4 ms·

I disagree. The costs of health care are ridiculously high and rising. Out of the people who actually have health insurance, how many can actually afford a seri

I disagree. The costs of health care are ridiculously high and rising. Out of the people who actually have health insurance, how many can actually afford a serious health issue? That number is getting smaller and smaller and as it shrinks, prices rise to preserve profit. If something isn't done, health insurance will become an empty promise. Even when people have it, it will be to expensive to be truly useful. There are already segments of the population where this is happening. IMHO, that is massive wealth transfer: collecting all the premiums from working people and transferring it to the health care industry.

rayiner 7y ago
You’re talking about a different thing than I am. The CBO estimates Medicare for All will cost $3 trillion per year. That will require a large wealth transfer to pay for. Even if it were half that it would require a large wealth transfer. Paying for healthcare is, by contrast, not a wealth transfer because it’s payment for receipt of goods and services. As I outline in a response to a sibling post, profits account for just 6% of health spending. The rest goes to paying staff, for supplies and equipment, etc. Which is also why cutting healthcare expenditures is a pipe dream. If you look at many places, the local hospital is the biggest employer. Nurses in the US make double or more what they make in the UK. Maybe we do a bunch of unnecessary tests, but we lay for lab techs to do those unnecessary tests. Real reductions in healthcare expenditures will require cutting salaries and cutting jobs, and that’s politically impossible.
- cmiles74 7y ago
  I think you are oversimplifying. Everything related to health care in the US is more expensive then anywhere else, from personnell to medication and supplies, to equipment. Cost is exaggerated at every step... Unecesary tests and procedures are part of the problem, bet even necessary procedures have costs associated that are inflated. Yes, some costs come down when insurance actually pays. But this still doesn't bring costs down to amounts that we see in Canada. More and more no one can pay for healthcare anymore. Perhaps it will cost $3 trillion the first year but costs will drop as prices standardize and we start to see care become predictable. The alternative is prices that continue to rise with more and more bankruptcies and, eventually, more deaths due to lack of care. Even the insured cannot continue to afford these rising costs. Wealth transfer... from where? The federal budget seems plenty big. $700 billion was transferred to banks staring in 2008, $4.6 trillion was paid out in eight years. I'd prefer a proactive solution, perhaps it will cost less in the end then our current plan to do nothing and fight what little regulation has been put in place.
- stjohnswarts 7y ago
  You act like it's 3 trillion on top of what we already pay though. Obviously you and your employer quit paying insurance companies and that money goes toward the government program. Also the richest pay more in taxes on their income and "wealth" instead of being able to hide it overseas and buying up land. They'll have to sell some of that to pay the 2% wealth tax every year so they can't store it away for 10 generations of a dynasty.

rayiner 7y ago

You’re talking about a different thing than I am. The CBO estimates Medicare for All will cost $3 trillion per year. That will require a large wealth transfer to pay for. Even if it were half that it would require a large wealth transfer. Paying for healthcare is, by contrast, not a wealth transfer because it’s payment for receipt of goods and services. As I outline in a response to a sibling post, profits account for just 6% of health spending. The rest goes to paying staff, for supplies and equipment, etc. Which is also why cutting healthcare expenditures is a pipe dream. If you look at many places, the local hospital is the biggest employer. Nurses in the US make double or more what they make in the UK. Maybe we do a bunch of unnecessary tests, but we lay for lab techs to do those unnecessary tests. Real reductions in healthcare expenditures will require cutting salaries and cutting jobs, and that’s politically impossible.

cmiles74 7y ago
I think you are oversimplifying. Everything related to health care in the US is more expensive then anywhere else, from personnell to medication and supplies, to equipment. Cost is exaggerated at every step... Unecesary tests and procedures are part of the problem, bet even necessary procedures have costs associated that are inflated. Yes, some costs come down when insurance actually pays. But this still doesn't bring costs down to amounts that we see in Canada. More and more no one can pay for healthcare anymore. Perhaps it will cost $3 trillion the first year but costs will drop as prices standardize and we start to see care become predictable. The alternative is prices that continue to rise with more and more bankruptcies and, eventually, more deaths due to lack of care. Even the insured cannot continue to afford these rising costs. Wealth transfer... from where? The federal budget seems plenty big. $700 billion was transferred to banks staring in 2008, $4.6 trillion was paid out in eight years. I'd prefer a proactive solution, perhaps it will cost less in the end then our current plan to do nothing and fight what little regulation has been put in place.
stjohnswarts 7y ago
You act like it's 3 trillion on top of what we already pay though. Obviously you and your employer quit paying insurance companies and that money goes toward the government program. Also the richest pay more in taxes on their income and "wealth" instead of being able to hide it overseas and buying up land. They'll have to sell some of that to pay the 2% wealth tax every year so they can't store it away for 10 generations of a dynasty.