4 ms·

The article makes the assumption that the goal is to save money. Perhaps the way things are keeps the status-quo alive for those who make the rules, and that's

by tabeth 9y ago

The article makes the assumption that the goal is to save money. Perhaps the way things are keeps the status-quo alive for those who make the rules, and that's why we don't have single payer. I hate to be the conspiracy theorist, but I can't help but think that's the truth.

cortesoft 9y ago
Anytime one person saves money, it is also costing someone else money (the person or people that money was going to). Saving money on healthcare will cost money for people who are currently making money from the excessive costs of healthcare. This is not a secret, and not really a conspiracy; the groups that make money from the current system are always the ones opposed to change. It just sucks because there aren't nearly as many of them as the rest of us, but they just have more to lose than the rest of us have to gain - a classic example of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs.
- luxuryballs 9y ago
  But the 'rest of us' can only gain for as long as those people stick around to pay for it. There is a lot of wealth in this country, for now. If you wanna really see things go down hill then watch the wealth scramble out of the country as soon as we tell them they're going to have to fund the healthcare of everyone else.
  - cortesoft 9y ago
    I was talking about people making money off of the health care industry, not wealthy people in general. We aren't asking them to fund the healthcare of everyone else, just not make profit off of waste. Also, scramble out of the country.... where? There are very few places they can 'run off to' that don't already have a single payer health care system. People don't seem to be 'fleeing' those countries.
    - luxuryballs 9y ago
      Those countries have way less population who can't contribute. The US is huge, there's so many more people who need healthcare but don't pay any taxes.
      - cortesoft 9y ago
        Why would the absolute number of people who don't pay taxes matter? Wouldn't it be more about the percentage of people? It is not easier for 100 people to support 1 than 1000 to support 10...
- WkndTriathlete 9y ago
  While conversion single-payer would result in health insurance employees/employers being temporary "losers" it is absolutely not true that one person saving money costs someone else money. Improved productivity saves money yet frequently results in increased wealth for all parties involved and has historically been the prime driver for economic growth. That's economics 101.

by tabeth 9y ago

cortesoft 9y ago

Anytime one person saves money, it is also costing someone else money (the person or people that money was going to). Saving money on healthcare will cost money for people who are currently making money from the excessive costs of healthcare. This is not a secret, and not really a conspiracy; the groups that make money from the current system are always the ones opposed to change. It just sucks because there aren't nearly as many of them as the rest of us, but they just have more to lose than the rest of us have to gain - a classic example of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs.

luxuryballs 9y ago
But the 'rest of us' can only gain for as long as those people stick around to pay for it. There is a lot of wealth in this country, for now. If you wanna really see things go down hill then watch the wealth scramble out of the country as soon as we tell them they're going to have to fund the healthcare of everyone else.
- cortesoft 9y ago
  I was talking about people making money off of the health care industry, not wealthy people in general. We aren't asking them to fund the healthcare of everyone else, just not make profit off of waste. Also, scramble out of the country.... where? There are very few places they can 'run off to' that don't already have a single payer health care system. People don't seem to be 'fleeing' those countries.
  - luxuryballs 9y ago
    Those countries have way less population who can't contribute. The US is huge, there's so many more people who need healthcare but don't pay any taxes.
    - cortesoft 9y ago
      Why would the absolute number of people who don't pay taxes matter? Wouldn't it be more about the percentage of people? It is not easier for 100 people to support 1 than 1000 to support 10...
WkndTriathlete 9y ago
While conversion single-payer would result in health insurance employees/employers being temporary "losers" it is absolutely not true that one person saving money costs someone else money. Improved productivity saves money yet frequently results in increased wealth for all parties involved and has historically been the prime driver for economic growth. That's economics 101.