3 ms·

And notably, many of those categories have disproportionately high medical costs.

• lotsofpulp 5y ago
  True, but somehow still only $1.35T out of $4T total healthcare spending. The original claim by smus was that the US could pay for all healthcare, presumably without increasing taxes. I find that hard to agree with. Even if we assume we can cut 25% overhead from the $4T total, the US would still need to come up with $1.5T+ to meet $3T total healthcare spending. I do not see it happening without increasing taxes. Which may not make any effective difference other than to redudant employees of managed care organizations (MCOs) who get laid off, because presumably the premiums currently getting paid to the MCOs simply get collected as taxes.
  • dllthomas 5y ago
    Yeah, I don't have a strong opinion on the original claim. I don't think it's clear that it's impossible to fund the kind of universal healthcare we'd want without raising taxes but I do think that's likely. I think it's probably "easy" (in terms of having the money available in theory, not politically) to fund universal healthcare at the level we'd want while raising taxes on each individual by less than they were paying for private care. But these are guesses.
  • dragonwriter 5y ago
    > True, but somehow still only $1.35T out of $4T total healthcare spending. The federal share is not the whole public cost; Medicaid is a state/federal cost sharing program.