11–20 of 85 posts
Which would be bad for the people losing their jobs, but they're only employed because they work for an arguably unnecessary middle-man industry. There's no "right" to those jobs, and if we can find a way to deliver health care, as opposed to health insurance, to close to everyone, we should figure that out, regardless of insurance jobs.
Separate from the cost debate, the bill is labeled a "job killer," I assume because of all the insurance and related jobs lost. Which would be bad for the people losing their jobs, but they're only employed because they work for an arguably unnecessary middle-man industry. There's no "right" to those jobs, and if we can find a way to deliver health care , as opposed to health insurance , to close to everyone, we shou…
Separate from the cost debate, the bill is labeled a "job killer," I assume because of all the insurance and related jobs lost. Which would be bad for the people losing their jobs, but they're only employed because they work for an arguably unnecessary middle-man industry. There's no "right" to those jobs, and if we can find a way to deliver health care , as opposed to health insurance , to close to everyone, we shou…
TLDR; $400 billion total, $200 billion is currently spent on subsidies and medi-cal, $150 billion is already spent by employers. The state would need to "find" ~$50 billion or ~$1,300 per resident more to fully fund this. Personally, this seems like a relative bargain and some modest extra taxes should offset the difference. Article reads pretty poorly and sensationalist. Not to mention that the missing amount is les…
Yeah, the headline is sensationalist. With the current spending factored in, it's really not that bad. A big enough tax on fast food could probably cover it, with the added bonus of decreasing the amount needed. If that doesn't work, then there are a lot of programs they can cut that are less important than healthcare.
Exactly this kind of statement is what worries some about universal healthcare. I highly support single payer, universal healthcare. But statements like this undermine the cause by feeding fuel to the idea universal healthcare will inherently lead to more government intrusion into your personal decisions.
Separate from the cost debate, the bill is labeled a "job killer," I assume because of all the insurance and related jobs lost. Which would be bad for the people losing their jobs, but they're only employed because they work for an arguably unnecessary middle-man industry. There's no "right" to those jobs, and if we can find a way to deliver health care , as opposed to health insurance , to close to everyone, we shou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the headline is sensationalist. With the current spending factored in, it's really not that bad. A big enough tax on fast food could probably cover it, with the added bonus of decreasing the amount needed. If that doesn't work, then there are a lot of programs they can cut that are less important than healthcare.
> A big enough tax on fast food could probably cover it Exactly this kind of statement is what worries some about universal healthcare. I highly support single payer, universal healthcare. But statements like this undermine the cause by feeding fuel to the idea universal healthcare will inherently lead to more government intrusion into your personal decisions.
These type of taxes are the only way I'm in favor of government healthcare programs. Cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food directly increase medical costs, and people who indulge (and over indulge) in those things should be partly responsible for those increased costs.
TLDR; $400 billion total, $200 billion is currently spent on subsidies and medi-cal, $150 billion is already spent by employers. The state would need to "find" ~$50 billion or ~$1,300 per resident more to fully fund this. Personally, this seems like a relative bargain and some modest extra taxes should offset the difference. Article reads pretty poorly and sensationalist. Not to mention that the missing amount is les…
Considering that most employers don't fully cover health insurance (relying on employee payroll deductions to make up the difference) and that many people pay directly out of their own pockets for insurance, I wonder if there'd be a shortfall at all.
Essentially you are just writing a check to the government rather than a private company.
Isn't that a given? I mean, do people not realize that the money has to come from somewhere? Of course it's going to be insanely expensive to insure everybody. Edit: I'm not arguing against Single Payer, I'm just surprised that this is something so shocking an article was written (and then upvoted) about.
If You read some of the above comments, you'll see that the money is already coming from "somewhere", that Medicare and Medicaid already cost more than what Japan spend per capita, or that $400bln may be half of what is currently being collectively.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14398948 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14398974