this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
132 points (91.8% liked)

World News

39102 readers
2523 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Just from a fiscal perspective, universal healthcare really can't be grouped in with those others. Even in countries that do public healthcare well, it represents a large chunk of domestic spending.

Even by Sanders' own estimates for the Medicare For All bill (which, for the sake of argument, I'll just accept on faith), the annual cost is three trillion dollars a year, about thirty times the cost of this aid bill. They're not really comparable, especially given that there's more than a "whiff" of war.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Still cheaper than the way we do it, so even going by a cost analysis, we'd be saving money.

But it's not about the cost, it's about siphoning money over to the big shots, and keeping healthcare tied to employment.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those savings come from a reduction in individual spending on premiums, not reduced government spending.

Without a doubt there are ways to construct a public system that would be dramatically more efficient than the clusterfuck we have right now, but speaking strictly from the financial perspective of the government, it absolutely is a massive increase in spending (that would presumably be funded by a tax that largely replaces the premiums of today, but regardless, foreign aid is an absolute drop in the bucket compared to something like fundamentally reforming the entire health care industry)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You understand that if people were taxed for their health insurance instead of paying directly that the government would be able to supply lower rates because of collective bargaining... right?

The idea is that the increase in government spending doesn't matter because Americans won't be paying for health insurance anymore, instead paying (less) for it through taxation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

universal healthcare really can't be grouped in with those others.

It's even worse to compare it to a one-time aid bill to a country currently fighting off an invasion (and Israel). That money supporting Ukraine literally helps everyone in the world (relatively cheaply), except aggressor Russia.

But back to universal healthcare. The US spends 4.3 Trillion dollars on healthcare. Every year. People will get sick no matter what. We're already paying that, it's just so much goes to middlemen like insurance companies that we literally pay more for worse quality healthcare.

Oh, and less families would be bankrupted and fewer people dead in the streets from preventable causes if we had universal healthcare...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Yes you're technically correct but I think you missed the person's point