3 ms·

Man, it's almost like we could suddenly afford to do a lot of big projects if we just nationalized healthcare and pensions so it wouldn't have to be factored in

Man, it's almost like we could suddenly afford to do a lot of big projects if we just nationalized healthcare and pensions so it wouldn't have to be factored into labor costs.

setr 8y ago
The cost still exists — you’re just moving it. Instead of factoring it into the labor cost and being part of the money allocating to the particular job, you’d just see lower allocation, and have the same problem. The only real difference would be that the comparison in funding/cost between equivalent US and EU work would be more fair (also achieved by de-nationalizing healthcare and pensions in the EU). Unless of course you’re also suggesting that nationalization would reduce global costs, but nothing about this particular thread supports/suggests that
- naravara 8y ago
  >Instead of factoring it into the labor cost and being part of the money allocating to the particular job, you’d just see lower allocation, and have the same problem. Why would you have the same problem? The project gets cheaper because the labor to do it (and administrative overhead to make sure the benefits are given) are cheaper. In a world where dollar values and sticker shock aren't significant determinants of transit policy your point might make sense, but we don't live in that world. Also, transit funds are usually raised locally while nationalized social services are funded nationally. So the costs would actually fall on different entities and a broader tax-base if you did it this way.
- magduf 8y ago
  Not true. Healthcare service costs in other industrialized countries are much lower than the US, because of their better systems. So, for instance, if you need hip replacement surgery and you have to pay for it out-of-pocket, it'll cost you a small fraction if you get it done in Belgium than in the US.
  - setr 8y ago
    As always, comparing on consumer medical costs is difficult, especially because an (insured) person in the US doesn’t pay anything close to sticker price, and neither does the insurance company. Im not sure what the real cost per operation comes out to be, if you’ve got anything regarding that

Man, it's almost like we could suddenly afford to do a lot of big projects if we just nationalized healthcare and pensions so it wouldn't have to be factored into labor costs.

setr 8y ago

The cost still exists — you’re just moving it. Instead of factoring it into the labor cost and being part of the money allocating to the particular job, you’d just see lower allocation, and have the same problem. The only real difference would be that the comparison in funding/cost between equivalent US and EU work would be more fair (also achieved by de-nationalizing healthcare and pensions in the EU). Unless of course you’re also suggesting that nationalization would reduce global costs, but nothing about this particular thread supports/suggests that

naravara 8y ago
>Instead of factoring it into the labor cost and being part of the money allocating to the particular job, you’d just see lower allocation, and have the same problem. Why would you have the same problem? The project gets cheaper because the labor to do it (and administrative overhead to make sure the benefits are given) are cheaper. In a world where dollar values and sticker shock aren't significant determinants of transit policy your point might make sense, but we don't live in that world. Also, transit funds are usually raised locally while nationalized social services are funded nationally. So the costs would actually fall on different entities and a broader tax-base if you did it this way.
magduf 8y ago
Not true. Healthcare service costs in other industrialized countries are much lower than the US, because of their better systems. So, for instance, if you need hip replacement surgery and you have to pay for it out-of-pocket, it'll cost you a small fraction if you get it done in Belgium than in the US.
- setr 8y ago
  As always, comparing on consumer medical costs is difficult, especially because an (insured) person in the US doesn’t pay anything close to sticker price, and neither does the insurance company. Im not sure what the real cost per operation comes out to be, if you’ve got anything regarding that