I say again. The defense budget nor any other current spending is preventing us from having free healthcare. Medicare for All would be significantly cheaper than our current healthcare costs. We’re already paying for both defense and healthcare. Switching to M4A would save us money and improve our healthcare experience while completely ignoring the defense budget. We can easily do both. The insurance companies, big pharma, and hospital executives are the ones preventing M4A, not Raytheon.
The way of expressing this that really put it together for me was “The United States only ever has one total healthcare bill.”
People not getting the healthcare they need already has costs; costs in hours they can’t work because they’re sick, costs in retraining people for jobs they can no longer do due to health issues, costs in people declaring bankruptcy because they were devastated by medical bills, and costs in lost human lives because of untreated sickness. All of those costs ripple through the economy, and we all wind up paying for them, one way or another.
Even if you assume that universal healthcare wouldn’t actually improve the total base amount spent on medicine (it fucking would, in several ways, but assume that it doesn’t just for the sake of argument), we would still be coming out ahead because we’d be sweeping the legs out from under the private healthcare industry, which only exists to siphon profits off of expenses that people have to pay or else they die.
Fuck everyone who ever voted against universal healthcare.
Yes. but those people that lose their jobs wouldn’t have to stress about either paying for or using healthcare - This freedom can give many people the opportunity to do something they love (or like to do). Maybe that is starting a new business or creating a new product? Or they could go work in a different industry that they find more fulfilling where previous they couldn’t because of the lack of health benefits.
I think in the long run the people that lose their job grinding away in a huge faceless health insurance job might actually be a good thing for them?
I think people think in the short term and not the long term, that health insurance is just one small expense that people have, that losing your job is a traumatic event, that getting into a new career requires retraining, that having a glut of people looking for a job will lower wages, and that a lot of these folks live in suburban swing districts.
I agree that eventually universal health care would be better. It would free up labor to do the hard jobs in health care like nursing. But this comment has big “coal miners should learn to code” energy.
Many of those employed in private health insurance may find key roles in administrating a single payer system.
Along those lines: If a sudden mass of bureaucrats were unemployed: there is a (not so) coincidental massive shortage and generational gap in local governments across the states.
More than that though I think freeing up people’s need for affording modern healthcare is a strong career incentive. The private healthcare system can have a restrictive effect for small businesses, especially small family businesses. It is one of the single largest expenses an employer has to account for which is bad for labor and bad for small business.
But that is great for large business that can absorb the cost more reliably. Also great for the insurance industry who are more than happy to negotiate a contract with a major corporation instead of administering plans for 1000 similar small operations. Which is a bit of a feedback loop as health insurance is big business.
I always felt that was one of the more compelling point, at least.
No, they just need to get their successor elected to continue their legacy, and make sure Congress doesn’t change hands.
And if we need permanent Democratic supermajority for fifty years to fix this travesty of a country they’re not going to get that if they put a million people out of work.
That’s what the lame duck portion is for. Pass all the shit that may be unpopular, but necessary after the election has already been decided. The people don’t remember what happened in the last few months of a lame duck term, by the time the next election happens. They’ll have forgotten, unless they happen to be part of that million people, and a million people is less than ¼ of 1% of the country.
They’re aware. It’s no coincidence that the same party that just voted in favor of increasing military funding also dismantled the ACA and votes against socialized single-payer healthcare.
Social services investment would save the government money by reducing policing and incarceration costs, among other things. We could do both. I’d have to learn more about the financial side of infrastructure to say anything meaningful.
I say again. The defense budget nor any other current spending is preventing us from having free healthcare. Medicare for All would be significantly cheaper than our current healthcare costs. We’re already paying for both defense and healthcare. Switching to M4A would save us money and improve our healthcare experience while completely ignoring the defense budget. We can easily do both. The insurance companies, big pharma, and hospital executives are the ones preventing M4A, not Raytheon.
The way of expressing this that really put it together for me was “The United States only ever has one total healthcare bill.”
People not getting the healthcare they need already has costs; costs in hours they can’t work because they’re sick, costs in retraining people for jobs they can no longer do due to health issues, costs in people declaring bankruptcy because they were devastated by medical bills, and costs in lost human lives because of untreated sickness. All of those costs ripple through the economy, and we all wind up paying for them, one way or another.
Even if you assume that universal healthcare wouldn’t actually improve the total base amount spent on medicine (it fucking would, in several ways, but assume that it doesn’t just for the sake of argument), we would still be coming out ahead because we’d be sweeping the legs out from under the private healthcare industry, which only exists to siphon profits off of expenses that people have to pay or else they die.
Fuck everyone who ever voted against universal healthcare.
And health insurance. Which is why we’ll never do it. The president who puts almost a million people out of work will never get re-elected.
“We can’t turn off the orphan-crushing machine! Think of all the unemployed orphan crushers!”
Those orphan crushers vote in the very special places that it matters. Also there’s more of them than people who oppose orphan crushing.
I’m not saying it’s right. I’m just saying it’s what we’re stuck with.
Yes. but those people that lose their jobs wouldn’t have to stress about either paying for or using healthcare - This freedom can give many people the opportunity to do something they love (or like to do). Maybe that is starting a new business or creating a new product? Or they could go work in a different industry that they find more fulfilling where previous they couldn’t because of the lack of health benefits.
I think in the long run the people that lose their job grinding away in a huge faceless health insurance job might actually be a good thing for them?
I think people think in the short term and not the long term, that health insurance is just one small expense that people have, that losing your job is a traumatic event, that getting into a new career requires retraining, that having a glut of people looking for a job will lower wages, and that a lot of these folks live in suburban swing districts.
I agree that eventually universal health care would be better. It would free up labor to do the hard jobs in health care like nursing. But this comment has big “coal miners should learn to code” energy.
Many of those employed in private health insurance may find key roles in administrating a single payer system.
Along those lines: If a sudden mass of bureaucrats were unemployed: there is a (not so) coincidental massive shortage and generational gap in local governments across the states.
More than that though I think freeing up people’s need for affording modern healthcare is a strong career incentive. The private healthcare system can have a restrictive effect for small businesses, especially small family businesses. It is one of the single largest expenses an employer has to account for which is bad for labor and bad for small business.
But that is great for large business that can absorb the cost more reliably. Also great for the insurance industry who are more than happy to negotiate a contract with a major corporation instead of administering plans for 1000 similar small operations. Which is a bit of a feedback loop as health insurance is big business.
I always felt that was one of the more compelling point, at least.
Second term presidents don’t have to worry about reelection
No, they just need to get their successor elected to continue their legacy, and make sure Congress doesn’t change hands.
And if we need permanent Democratic supermajority for fifty years to fix this travesty of a country they’re not going to get that if they put a million people out of work.
That’s what the lame duck portion is for. Pass all the shit that may be unpopular, but necessary after the election has already been decided. The people don’t remember what happened in the last few months of a lame duck term, by the time the next election happens. They’ll have forgotten, unless they happen to be part of that million people, and a million people is less than ¼ of 1% of the country.
They’re aware. It’s no coincidence that the same party that just voted in favor of increasing military funding also dismantled the ACA and votes against socialized single-payer healthcare.
Well put.
Yeah that $895 billion should go to infrastructure and social services in the US. What a giant fucking waste of money they’re using it on.
Social services investment would save the government money by reducing policing and incarceration costs, among other things. We could do both. I’d have to learn more about the financial side of infrastructure to say anything meaningful.
It would be great except if (and they would) turn over administration to private insurance companies.
You missed a “neither”. I got what you’re saying after a bit, but your sentence literally means the opposite of what you intend it to mean.
Is it actually necessary? I figured you could leave it implied. But hey, if it’s confusing people, then I guess it is necessary.
It is actually required grammatically lol
Grammar is just, like, your opinion, man.