4 ms·

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 insuran

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?

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?