5 ms·

Socialized healthcare might be much more amenable if it were single-payer but without subsidies. You pay for insurance just like you do now, except there's only

Socialized healthcare might be much more amenable if it were single-payer but without subsidies. You pay for insurance just like you do now, except there's only 1 provider and it's the government. The primary benefit most M4A people tout is that costs would be lower under a single payer system. This makes that happen without the welfare leeching. I and I'm sure many others are opposed to subsidizing people who decided to play video games and smoke weed all day with our tax dollars. If you're an entrepreneur, you're not harmed by this, you can afford to pay for it. If you're a small business owner, this should save you money. If you're disabled or old, you already get subsidized and would continue to get subsidized. Everyone else - pay for the services you receive.

katbyte 5y ago
so what about people who just cannot afford it? homeless, addicts, single mothers raising kids, collage kids, kids kicked out of home because of religious/abortions/pregnancy/LGBTQ/ect? do they just not get healthcare?
- b9a2cab5 5y ago
  Last 3 categories can afford it if they get a job. Single payer proponents claim on the order of 10x cost savings compared to the status quo. Presumably insurance costs wouldn't exceed $200/mo under single payer. Amazon pays $15/h minimum nationally. That's a day and a half of work for health insurance for the month. The first 2 categories need better help than healthcare insurance. I think it's plainly obvious after SF spending $50k/homeless person that more money isn't going to help them.
  - InvertedRhodium 5y ago
    So they just don't get healthcare? Or are you suggesting an additional welfare system to cater to those subsets specifically?
    - shukantpal 5y ago
      “The first 2 categories need better help than healthcare insurance. I think it's plainly obvious after SF spending $50k/homeless person that more money isn't going to help them.”
      - InvertedRhodium 5y ago
        Yes, I read the original non-answer and was looking for a little clarification. If 50k isn't enough to help them, are you suggesting we should give them more, less, or none?
  - rozap 5y ago
    Ah good. I don't want to subsidize the health care of SF "entrepreneur" lads who want to sit around all day writing software nobody needs. If they want healthcare they can get a real job in an Amazon fulfillment center.
  - elihu 5y ago
    > Single payer proponents claim on the order of 10x cost savings compared to the status quo. Who's saying that? The U.S. pays about twice as much per capita as most other developed countries for healthcare which implies that a 2x savings should be at least theoretically possible, but I don't think there are serious claims of 10x savings unless you're talking about premiums for low-income people that are heavily subsidized. > I think it's plainly obvious after SF spending $50k/homeless person that more money isn't going to help them. The only conclusion I draw from that is that the money San Francisco is spending isn't being used efficiently.
  - katbyte 5y ago
    not everyone can get a job. not everyone lives where there are jobs. not everyone can move to where there is job. not everyone is capable of holding down a job. so I guess they don't need healthcare and we should just let them die?
- PopAlongKid 5y ago
  If below 133% of the U.S. federal poverty level, they are eligible for Medicaid, which does not require payment of premiums. edit: s/medicare/medicaid/
caconym_ 5y ago
I, for one, am sick of subsidizing people who will decide to play video games and smoke weed all day with our tax dollars. IIUC, one of the best predictors of a person's earning potential (which we can of course use as a proxy metric for their worth to the economy) is the wealth of their parents. So, why not quit funding public schools? It's two birds with one stone: only those who choose to have children will be responsible for paying for the services they receive (viz. tuition for an education), and we eliminate a subsidy for undesirables who (statistically speaking) are much more likely to become welfare leeches. That's what I call a win-win. edit: rather horrifyingly, this sarcasm is going over people's heads (my fault, of course). See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29388282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29388282
- ayemiller 5y ago
  I think you're forgetting that public schools serve a purpose other than enriching the wealthy. I have such a hard time with takes like these. Would you have public schools turning away children that can't pay?
  - caconym_ 5y ago
    It was sarcasm, intended to (at the very least) draw attention to the possibility of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater", and the perils of focusing on imaginary "welfare leeches" at the expense of general prosperity. I almost added an /s, and perhaps I should have. haha
    - rozap 5y ago
      This is the internet, even if you were serious it wouldn't even be in the bottom quartile of dumb takes.
    - b9a2cab5 5y ago
      I hope you realize this is already the case. Property taxes are voted on locally and go to pay for local schools and there is vehement opposition towards redistributing funding for schools state wide. People move to certain cities where schools are known to be good (and no surprise, those cities also have lots of generous property tax-based and PTA-based funding for schools).

katbyte 5y ago

so what about people who just cannot afford it? homeless, addicts, single mothers raising kids, collage kids, kids kicked out of home because of religious/abortions/pregnancy/LGBTQ/ect? do they just not get healthcare?

b9a2cab5 5y ago
Last 3 categories can afford it if they get a job. Single payer proponents claim on the order of 10x cost savings compared to the status quo. Presumably insurance costs wouldn't exceed $200/mo under single payer. Amazon pays $15/h minimum nationally. That's a day and a half of work for health insurance for the month. The first 2 categories need better help than healthcare insurance. I think it's plainly obvious after SF spending $50k/homeless person that more money isn't going to help them.
- InvertedRhodium 5y ago
  So they just don't get healthcare? Or are you suggesting an additional welfare system to cater to those subsets specifically?
  - shukantpal 5y ago
    “The first 2 categories need better help than healthcare insurance. I think it's plainly obvious after SF spending $50k/homeless person that more money isn't going to help them.”
    - InvertedRhodium 5y ago
      Yes, I read the original non-answer and was looking for a little clarification. If 50k isn't enough to help them, are you suggesting we should give them more, less, or none?
- rozap 5y ago
  Ah good. I don't want to subsidize the health care of SF "entrepreneur" lads who want to sit around all day writing software nobody needs. If they want healthcare they can get a real job in an Amazon fulfillment center.
- elihu 5y ago
  > Single payer proponents claim on the order of 10x cost savings compared to the status quo. Who's saying that? The U.S. pays about twice as much per capita as most other developed countries for healthcare which implies that a 2x savings should be at least theoretically possible, but I don't think there are serious claims of 10x savings unless you're talking about premiums for low-income people that are heavily subsidized. > I think it's plainly obvious after SF spending $50k/homeless person that more money isn't going to help them. The only conclusion I draw from that is that the money San Francisco is spending isn't being used efficiently.
- katbyte 5y ago
  not everyone can get a job. not everyone lives where there are jobs. not everyone can move to where there is job. not everyone is capable of holding down a job. so I guess they don't need healthcare and we should just let them die?
PopAlongKid 5y ago
If below 133% of the U.S. federal poverty level, they are eligible for Medicaid, which does not require payment of premiums. edit: s/medicare/medicaid/

caconym_ 5y ago

I, for one, am sick of subsidizing people who will decide to play video games and smoke weed all day with our tax dollars. IIUC, one of the best predictors of a person's earning potential (which we can of course use as a proxy metric for their worth to the economy) is the wealth of their parents. So, why not quit funding public schools? It's two birds with one stone: only those who choose to have children will be responsible for paying for the services they receive (viz. tuition for an education), and we eliminate a subsidy for undesirables who (statistically speaking) are much more likely to become welfare leeches. That's what I call a win-win. edit: rather horrifyingly, this sarcasm is going over people's heads (my fault, of course). See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29388282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29388282

ayemiller 5y ago
I think you're forgetting that public schools serve a purpose other than enriching the wealthy. I have such a hard time with takes like these. Would you have public schools turning away children that can't pay?
- caconym_ 5y ago
  It was sarcasm, intended to (at the very least) draw attention to the possibility of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater", and the perils of focusing on imaginary "welfare leeches" at the expense of general prosperity. I almost added an /s, and perhaps I should have. haha
  - rozap 5y ago
    This is the internet, even if you were serious it wouldn't even be in the bottom quartile of dumb takes.
  - b9a2cab5 5y ago
    I hope you realize this is already the case. Property taxes are voted on locally and go to pay for local schools and there is vehement opposition towards redistributing funding for schools state wide. People move to certain cities where schools are known to be good (and no surprise, those cities also have lots of generous property tax-based and PTA-based funding for schools).