Economy New study: Medicare for all to save 5.1 trillion dollars

That is one way in which it would save a ton of money.

The same rationalization could be made for collectivizing everything. Lets get to the fundamentals. How would a compulsory funded monopoly without any market signals more efficiently arrange for the factors of production in Healthcare better than a decentralized market?
 
That's nice, except a separate study funded by Koch (heavy right wing bias) came to a very similar conclusion. So you don't have an argument

"Promotes human and ecological well being" - this is a left wing bias???

Right wingers are outing themselves as being anti human well being?

No you're just outing yourself as someone that has no fucking clue what they're talking about.
 
If a study said outlawing abortion would result in less unwanted children, by the millions. Would you believe it

If someone brings information to bear on an issue, you either use it, or you do not. So your answer is no, you are too lazy to actually read and address the information.
 
How does a compulsory funded monopoly (that's government) allocate resources more efficiently than a decentralized market? Have you looked into that?

It doesn't, but that efficient decentralized health care market is about as real as communism done the right way.
 
The same rationalization could be made for collectivizing everything. Lets get to the fundamentals. How would a compulsory funded monopoly without any market signals more efficiently arrange for the factors of production in Healthcare better than a decentralized market?


No lets dont change the subject. You asked how a government monopoly could save money and be more efficient than private run health care and I gave you an example of how that could be. That's it man.

If the argument can be made of any industry or not I don't care and is not relevant in any way to what we are discussing.

Edit-- also if you want specifics why not read the Koch funded study that was leaked and reveals the same thing?
 
@skold Let's prove that you're the immoral (anti-human) POS here. I'm an MD who wants to provide my services. There are not that many people that can do what I can do and who have the knowledge to do it. I want to provide my scarce resources as a service for a price. What happens to me in your system?
 
The Political Economy Research Institute is a far left political group with heavy bias...its even in their MISSION STATEMENT. "...promotes human and ecological well-being through our original research."

To pre-define your research outcomes? Lol...their research is as valid as PETAs.

<{pranko}>
 
No lets dont change the subject. You asked how a government monopoly could save money and be more efficient than private run health care and I gave you an example of how that could be. That's it man.

If the argument can be made of any industry or not I don't care and is not relevant in any way to what we are discussing.

It is. Because we're talking about economics. That's what this is.... the efficient allocation of scarce resources. Valuable, scarce resources.... Health care. Now, you didn't understand a fucking word that I wrote, did you? That's a problem. See because, you come in here as another asshole with an opinion without having the slightest fucking clue about the topic you're opining on.
 
Just to make this simple for anyone skeptical of the idea this would save us money.

We pay almost twice what the vast majority of the west pays.

That is 3.5 trillion a year in spending, and 40% of it is fraudulent.

Lowest hanging fruit ever.
 
It is. Because we're talking about economics. That's what this is.... the efficient allocation of scarce resources. Now, you didn't understand a fucking word that I wrote, did you? That's a problem. See because, you come in here as another asshole with an opinion without haveing the slightest fucking about the topic you're discussing.


I mean it's a nice game your playing and you do it well--- but I answered your question and now you are just trying to muddy the waters because you had never heard about the billing thing. That is one way UHC would save money-- lots of it. Why not just admit that? It's the only point I brought up.

Also why don't you address the Koch study that found the same thing? Is that a partisan hack job?
 
It doesn't, but that efficient decentralized health care market is about as real as communism done the right way.

Now, because its been corrupted by the feedback loop of leviathan govt feeding the corporations feeding the govt.... You cut the legitimacy of the state off and no one has the incentive to lobby for shit.
 
I mean it's a nice game your playing and you do it well--- but I answered your question and now you are just trying to muddy the waters because you had never heard about the billing thing. That is one way UHC would save money-- lots of it. Why not just admit that? It's the only point I brought up.

Also why don't you address the Koch study that found the same thing? Is that a partisan hack job?

Without even looking at any of the numbers, would a UHC be "cheaper" than the bullshit system that we have now? Sure. Probably. Mostly because no gov't on Earth would impart the regulatory burden and compliance costs the US govt imposes on the HC industry now as it would itself.
 
My guess is that it's assuming that the government implements an efficient plan, cutting out middle men. Now why would they do that if they are paid by those same middle men?
 
With out even looking at any of the numbers, would a UHC be "cheaper" than the bullshit system that we have now? Sure. Probably. Mostly because no gov't on Earth would impart the regulatory burden and compliance costs the US govt imposes on the HC industry now as it would itself.


OK so then we agree and UHC would be cheaper, boost the economy by helping businesses, end medical bankruptcies and make the public more healthy and give kids everywhere in america a better shot at a good life.

The only downside is research and development investment would be less under this system. I think we can group with our allies and other countries to fund research that is not paid for mostly by americans with those costs wrapped up into their bills.
 
Now, because its been corrupted by the feedback loop of leviathan govt feeding the corporations feeding the govt.... You cut the legitimacy of the state off and no one has the incentive to lobby for shit.

Let's have a war first to reduce 70% of the population, and then we can talk about removing government.

I don't really disagree with the dangers of government you point out. I just wonder if you give proper weight to the dangers of not having government.

It really is a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario.

The longer you let private centralized power go unchecked, the more dangerous it becomes. The longer you let government centralized power go unchecked the more dangerous it becomes.

Where are we right now on this sliding scale?

Is it government or private power that turned health care into their private piggy bank?
 
Let's have a war first to reduce 70% of the population, and then we can talk about removing government.

I don't really disagree with the dangers of government you point out. I just wonder if you give proper weight to the dangers of not having government.

It really is a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario.

The longer you let private centralized power go unchecked, the more dangerous it becomes. The longer you let government centralized power go unchecked the more dangerous it becomes.

Where are we right now on this sliding scale?

Is it government or private power that turned health care into their private piggy bank?


No government would immediately begin to grow strong men gangs and warlords. No government would be a terrifying and sickening shitpool of violence and exploitation.
 
Let's have a war first to reduce 70% of the population, and then we can talk about removing government.

I don't really disagree with the dangers of government you point out. I just wonder if you give proper weight to the dangers of not having government.

It really is a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario.

The longer you let private centralized power go unchecked, the more dangerous it becomes. The longer you let government centralized power go unchecked the more dangerous it becomes.

Where are we right now on this sliding scale?

Is it government or private power that turned health care into their private piggy bank?

Sure. You get a pareto's distribution either way. Got it. Pick your poison, do you want a pareto's distribution of power as measured by an individuals political clout, or one of wealth measured by someone's ability to get other people to give them money?
 
Sure. You get a pareto's distribution either way. Got it. Pick your poison, do you want a pareto's distribution of power as measured by an individuals political clout, or one of wealth measured by someone's ability to get other people to give them money?

How about we don't corner ourselves through ideology?

What if we evaluate where we are, where we want to be, and the path of least resistance to get close to that destination.

What stops us from going Medicare for all, getting what it has to offer in price controls, and going back to a private system when it's inevitable negative outputs manifest?

To be clear, what I support is a Medicare for all option.
 
Back
Top