4 ms·
How does the ownership class lose benefits under Medicare for All (MFA)? What does ownership class mean? Let’s compare China and U.S., the former has near unive
by nis0s 10mo ago
How does the ownership class lose benefits under Medicare for All (MFA)? What does ownership class mean? Let’s compare China and U.S., the former has near universal healthcare, but also an unemployment rate of 20%. The U.S. spends more on Medicare than it does for Defense, and the bulk of that money goes to the healthcare industry in all its forms. They don’t touch the healthcare industry function because it’s the largest employment sector in the U.S., and comparably robust for employment even during periods of economic downturn, see the current 4.6% unemployment rate. If we did get MFA in the U.S., you can expect job cuts in the healthcare industry. So the U.S. gets by with paying for Medicare and Defense, and the balance to this is state-based healthcare, and something like ACA subsidies, while ensuring a relatively low unemployment rate.
I also don’t understand how in your example MFA results in lesser healthcare for wealthy people, that hasn’t been the case in any country with universal healthcare programs.
Let’s also examine the geopolitical angle in all this. The U.S. healthcare system is increasingly made a political issue as a way to induce societal pressure to reduce defense spending, and allocate it elsewhere. I am not taking any stance on this, but this point is often ignored for any number of reasons.
- jjj123 10mo agoThe ownership class will 1) have to pay more in taxes and 2) will lose power over their employees who under the current system are pressured to keep their jobs or lose healthcare. As for lesser outcomes, I’m not sure how it works practically, you’re probably correct. My understanding is the current system trades based on who can pay, and m4a works triage based on need. So given the same healthcare bandwidth, I assumed those who push to the front of the line based on pay would no longer be able to do so.
- nis0s 10mo agoMedicare is funded by making everyone pay for it. So, I think it follows that Medicare for All could be funded by making everyone pay for it. It’s likely that changing the calculus of the healthcare industry will result in job losses, but I guess it depends on how MFA is implemented. If taxes are increased on all earners to pay for universal healthcare, then the employer burden on providing payments towards health insurance will likely decrease. In this case, maybe there might be increase in hiring because it doesn’t seem healthcare is much impacted by AI. But this is all guesswork. I also don’t think there’s a strict technical definition for “owner class”, it’s a catch-all political smear term used by Marxist-Leninists to enforce social stratification, and alienate community members from each other. Who is an owner? The homeowner that could lose everything without a job? The business owner that could be bankrupt in 3-4 quarters? Or is there some arbitrary income threshold? A lot of people are hand to mouth without their jobs, including some earning 500K per year. Even millionaires end up having to work normal jobs if their lifestyle eats up their reserves. Or is it investors? Basically, everyone via their homes or retirement accounts; 65% of Americans are homeowners, and 75% have retirement savings, and 62% invest in stocks. Reasonably, I think unless your family unit has sustained inter-generational wealth (I mean wealth, not high-incomes), you wouldn’t meet the technical definition of this term, if it had a strictly defined one.
- jjj123 10mo ago“Medicare is funded by making everyone pay for it. So, I think it follows that Medicare for All could be funded by making everyone pay for it“ I’m unsure of your point on this one. Both recent fleshed-out m4a policy proposals (Bernie and Warren’s from 2020) pay for m4a with increased taxes. Are you disputing the point that taxes to pay for m4a will not disproportionately come from the wealthiest Americans? My understanding is lower income Americans would pay a little more in taxes but would make it back (and more) in healthcare savings. Extremely high income Americans would pay a lot more in taxes and would absolutely not make it back in healthcare savings. That is effectively a savings for lower income people and a cost for rich people. This entire thread feels like a pedantic tangent to my original point: policy decisions result in benefits to some groups and costs to others. Do you disagree with that? We’re so deep in the weeds I cannot tell your high-level point here.
- nis0s 10mo agoIt’s funny to me that because Sanders and Warren said that’s the way it might be done, then you think that’s the only way it could be done. You’re stuck in a zero-sum way of thinking, or you just want to take from people who’ve aggrieved you. That’s the problem, I think, that instead of reflecting on how you could possibly be biased in your thinking, by using words like owner class, you think me pointing out that bias is a pedantic tangent. There’s not much else to say here then.