Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
48. First, who gives a fuck if it costs the government a
Sat Sep 16, 2017, 03:21 AM
Sep 2017

Last edited Sat Sep 16, 2017, 01:21 PM - Edit history (2)

lot of money to give the people what they should have at the expense of the only people who have all that money? I certainly don't and that shouldn't be a consideration, so long as it isn't too unreasonable, and I have to say, I have a high tolerance for what is reasonable in this regard.

Second, when they talk about what this will cost the government, do they bother to talk about the fact that some of this money will come out of the pockets of businesses and individuals who will no longer have to foot the bill for the insurance they pay for on the market, since this theoretically replaces that? Edit: yes, I see the excerpt...so now we're talking about 6 trillion, not the far far bigger number.

Restructuring costs all go back into the economy, new positions emerge, new expertise is needed, and whether those jobs be private sector, or government, that generates tax revenue. It doesn't go into some black hole never to be seen again. Less of this money goes into a black hole never to be seen again. That is economic stimulation, and the beauty is that the more of that there is, the more money goes back to the government. And given that this should save people money compared to the skyrocketing costs of healthcare in our current markets, (assuming we actually fund this in the right way), that is also more money that goes into the economy, at least theoretically, and not simply into a handful of wealthy shareholders pockets.

Is there anything in the study about the increased productivity that a healthy workforce provides,

or how about the cost decreases to patient treatment when preventative care becomes the norm over late term treatments and emergency room visits?

The study may have its merits, but these are all things that a robust study would have to incorporate to try to get a fuller sense of how medicare for all might impact the economy over all.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Whatever the numbers are frazzled Sep 2017 #1
Not so certain additional govt funding required BBG Sep 2017 #2
Spending on medical care and taxes can't be substituted for each other. wasupaloopa Sep 2017 #5
Sure they can BBG Sep 2017 #7
What makers you think you have any power or right to force people to play your rules? wasupaloopa Sep 2017 #12
No escaping death, rent or taxes BBG Sep 2017 #13
I have a lot of thoughts but I am wary of sharing them. DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2017 #3
It's really a shame that we can't have actual substantive discussion Ninsianna Sep 2017 #43
Were you here during the primaries ? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2017 #44
I read articles, not so much the replies. Ninsianna Sep 2017 #45
The original Medicare program was a non starter for decades... Tom Rinaldo Sep 2017 #4
YES! n/t TexasBushwhacker Sep 2017 #11
Those social programs started with nothing like them in place. We already have wasupaloopa Sep 2017 #14
Exactly! mountain grammy Sep 2017 #25
The rich will always get better healthcare. Even with single payor or medicare for all. JoeStuckInOH Sep 2017 #6
in some places that is illegal dsc Sep 2017 #18
There is literally zero chance the US outlaws private practices outside medicare. JoeStuckInOH Sep 2017 #42
Sanders' 2016 bill was analyzed by the Urban Institute ehrnst Sep 2017 #8
$319.8 trillion in 2017? LexVegas Sep 2017 #9
That has to be a typo...in one year? TCJ70 Sep 2017 #10
The Urban Institute doesn't let typos get through. ehrnst Sep 2017 #16
That's fine, but are they saying that all healthcare spending in the country would add up to... TCJ70 Sep 2017 #17
I think that you are reading it wrong ehrnst Sep 2017 #19
Here's just one article on the subject: TCJ70 Sep 2017 #21
Again: ehrnst Sep 2017 #22
Maybe I'm misreading... TCJ70 Sep 2017 #24
The costs of implementation on that timeline ehrnst Sep 2017 #26
That paragraph is about revenue... TCJ70 Sep 2017 #27
Do you know how large a project gutting and rebuilding that section of the GDP would be? ehrnst Sep 2017 #28
16 times the national debt? Yeah, no. n/t TCJ70 Sep 2017 #30
I would suggest that you contact the Urban Institute with questions. ehrnst Sep 2017 #33
You edited your post. I guess they can have typos, eh? n/t TCJ70 Sep 2017 #40
plenty of other countries have transitioned from a market system to single-payer beachjustice Sep 2017 #37
Actually, no, they didn't transition from what we have to Single Payer. ehrnst Sep 2017 #38
the US already has a single payer system, it's called Medicare beachjustice Sep 2017 #47
Billion, not trillion. Ninsianna Sep 2017 #46
I hope all the facts about going from what we have now to single payer are put on the table. wasupaloopa Sep 2017 #15
should be billion not trillion dsc Sep 2017 #20
Which? ehrnst Sep 2017 #23
the first number dsc Sep 2017 #29
Typo in that post. Here is a direct copy from the PDF-- it's 319 billion not trillion! andym Sep 2017 #31
Oh just wait... TCJ70 Sep 2017 #32
Yes, that is the direct copy and paste from the report. ehrnst Sep 2017 #34
Page 3 disagrees with page 25 of the PDF! The Urban Institute does do typos! nt. andym Sep 2017 #35
I suggest you write them. ehrnst Sep 2017 #36
This also explains a few things ehrnst Sep 2017 #39
Urban Institute's analysis is fine andym Sep 2017 #41
First, who gives a fuck if it costs the government a JCanete Sep 2017 #48
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»... Wait for the Medicar...»Reply #48