3 ms·

> The governments purpose isn't to make money. The military, police, IRS, USPS, all serve different purposes, some of them make money, some don't. My point is

by brk 4y ago

> The governments purpose isn't to make money. The military, police, IRS, USPS, all serve different purposes, some of them make money, some don't. My point is that people are paying for these things today. If we are proposing moving them to being government-managed, then it seems like overall costs could increase, not decrease. Because our government gets its money from taxes, that means additional taxes need to be extracted to pay for the potential increased costs in providing these services. >Prevention beats a cure - do you want healthy workers that are able to get preventative treatment and save money in the long run? Dental health is routinely neglected but a large indicator of economic status. Not only do healthy workers extract less from the healthcare system, they generate more in revenue. I don't think this really answers the question though. Many (most?) full-time workers already have some form of healthcare. However the healthcare system is currently overloaded from a demand/supply scenario. So if we make healthcare more widely available we need to first fix the supply side and the associated costs, that does not happen quickly, IMO. So, rather than just talk about this in the the theoretical, I am curious about a summary for actually implementing it in a workable manner. >How is it such a special and weird case that isn't already covered with other socialized services that already exist within the US economy? Which examples of existing socialized services do you use as the model for success?

droopyEyelids 4y ago
I'm the poster who you originally posed this question to, and I think it's a valid question without an easy answer. In large part, it depends on the culture of the country. On one hand, government healthcare could easily be cheaper an provide better outcomes by eliminating the middleman of insurance- having things centralized into one entity can be more efficient through many mechanisms (reduction of duplicated effort, elimination of requirement for profitability, etc) On the other hand, government healthcare could easily be more expensive and provide worse outcomes if it was corrupt or poorly administered, or if it became a target for corrupt providers. I think in America we have a culture of ripping off and destroying any government provided social benefit. Just look at medicare fraud and social security fraud. Other countries may not face those issues- for example the nordics seem to be doing well.

by brk 4y ago

droopyEyelids 4y ago

I'm the poster who you originally posed this question to, and I think it's a valid question without an easy answer. In large part, it depends on the culture of the country. On one hand, government healthcare could easily be cheaper an provide better outcomes by eliminating the middleman of insurance- having things centralized into one entity can be more efficient through many mechanisms (reduction of duplicated effort, elimination of requirement for profitability, etc) On the other hand, government healthcare could easily be more expensive and provide worse outcomes if it was corrupt or poorly administered, or if it became a target for corrupt providers. I think in America we have a culture of ripping off and destroying any government provided social benefit. Just look at medicare fraud and social security fraud. Other countries may not face those issues- for example the nordics seem to be doing well.