have a job.
Medical outcomes and affordability in Australia are way better than in America.
It’s not just about profits. It’s all the pointless executives and middle men being paid out of premiums, instead of that money mostly going towards doctors and prescriptions and actual patient care. Just look at the government run arm of Medicare versus the private arm, and how much more of the money goes directly to patient care in the government arm.
If we had Medicare for All, small businesses wouldn't have the fun of sorting through a bunch of plans every year to figure out one that they can afford that might offer minimal coverage. Consumers would miss out on fighting insurance company preauthorization panels designed to maximize company profits. We also wouldn't get to solve a puzzle involving co-pays, in-network, out of pocket, deductibles, and premiums when we are facing a major health issue. Finally, lots of bankruptcy attorneys would lose business when medical bankruptcies go away.
It would also significantly increase the negotiating power of workers, since they could quit toxic jobs without the risk of losing access to affordable healthcare. I suspect that this is probably one of the major reasons why we do not already have Medicare for All to begin with.
Fun fact: America's GDP is partially inflated by its for profit medical system.
When certain people who are out of touch with reality brag about America's economy being "yuuge" "tremendous" and "the strongest on earth" they're including this and think it is a good thing. There are people with power in america who do not want universal Healthcare because of the damage it would do to their investment portfolios.
That’s why finance journals, when they’re being truthful, describe our “K shaped economy”. The economy is great if you’re on the upper half of the K. If you’re on the lower half, the economy is working against you.
Not only are they not interested in saving lives, they genuinely WANT us to experience pain, suffering, and the more of us perish the less they have to worry about us filthy poors finding solidarity and standing up to this madness.
We will never be anything more than animals to be exploited, expendable at BEST, in their eyes.
They don't want us to be healthy when we retire. Work ours asses off to pay into the system. Then retire, and die soon after, so we can't collect our pensions
This is the most melodramatic thing I’ve read all day. If you would accuse half of the voting population for viewing Americans (themselves??) as expendable for not wanting to bankrupt the country over what you think is the solution to their nation’s healthcare woes, you are the reason our politics has become so divisive.
Nah. I think half of the voting population has succumbed to an extended war on education and extensive propaganda that aims to manipulate desperate people into thinking that the culture war is the problem, when the actual problem is (and always has been) the class war.
Bankrupting the country over healthcare for everyone? Universal healthcare would be cheaper than the current system.
This country will be bankrupted by corporate interests infesting/infecting our politics, continually cutting taxes for the ultra wealthy and major corporations that are raking in record profits. Letting the ownership class hoard more and more of the money earned by exploiting the working class.
There is more than enough money for healthcare, but we are told that’s not the case because we have been abandoned by a government that prioritizes the wants of corporate and foreign over the needs of the working class.
You may have a problem with me, but I am not the problem that is destroying this country.
Ah yes, the class war, those greedy billionaires who innovate and provide jobs so citysheperd can work in an air conditioned office tweeting DSA rhetoric from his pocket computer instead of plowing the fields like civilizations of socialism would have you. Certainly other models have fixed that dreaded inequality. I remember hearing about Stalin and Castro in their middle class homes embracing the warmth of collectivism amongst their people, holding hands, perfect pure financial equality, poignant homeostasis.
We’ve massively subsidized healthcare for decades. Complaining about the status quo while ignoring the federal government’s role in creating it is basically complaining about your own policies and then blaming rich people for the consequences.
You mean the billions and billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money and low rate loans that subsidizes these companies when they’re start ups?
Subsidizing healthcare seems to not be working, seeing as many people skip healthcare all together because of the personal cost but insurers sure seem to be raking it in. Politicians don’t listen to people who want healthcare. It’s too expensive but another war is never too expensive.
Oh by the way, America is representative democracy, not a direct democracy so people don’t have the power you may think. Complaining and voting with the wallet are the few direct options people have.
But I’m sure you won’t listen or care since you’re probably licking boots or perpetuating the problem anyway.
Lol yes, the U.S. spends a handful of billions buffering the private market’s risk investing in the businesses that ultimately grow to hire you, me, and propagate the innovations that we take for granted. I’d say that’s panned out to be a much better investment than the trillions we spend in Medicare/Medicaid that, even still, the left can’t be happy with. Poor comparison
Easier to insult than debate facts, of course. Ironically coming from those who claim to denounce intolerance of others. Enjoy your echo chamber and you’re welcome for handing you a new perspective, because you could use it.
Guys there's too much money in it. American health insurance is probably one of the top ten biggest industries in the world. I dont see this happening in our life time.
The fundamental problem is externalized costs. The people suffering and paying aren’t the ones making bank on the suffering. Like a dude who tosses his coffee cup out the window of his car gets the benefit of not havi g to properly dispose of it, but someone else has to pick it up.
Until we force corporations to pay their way, we’re going to keep getting the same results.
A little history on the subject, because Truman pushed for national healthcare when the rebuilding European countries were putting theirs together.
>Truman’s plan was that all Americans would pay a certain amount in fees and taxes each month to cover the new healthcare program’s costs. With a Democratic controlled House, Truman’s proposal turned into a bill that would end up as part of the Social Security expansion, but it was quickly shot down as people began to fear an increase in taxes. Some people even feared the program would be a “Communist” act, giving too much control to the federal government.
What this doesn't mention, though, is what one of the journalists I follow brought up a couple years ago (can't post the screenshot because pics aren't allowed). One of the biggest sources of opposition was from the Dixiecrats, because national healthcare would have required racially integrated hospitals.
what's not taken into account is that all the people currently employed doing absolutely useless work as middlemen will lose their jobs and find new, more productive work that can actually benefit society.
There's probably over half million people just leeching off current dysfunctional system. Think how much better US economy would be if those people did something useful
Maybe. But it would mean all those insurance companies go bust, all those guys who take pleasure in refusing your claim lose their jobs, and all the big pharma companies stop making obscene profits.
Idk what they have in germany. But currently the us has a government run health insurance system called medicare that is only available to senior citizens or extremely disabled people (people who qualify for social security).
You have to have paid into the system as part of your income taxes for I think at least 10 years before you are allowed to apply, and then there's still the age and disability requirements. It is sort of like life insurance in that you have to pay in a certain amount before you are allowed to get a payout. I think it covers hospital visits for free but you still have to pay to get other things covered, but it's cheaper than normal insurance.
So the reason why people keep wanting medicare for all (not just disabled and old people) is because it would just be an expansion of a preexisting system. We already have the mechanisms in place to implement it. Rather than trying a whole new system.
Google the pay rate of your health insurance’s executives. Google their profits. They will find something else to sell if we take health care away from them
r medicare for all . I don't like talking to a middle person to obtain health care. It's pure bullsh.t. Eliminate for profit health care companies. Replace that system with universal health care and or Medicare for all.
There is a way to have 1) Universal Healthcare, and 2) Wealthy insurance companies, which is what conservatives want. It's called Switzerland. They have both - everyone is covered, and if you want more/sooner/better, you can buy insurance for that.
After they made the change, overall spending on insurance and insurance company income rose 50%. So everyone is happy then.
Oh wait - I just sunk the idea. Wouldn't want everyone to be happy. Better to stick with the US being the only Western country in the world without universal access/care, and just stand on conservative ideology calling taking care of people "communism". Maybe the next thing they go after to degrade US civilization is a tiered, tied-to-employment fire department. You lose your job, and the fire department won't come either.
The conservative are stealing all of South Park and the Simpson's material, for the most ridiculous satire.
I think you all are missing an important factor in this... if we adopt Medicare4all, what are those poor insurance agents, brokers and representatives supposed to do? A new car every 2 years and trips to St John's every summer is too expensive for a McDonald's paycheck or some other wage-slave job. I mean c'mon, guys, we can't expect the elite to scale back so poor people can have healthcare and piece of mind... This is 'Merica after all.
No that is a lot for the for profit insurance company would lose. That is why it isn't going to happen under corporate politicians or aipac and cpac groups. One wants more money and the other want to control you and that's easier when you are poor
Any elected official who does not support a policy that clearly saves money and lives is bought and paid for by corporate interests and should be voted out if we lived in a sane country
Yes, it’s called economies of scale. Other countries do it… And you see how much they spend versus us.
We don’t need to be Stephen Hawking in order to understand the math.
Even a purely selfish person benefits via their compensation presumably remaining about the same while their cost for healthcare decreases. It’s basically a raise to every salaried person all other things being equal.
The only real negative to single payer healthcare is republicans exist and they will purposefully destroy it to enrich the rich and corrupt system that currently exists. Many democrats do that too but exceptions exist there at least.
philosophycruiser | 22 hours ago
Because I know there is debates over this, I did a bit of research about the validy of the paper.
The paper it is talking about is titled "Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA" published in 2020.
Paper is published in the The Lancet journal. It is the top journal in the field of health care with a 5-year impact factor of 115. They don't publish mediocre research.
The paper itself has been cited for 197 times since publication, meaning it is a reference paper and you can trust what it is saying. I hope everyone can spare 20 minutes and read it.
paper accessible for the public here
Agitated_Newt_7655 | 22 hours ago
I’d also interpret it as conservative if you read the considerations towards savings / lives saved. Reasonable speculations favors those numbers rather than hurts them.
lifting_cardio | 14 hours ago
The Koch brothers own study proven that universal healthcare was cheaper and saved nore lives than today’s insurance standards.
Multiple studies prove it at this point. Politicians just need the political power and that means an educated voter base
rainbowtwinkies | 8 hours ago
Do you have any more info on that one? For curiosity's sake
lifting_cardio | 3 hours ago
In fact, I’ll give you the Koch brothers study and a few other studies that prove that Medicare for all or universal healthcare , however we want to frame it, would be cheaper while saving more lives.
Koch brothers The Costs of a National Single-Payer Healthcare System
Others
Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA
Funding HR 676: The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act How we can afford a national single-payer health plan
LISTING OF SINGLE PAYER STUDIES
krichard-21 | an hour ago
Why is universal healthcare off the table?
Because we have For Profit healthcare.
There's money to be made. That's why.
Scoobydewdoo | 20 hours ago
Just to be clear there's almost no debate about that actual paper. None. The paper is rock solid.
Here's the situation, the reason a Medicare for all program would save money is because it would eliminate the HMO system or at the very least actually force them to compete with each other. Either way HMO's lose money. In fact, they would lose more money than the cost of say writing a check to Rupert Murdoch to have him run propaganda on why Medicare is Socialism and Socialism is scary.
So in this case the "debate" is rather one sided.
aeschenkarnos | 14 hours ago
I honestly am getting to the limit of my patience with these earnest people bringing ever finer and more accurate data to a propaganda fight. What does the data show about how often you win, doing that?
aeschenkarnos | 15 hours ago
Anyone against this isn’t against it because of insufficient scientific accuracy. Trying to refute conservative nonsense with more and better data is always a waste of time. They don’t care, at all, about accuracy or correctness.
bl4nkSl8 | 5 hours ago
Well... the Lancet also published the PACE review and that was pretty bad... (I'm not against this paper, but we should bale careful just trusting a journal carte blanche)
Ididntdodiddly | 4 hours ago
Bs paper using unrealistic assumptions. It just assumes we can save $286 billion in fraud when one party has no interest in this. Any fraud pointed out in Minnesota or California was stigmatized.
Nobody can realistically calculate lives saved lol
svarogteuse | 23 hours ago
But then the executives currently getting that $1 trillion wouldn't be getting it. What would they do?
AdPuzzleheaded1495 | 23 hours ago
Be thankful they also weren't disposed of
fractalife | 21 hours ago
I mean, they probably should since they cost so many lives.
Seriously this stuff makes me sick to think about sometimes. Top brass at health insurance companies, and the shareholders they answer to, are responsible for more deaths than any serial killer who ever lived. It's closer to lives lost in military conflicts.
And yet, no punishment at all for these horrible creatures.
SquareTaro3270 | 3 hours ago
This is barely related, but you should watch The Fall of the House of Usher on Netflix if you haven’t already.
It’s a very cathartic watch in its approach to this issue.
Leopold__Stotch | 20 hours ago
More lives that would be saved by Medicare for all!
dropkickoz | 18 hours ago
*eaten
TheBlackRider2828 | 19 hours ago
Luigi intensifies
Adezar | 20 hours ago
Actually it is more than $1 trillion that would stop going to middle-men who's primary motivation is NOT providing healthcare. The delta is $1 trillion, but a lot of money actually goes to improve outcomes and services.
So they would be super pissed to see all that money flowing to actually provide healthcare when it is currently going into insurance companies for no value add but makes them lots of money.
NippleSalsa | 23 hours ago
Cry socialism
Kildragoth | 21 hours ago
Won't someone around here think of the billionaires?
superanth | 22 hours ago
The wrinkle is that the government wants that $1trillion to be wasted and end up in the pockets of insurance companies.
Chicken_Ingots | 17 hours ago
That is part of it, but they also want to keep health insurance tied to employment so that workers have less negotiating power, since otherwise workers could quit toxic jobs without the risk of no longer having affordable healthcare. If people were guaranteed healthcare either way, then employers might actually have to treat their workers humanely in order to retain labor.
Independent-Owl3387 | 21 hours ago
The insurance companies themselves are not necessarily wildly profitable; however there are endless middlemen whose jobs rely on the current, bloated system. And Execs!
A couple people trying to argue with you “no, the insurance companies are regulated?” have only part of the picture.
Traditional_Isopod80 | 15 hours ago
Exactly 💯!
larsga | 5 hours ago
> The wrinkle is that the government wants that $1trillion to be wasted
The government isn't blocking progress on this. It's the insurance companies who want that trillion to be wasted (ie, go to them), and their interests are what's blocking the US from moving to a single-payer system. That, plus the ignorance of voters, obviously.
superanth | 3 hours ago
The insurance company bought-off congress critters are the one's who want the $1 trillion to be wasted.
looncraz | 22 hours ago
Insurance profit margins are quite small.
Not_Sure76 | 21 hours ago
This is correct. The grift is in medical devices, administration, pharmaceutical sales, and all sorts of other ancillary shit that is only allowed because the US allows it.
For example, Rotech (CPAP supplier) billed my insurance $25 for a single paper filter the size of a stuck of gum. A filter I did not order, because I bought 50 for $7. That's a markup of 17750%. Insurers eventually set limits to what they will pay, because there's only so much bullshit they will tolerate. But it takes time, and in those gaps you find the theft. Usually it's Medicare doing the actual investigations and setting the limits, and insurance companies are able to ride their coattails. So the first time I (stupidly) ordered a resupply directly from the medical supplier, they claimed my bill after insurance would be $50. My bill was $300.
hal2k1 | 16 hours ago
In Australia the public Medicare for all system is not-for-profit. So is the private insurance company to which I pay a relatively small amount so that I get reduced wait times compared to the public Medicare insurance alone.
Not having to extract private company profits at every step in the process means that the overall system is way, way cheaper.
Medicare for all in Australia is not tied to personal employment. Everyone gets the public medical insurance whether or not they even have a job.
Medical outcomes and affordability in Australia are way better than in America.
Adezar | 20 hours ago
There are layers and layers as to how they make it look like that on paper while making billions. There is a lot of accounting magic involved.
teacher_59 | 22 hours ago
And limited by law. I wish the morons in the media would do research so they knew that.
Reasonable-Newt4079 | 21 hours ago
It’s not just about profits. It’s all the pointless executives and middle men being paid out of premiums, instead of that money mostly going towards doctors and prescriptions and actual patient care. Just look at the government run arm of Medicare versus the private arm, and how much more of the money goes directly to patient care in the government arm.
HazyDavey68 | 21 hours ago
If we had Medicare for All, small businesses wouldn't have the fun of sorting through a bunch of plans every year to figure out one that they can afford that might offer minimal coverage. Consumers would miss out on fighting insurance company preauthorization panels designed to maximize company profits. We also wouldn't get to solve a puzzle involving co-pays, in-network, out of pocket, deductibles, and premiums when we are facing a major health issue. Finally, lots of bankruptcy attorneys would lose business when medical bankruptcies go away.
Chicken_Ingots | 17 hours ago
It would also significantly increase the negotiating power of workers, since they could quit toxic jobs without the risk of losing access to affordable healthcare. I suspect that this is probably one of the major reasons why we do not already have Medicare for All to begin with.
HazyDavey68 | 15 hours ago
Also unions could bargain over salary and working conditions if they don’t have to deal with health insurance.
Vanillas_Guy | 22 hours ago
Fun fact: America's GDP is partially inflated by its for profit medical system.
When certain people who are out of touch with reality brag about America's economy being "yuuge" "tremendous" and "the strongest on earth" they're including this and think it is a good thing. There are people with power in america who do not want universal Healthcare because of the damage it would do to their investment portfolios.
DelphiTsar | 4 hours ago
If you take out toxic middleman and overspending on nonsense you'd cut our GDP in half.
SquareTaro3270 | 2 hours ago
That’s why finance journals, when they’re being truthful, describe our “K shaped economy”. The economy is great if you’re on the upper half of the K. If you’re on the lower half, the economy is working against you.
AlienInUnderpants | 23 hours ago
But republicans aren’t interested is saving lives, and certainly not interested is saving money for plebs. That money is for the rich and entitled.
cityshepherd | 22 hours ago
Not only are they not interested in saving lives, they genuinely WANT us to experience pain, suffering, and the more of us perish the less they have to worry about us filthy poors finding solidarity and standing up to this madness.
We will never be anything more than animals to be exploited, expendable at BEST, in their eyes.
BlastTyrantKM | 20 hours ago
They don't want us to be healthy when we retire. Work ours asses off to pay into the system. Then retire, and die soon after, so we can't collect our pensions
cityshepherd | 20 hours ago
That’s a bingo. That’s the whole point of expendable labor.
Cspazz42 | 20 hours ago
This is the most melodramatic thing I’ve read all day. If you would accuse half of the voting population for viewing Americans (themselves??) as expendable for not wanting to bankrupt the country over what you think is the solution to their nation’s healthcare woes, you are the reason our politics has become so divisive.
cityshepherd | 20 hours ago
Nah. I think half of the voting population has succumbed to an extended war on education and extensive propaganda that aims to manipulate desperate people into thinking that the culture war is the problem, when the actual problem is (and always has been) the class war.
Bankrupting the country over healthcare for everyone? Universal healthcare would be cheaper than the current system.
This country will be bankrupted by corporate interests infesting/infecting our politics, continually cutting taxes for the ultra wealthy and major corporations that are raking in record profits. Letting the ownership class hoard more and more of the money earned by exploiting the working class.
There is more than enough money for healthcare, but we are told that’s not the case because we have been abandoned by a government that prioritizes the wants of corporate and foreign over the needs of the working class.
You may have a problem with me, but I am not the problem that is destroying this country.
Cspazz42 | 19 hours ago
Ah yes, the class war, those greedy billionaires who innovate and provide jobs so citysheperd can work in an air conditioned office tweeting DSA rhetoric from his pocket computer instead of plowing the fields like civilizations of socialism would have you. Certainly other models have fixed that dreaded inequality. I remember hearing about Stalin and Castro in their middle class homes embracing the warmth of collectivism amongst their people, holding hands, perfect pure financial equality, poignant homeostasis.
We’ve massively subsidized healthcare for decades. Complaining about the status quo while ignoring the federal government’s role in creating it is basically complaining about your own policies and then blaming rich people for the consequences.
AlienInUnderpants | 18 hours ago
You mean the billions and billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money and low rate loans that subsidizes these companies when they’re start ups?
Subsidizing healthcare seems to not be working, seeing as many people skip healthcare all together because of the personal cost but insurers sure seem to be raking it in. Politicians don’t listen to people who want healthcare. It’s too expensive but another war is never too expensive.
Oh by the way, America is representative democracy, not a direct democracy so people don’t have the power you may think. Complaining and voting with the wallet are the few direct options people have.
But I’m sure you won’t listen or care since you’re probably licking boots or perpetuating the problem anyway.
Cspazz42 | 15 hours ago
Lol yes, the U.S. spends a handful of billions buffering the private market’s risk investing in the businesses that ultimately grow to hire you, me, and propagate the innovations that we take for granted. I’d say that’s panned out to be a much better investment than the trillions we spend in Medicare/Medicaid that, even still, the left can’t be happy with. Poor comparison
AlienInUnderpants | 14 hours ago
You can take your bullshit MAGA agenda elsewhere. It’s weak and baseless.
Cspazz42 | 5 hours ago
Easier to insult than debate facts, of course. Ironically coming from those who claim to denounce intolerance of others. Enjoy your echo chamber and you’re welcome for handing you a new perspective, because you could use it.
Unique-Coffee5087 | 23 hours ago
What if we just give them a third of it, if they'll just let the rest of us have good lives?
Known_Attorney_456 | 23 hours ago
But if we did that then the Republicans couldn't punish the poor and elderly.
ea9ea | 22 hours ago
Guys there's too much money in it. American health insurance is probably one of the top ten biggest industries in the world. I dont see this happening in our life time.
Direct-Ad-7922 | 22 hours ago
Who would buy all the yachts and hookers then? What else will inspire these medical executives? Actually healing people???
SegaTime | 20 hours ago
Shouldn't fiscal conservatives be all over this?
4n0n1m02 | 20 hours ago
And that’s precisely why it will never be implemented.
Ok-Jelly604 | 19 hours ago
but “saving money” means less into the pockets of corporate oligarchs. when will they learn?
Zombucket | 18 hours ago
Ain’t that the truth. They don’t want to save money, they want to extract it
Kaurifish | 22 hours ago
The fundamental problem is externalized costs. The people suffering and paying aren’t the ones making bank on the suffering. Like a dude who tosses his coffee cup out the window of his car gets the benefit of not havi g to properly dispose of it, but someone else has to pick it up.
Until we force corporations to pay their way, we’re going to keep getting the same results.
Schmooto | 22 hours ago
Logic, thinking, and helping people are gay and woke
IndustrialPuppetTwo | 20 hours ago
This is precisely why they are waging an anti-science campaign.
The_Weekend_Baker | 20 hours ago
A little history on the subject, because Truman pushed for national healthcare when the rebuilding European countries were putting theirs together.
>Truman’s plan was that all Americans would pay a certain amount in fees and taxes each month to cover the new healthcare program’s costs. With a Democratic controlled House, Truman’s proposal turned into a bill that would end up as part of the Social Security expansion, but it was quickly shot down as people began to fear an increase in taxes. Some people even feared the program would be a “Communist” act, giving too much control to the federal government.
https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/challenge-national-healthcare
What this doesn't mention, though, is what one of the journalists I follow brought up a couple years ago (can't post the screenshot because pics aren't allowed). One of the biggest sources of opposition was from the Dixiecrats, because national healthcare would have required racially integrated hospitals.
Is there anything racism can't do? /s
ChiliDogYumZappupe | 20 hours ago
Imagine being able to go to the doctor when you NEED to vs when you can AFFORD to.
Nitimur__In__Vetitum | 18 hours ago
They don’t want to save American lives, they want to take them.
particlecore | 18 hours ago
Republicans don’t fucking care
bluenoser613 | 16 hours ago
There's no profit in that. And profits are all the matters to the US. 'Murica! Land of the fee.
Effective_Olive6153 | 13 hours ago
what's not taken into account is that all the people currently employed doing absolutely useless work as middlemen will lose their jobs and find new, more productive work that can actually benefit society.
There's probably over half million people just leeching off current dysfunctional system. Think how much better US economy would be if those people did something useful
paulsteinway | 22 hours ago
So there's obviously no money for it.
prustage | 21 hours ago
Maybe. But it would mean all those insurance companies go bust, all those guys who take pleasure in refusing your claim lose their jobs, and all the big pharma companies stop making obscene profits.
Now that would be terrible wouldnt it?
CulturalLaw8072 | 21 hours ago
ELI5 how is medicare for all different from universal healthcare system present in Germany?
enolaholmes23 | 3 hours ago
Idk what they have in germany. But currently the us has a government run health insurance system called medicare that is only available to senior citizens or extremely disabled people (people who qualify for social security).
You have to have paid into the system as part of your income taxes for I think at least 10 years before you are allowed to apply, and then there's still the age and disability requirements. It is sort of like life insurance in that you have to pay in a certain amount before you are allowed to get a payout. I think it covers hospital visits for free but you still have to pay to get other things covered, but it's cheaper than normal insurance.
So the reason why people keep wanting medicare for all (not just disabled and old people) is because it would just be an expansion of a preexisting system. We already have the mechanisms in place to implement it. Rather than trying a whole new system.
argument_cat | 20 hours ago
Yes, but have they considered that a CEO might need to buy a slightly smaller yacht?
sweetica | 20 hours ago
All this concentrating on increasing the birth rates when we could and should be concentrating on decreasing the death rates.
PlutoJones42 | 20 hours ago
Unfortunately Republicans and conservatives want you to die.
firedrakes | 17 hours ago
then over time bring medical care cost down to. by preventing more costly stuff.... like this is basic economics 101 here.
Ghastly-Rubberfat | 16 hours ago
Google the pay rate of your health insurance’s executives. Google their profits. They will find something else to sell if we take health care away from them
UndergroundCreek | 15 hours ago
But isn't the point of having no healthcare to let the poor die? I thought that was common knowledge.
bluereddit2 | 9 hours ago
r medicare for all . I don't like talking to a middle person to obtain health care. It's pure bullsh.t. Eliminate for profit health care companies. Replace that system with universal health care and or Medicare for all.
sweetequuscaballus | 9 hours ago
There is a way to have 1) Universal Healthcare, and 2) Wealthy insurance companies, which is what conservatives want. It's called Switzerland. They have both - everyone is covered, and if you want more/sooner/better, you can buy insurance for that.
After they made the change, overall spending on insurance and insurance company income rose 50%. So everyone is happy then.
Oh wait - I just sunk the idea. Wouldn't want everyone to be happy. Better to stick with the US being the only Western country in the world without universal access/care, and just stand on conservative ideology calling taking care of people "communism". Maybe the next thing they go after to degrade US civilization is a tiered, tied-to-employment fire department. You lose your job, and the fire department won't come either.
The conservative are stealing all of South Park and the Simpson's material, for the most ridiculous satire.
BurntResisistor | 6 hours ago
I think you all are missing an important factor in this... if we adopt Medicare4all, what are those poor insurance agents, brokers and representatives supposed to do? A new car every 2 years and trips to St John's every summer is too expensive for a McDonald's paycheck or some other wage-slave job. I mean c'mon, guys, we can't expect the elite to scale back so poor people can have healthcare and piece of mind... This is 'Merica after all.
Porkenstein | 4 hours ago
But that's 1 trillion fewer dollars in the medical and insurance industries! What was that about lives? Taxpayers? Who cares! (angry /s)
costafilh0 | 12 hours ago
That explains why it doesn't exist. Not big enough impact.
Czarinavella | 12 hours ago
No that is a lot for the for profit insurance company would lose. That is why it isn't going to happen under corporate politicians or aipac and cpac groups. One wants more money and the other want to control you and that's easier when you are poor
enolaholmes23 | 3 hours ago
That makes sense. I bet it would be more likely to pass if it didn't save taxpayers money.
Eat--The--Rich-- | 23 hours ago
Incredibly cheap
GrouchyLongBottom | 22 hours ago
But, we shouldn't be listening to the smart people! These guys in power still have so much more money to steal!
saul2015 | 22 hours ago
Any elected official who does not support a policy that clearly saves money and lives is bought and paid for by corporate interests and should be voted out if we lived in a sane country
cRaZyDaVe23 | 21 hours ago
and you know damn well it depends on their melanin content.
renijreddit | 21 hours ago
Having healthy workers is good for business too!
Dreadimon | 21 hours ago
Then people of color would also have the same coverage as whites….so it’s gonna be a no go here.
OffSidesByALot | 20 hours ago
Yes, it’s called economies of scale. Other countries do it… And you see how much they spend versus us.
We don’t need to be Stephen Hawking in order to understand the math.
Necessary-Road-2397 | 14 hours ago
But what about the death panels .... 😵
Polkawillneverdie17 | 21 hours ago
"Nah" - Republicans
drseruzawa | 11 hours ago
Well I guess if Yale says so it has to be true.
TooRational101 | 3 hours ago
Americans are so stupid. Dumb as rocks not to have Medicare for all.
JerkBezerberg | 23 hours ago
Also those 114,000 people would be poors. Yuck.
Agitated_Newt_7655 | 22 hours ago
Even a purely selfish person benefits via their compensation presumably remaining about the same while their cost for healthcare decreases. It’s basically a raise to every salaried person all other things being equal.
The only real negative to single payer healthcare is republicans exist and they will purposefully destroy it to enrich the rich and corrupt system that currently exists. Many democrats do that too but exceptions exist there at least.
JerkBezerberg | 21 hours ago
Fuck me... I always forget that no one here gets friggin' sarcasm.
Agitated_Newt_7655 | 21 hours ago
Hard to pass for sarcasm when you’re representing a mainstream conservative belief to let poor people die.
JerkBezerberg | 21 hours ago
Colbert made a career of it.