5 ms·
$1 trillion less profit.
by jonplackett 2mo ago
$1 trillion less profit.
- garbawarb 2mo agoThat would be a massive hit to our GDP.
- nemomarx 2mo agoThink of all the insurance jobs that would be hit, too. Unfortunately we've bloated the healthcare industry to have a lot of employees
- panzagl 2mo agoSomehow I doubt there would be fewer jobs in healthcare if the government takes it over.
- bensyverson 2mo agoJust think about the boost to our GDP by having healthier consumers who live longer, don't go into medical bankruptcy, and continue to buy stuff.
- triceratops 2mo agoNot necessarily, over the long-term. That's $1 trillion more in disposable income.
- ovi256 2mo agoNot at all. Reducing a cost means the payer can spend the money on something else
- brainwad 2mo agoPresumably not; the same national income would just be redistributed from shareholders to insurees (or shareholders of companies that pay for employee health insurance).
- karakoram 2mo agoIn all seriousness, this would be a massive stimulus to the economy. Americans are consumers at heart. All the money saved on insurance and/or other healthcare related costs would then be spent elsewhere. Cars, clothes, TVs, Labubu dolls. People will use the savings to buy things. In massive quantities.
- arkh 2mo agoThere is also some indirect bonus: if people's healthcare is not tied to their employer then it's easier to look for a new one. Also if the system is done well, then many companies would lose the incentives they currently have for not giving full-time employment.
- garbawarb 2mo agoSome would, but some would just put that money into savings and investments instead.
- DerArzt 2mo agoFrom a retirement standpoint I keep hearing that not enough Americans are saving for retirement, so this would still be a win for me.
- oa335 2mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
- dgellow 2mo agoAre you implying you would decide to sacrifice citizens health for a few GDP points, a somewhat useful but oversimplified metric that doesn’t reflect anything tangible?
- dsr_ 2mo ago$1 trillion more efficient in allocation of resources, freeing up money for consumer spending on everything.
- johndevor 2mo agoAre you saying the government is an efficient allocator of resources?
- bobson381 2mo agoit's that it's 1 Trillion less in incentivized middlemen. A la Graeber.
- no-name-here 2mo agoPer the study we are discussing -- as well as the results from every single other developed country I believe? -- more efficient when it comes to healthcare, yes.
- johndevor 2mo agoIf the government is so efficient, why don't we just have them run all our industries?
- no-name-here 2mo agoBecause both studies and real-world results from every other developed country show gov is more efficient at healthcare, is your argument that means gov is more efficient in every field?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- GolfPopper 2mo ago
- ovi256 2mo agoNot profit, just income
- secabeen 2mo agoAnd most of that income is salaries to existing healthcare administrators. Quickly ending the employment of the people working those jobs would be a significant shock.
- cityofdelusion 2mo agoNot really. Private health insurance would still exist alongside for the more wealthy (including nearly everyone on HN) that doesn’t want to wait a year for their public system MRI. Same thing that plays out in other countries. The U.S. already has a form of this in so-called concierge / premium providers too. Lots of profit to be made.
- intuitionist 2mo agoThis isn’t true of the Medicare for All Act, for what it’s worth. That would ban private insurance altogether. Personally I think that’s a bug, not a feature, but if you’re very concerned with fairness then you probably think the opposite.
- loeg 2mo agoIf private health insurance was allowed, UHC would be stillborn. It only works if providers don't have better options than medicare reimbursement rates.
- no-name-here 2mo ago> It only works if providers don't have better options than medicare reimbursement rates. 1. A number of other developed countries have UHC while also allowing a private system as well - what is unique about the US that other countries' existing approach couldn't work here? 2. Less importantly, in this world where everyone has medicare, but a smaller fraction have private coverage, your argument is that the existing healthcare providers would choose to give up most of their (medicare) patients? If so, why wouldn't providers choose to stop serving medicare patients under the pre-2026 system, where giving up medicare patients would be a far smaller loss than in a world where everyone has medicare?
- maxlybbert 2mo ago> 1. A number of other developed countries have UHC while also allowing a private system as well - what is unique about the US that other countries' existing approach couldn't work here? Mainly, expectations. I understand that UHC in European countries doesn’t cover all the things Americans assume it does. Japan apparently keeps costs down by not using cutting-edge drugs. That’s not going to happen in the US. The US Congress just isn’t good at keeping costs down. > 2. ... why wouldn't providers choose to stop serving medicare patients under the pre-2026 system, where giving up medicare patients would be a far smaller loss than in a world where everyone has medicare? They absolutely do. Many providers don’t accept Medicare. Very few providers accept Medicaid. The payments just aren’t high enough.
- RajT88 2mo ago$1 trillion less middle-men.
- consensus1 2mo agoTotal profits for US health insurance companies in 2025 were $50 billion. The other $950 billion has got to come from cutting: 1. money to providers 2. overall healthcare consumption 3. bureaucratic redundancy and waste 1 is going to piss off medical providers. 2 is going to piss of the general public. 3 is going to piss off the 20 million healthcare industry workers who are not direct care providers. So pick your poison. This is why it will never pass.
- chaps 2mo agoHave you ever dared to dream of something that sounds impossible but isn't?
- gadflyinyoureye 2mo agoThe average Georgian plumber has higher purchasing power than the average German doctor. In order for the United States to balance its medical books, doctors will have to be paid dramatically less than they are at present. Perhaps there’s a deal to be made where doctors take the hit, but all of their debt is paid off by the state. Going forward medical school is free, but like in Germany you have to qualify, I mean really qualify to even get your foot in the college door. That’s an expectation change for the United States population on all fronts. We don’t do well with expectation changes.
- chaps 2mo agoYeah, a lot of these issues are felt in other fields too so it feels like there's a need for a larger, wider schism. Like I would love to go to law school but I can't afford it. So many possible but inherently unattainable futures. We'll get there.
- nradov 2mo agoYou can afford to go to law school if you're willing to prioritize it and make some sacrifices. There are plenty of law schools that have part time night or online options. Take one class at a time and you'll eventually get through.