4 ms·

Promises that sound nice, but have huge economic consequences and therefore wouldn't be passed by a sane government. An example: Medicare for All combined with

Promises that sound nice, but have huge economic consequences and therefore wouldn't be passed by a sane government. An example: Medicare for All combined with amnesty for illegal immigrants. It sounds nice, until you think about the obvious result.

mgkimsal 5y ago
I'm not sure what the 'obvious result' is.
- rpmisms 5y ago
  Massive spending as people flock in to get healthcare. It's (sadly) not financially feasible.
  - aklemm 5y ago
    That assumes the immigrants don't become part of the tax-paying economy, which they have a great record of doing.
    - rpmisms 5y ago
      Will they become high earners? The vast majority of taxes are paid by high earners and the wealthy, with those making under ~$43,600 a year—50% of Americans—paying just 3% of income taxes. (Source: https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-the-rich-pay-taxes https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-t...)
      - toqy 5y ago
        Maybe? Certainly it must be easier to attain higher income if you're legally allowed to be and work in the country.
      - brimble 5y ago
        Existing Medicare funding comes (mostly) from payroll taxes, not income tax, and the two work very differently. It'd be more informative to look at who's funding healthcare now, including the private portions. I doubt very much that the bottom 50% are only covering 3% of that.
e40 5y ago
Or "forgive all student loans" ... (I believe we should immediately reset the interest rates to 0 or some slightly larger nominal value, and immediately close all loans that have paid more than the original principle) ... but I don't know how this works to just forgive all of them.
- rpmisms 5y ago
  Yeah, it's an economic absurdity. I agree with you, your proposal is very fair.
  - TomSwirly 5y ago
    > Yeah, it's an economic absurdity. Again, can you show us the numbers? "A guy claimed it was so on the Internet" isn't really useful later as a source.
    - rpmisms 5y ago
      Sure. According to https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/ https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/, there's $1.75t in outstanding student loan debt in the US. You can just print the money and contribute to the huge inflation the Fed is already wrangling, but that's a very short-sighted move.
- Thrymr 5y ago
  Sure we could. We "forgive" lots of debts in bankruptcy proceedings already, but student loans have a high bar discharge in bankruptcy. Historically debt forgiveness has a long history, as David Graeber and others have shown: https://novaramedia.com/2021/08/30/david-graeber-was-right-a-debt-free-world-is-possible/ https://novaramedia.com/2021/08/30/david-graeber-was-right-a...
  - e40 5y ago
    Yes, I know we could. This sums up my thoughts better than I could: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30533995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30533995
darkarmani 5y ago
> amnesty for illegal immigrants. It sounds nice, until you think about the obvious result. You mean because of the sizable labor black market would shrivel up and suddenly all of these laborers would be able to collect on benefits on the taxes they've paid on the system? there is a good question there. What is the approximate size of benefits that are getting funded but lie unclaimed by black market labor?
- rpmisms 5y ago
  Don't take me out of context and then demand I defend a strawman. I clearly referred to the combination of amnesty and public healthcare as expensive, not one or the other. The bottom 50% of the country by income, which by-and-large black market labor falls under, pay less than 3% of federal taxes. That's not going to fund very much.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    It seems like the natural conclusion is that the US health system is inadequate to the task of providing health care for every citizen. Some portion of the population has to do without. That sounds uncharitable, yes. But the same contingent that claims we cannot feasibly support universal healthcare due to the bottom 50% being essentially leeches on society happens to be the same people who insist that we cannot improve income for the bottom 50% because the free market is speaking.
    - rpmisms 5y ago
      There are solutions to Healthcare that do not involve a single-payer solution. Namely, targeted deregulation to allow meaningful competition. Shorten the IP window for pharma companies. Allow startups to move fast and break the system.
TomSwirly 5y ago
By my calculations, you are way off. Giving free healthcare to all the illegal immigrants would cost $100 billion; switching the single payer would save Americans a trillion. > It sounds nice, until you think about the obvious result. Making up a nice story isn't really "thinking". Let's see your actual numbers.
- rpmisms 5y ago
  > Giving free healthcare to all the illegal immigrants would cost $100 billion; switching the single payer would save Americans a trillion. > Making up a nice story isn't really "thinking". Let's see your actual numbers. Let's see yours. Trusting a politician's estimate for a bureaucrat's dream money pit is naivete at its peak. According to this article: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416416/single-payer-systems-likely-save-money-us-analysis-finds https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416416/single-payer-system..., savings of 3.5% are likely in the first year of a single payer plan. Edit: according to Bernie Sanders' plan, the total cost would be $32 trillion over 10 years. Here's a nice article debunking that claim: https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-a...

mgkimsal 5y ago

I'm not sure what the 'obvious result' is.

rpmisms 5y ago
Massive spending as people flock in to get healthcare. It's (sadly) not financially feasible.
- aklemm 5y ago
  That assumes the immigrants don't become part of the tax-paying economy, which they have a great record of doing.
  - rpmisms 5y ago
    Will they become high earners? The vast majority of taxes are paid by high earners and the wealthy, with those making under ~$43,600 a year—50% of Americans—paying just 3% of income taxes. (Source: https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-the-rich-pay-taxes https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-t...)
    - toqy 5y ago
      Maybe? Certainly it must be easier to attain higher income if you're legally allowed to be and work in the country.
    - brimble 5y ago
      Existing Medicare funding comes (mostly) from payroll taxes, not income tax, and the two work very differently. It'd be more informative to look at who's funding healthcare now, including the private portions. I doubt very much that the bottom 50% are only covering 3% of that.

e40 5y ago

Or "forgive all student loans" ... (I believe we should immediately reset the interest rates to 0 or some slightly larger nominal value, and immediately close all loans that have paid more than the original principle) ... but I don't know how this works to just forgive all of them.

rpmisms 5y ago
Yeah, it's an economic absurdity. I agree with you, your proposal is very fair.
- TomSwirly 5y ago
  > Yeah, it's an economic absurdity. Again, can you show us the numbers? "A guy claimed it was so on the Internet" isn't really useful later as a source.
  - rpmisms 5y ago
    Sure. According to https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/ https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/, there's $1.75t in outstanding student loan debt in the US. You can just print the money and contribute to the huge inflation the Fed is already wrangling, but that's a very short-sighted move.
Thrymr 5y ago
Sure we could. We "forgive" lots of debts in bankruptcy proceedings already, but student loans have a high bar discharge in bankruptcy. Historically debt forgiveness has a long history, as David Graeber and others have shown: https://novaramedia.com/2021/08/30/david-graeber-was-right-a-debt-free-world-is-possible/ https://novaramedia.com/2021/08/30/david-graeber-was-right-a...
- e40 5y ago
  Yes, I know we could. This sums up my thoughts better than I could: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30533995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30533995

darkarmani 5y ago

> amnesty for illegal immigrants. It sounds nice, until you think about the obvious result. You mean because of the sizable labor black market would shrivel up and suddenly all of these laborers would be able to collect on benefits on the taxes they've paid on the system? there is a good question there. What is the approximate size of benefits that are getting funded but lie unclaimed by black market labor?

rpmisms 5y ago
Don't take me out of context and then demand I defend a strawman. I clearly referred to the combination of amnesty and public healthcare as expensive, not one or the other. The bottom 50% of the country by income, which by-and-large black market labor falls under, pay less than 3% of federal taxes. That's not going to fund very much.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  It seems like the natural conclusion is that the US health system is inadequate to the task of providing health care for every citizen. Some portion of the population has to do without. That sounds uncharitable, yes. But the same contingent that claims we cannot feasibly support universal healthcare due to the bottom 50% being essentially leeches on society happens to be the same people who insist that we cannot improve income for the bottom 50% because the free market is speaking.
  - rpmisms 5y ago
    There are solutions to Healthcare that do not involve a single-payer solution. Namely, targeted deregulation to allow meaningful competition. Shorten the IP window for pharma companies. Allow startups to move fast and break the system.

TomSwirly 5y ago

By my calculations, you are way off. Giving free healthcare to all the illegal immigrants would cost $100 billion; switching the single payer would save Americans a trillion. > It sounds nice, until you think about the obvious result. Making up a nice story isn't really "thinking". Let's see your actual numbers.

rpmisms 5y ago
> Giving free healthcare to all the illegal immigrants would cost $100 billion; switching the single payer would save Americans a trillion. > Making up a nice story isn't really "thinking". Let's see your actual numbers. Let's see yours. Trusting a politician's estimate for a bureaucrat's dream money pit is naivete at its peak. According to this article: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416416/single-payer-systems-likely-save-money-us-analysis-finds https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416416/single-payer-system..., savings of 3.5% are likely in the first year of a single payer plan. Edit: according to Bernie Sanders' plan, the total cost would be $32 trillion over 10 years. Here's a nice article debunking that claim: https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-a...