Even if that’s true (just assuming you’re correct for now), wouldn’t the effect on the industry overwhelm whatever savings? Sure, if you focus just on the deficit, maybe, but there are a lot of jobs in health insurance/administration/etc. Those people would be unemployed, or (WAY more generously) need to be retrained and transferred to other jobs. Plus there would likely be massive legal challenges, especially around all the religious hospitals, which are often the only care in an area, and working through that would cost billions.
I’m very pro-single payer/socialized healthcare in the US, but I do wonder what a transition would look like. If tomorrow, Congress passed (lol) a bill for socialized medicine (lolol) and was willing to pay whatever it took (lololololol), I bet we would increase the deficit significantly during the transition, which would be maybe 5-10 years. By the time we made that back from efficiency savings, it might be more like 30+ years. Wonder if there’s a model or white paper of that.
I’m skeptical that cost overall is a good argument in favor of single payer, at least in the short/medium term. Now, that’s the fault of the current private healthcare industry, not the fault of socialized medicine. My strongest argument is in terms of a human right to health, and an improvement to civilized society.
Those people would be unemployed, or (WAY more generously) need to be retrained and transferred to other jobs.
I don’t find “the orphan grinder technicians would need to find new jobs” a very compelling argument, but I imagine the orphan grinder technicians and their families do.
We should probably have basic income and stronger social programs, too. But we have a republican party that would rather die of measles than see their outgroup have one iota of comfort.
Also, “it would be expensive to improve our quality of life, so let’s leave the nightmare in place” is a bonkers view.
I’m skeptical that cost overall is a good argument in favor of single payer, at least in the short/medium term.
But maybe this is the important part. An argument for who? I think most of the people who oppose single payer health care are doing so for emotional reasons, so facts and charts won’t compel them. They might lie to you and themselves about how the money doesn’t work out, but those are lies.
Claims will still need to be handled, the government just aims for net zero instead of profits for CEOs and shareholders. If companies choose not to participate in the new system it will not be due to lack of job availability but rather loss of profit incentive for rich assholes.
Even if that’s true (just assuming you’re correct for now), wouldn’t the effect on the industry overwhelm whatever savings? Sure, if you focus just on the deficit, maybe, but there are a lot of jobs in health insurance/administration/etc. Those people would be unemployed, or (WAY more generously) need to be retrained and transferred to other jobs. Plus there would likely be massive legal challenges, especially around all the religious hospitals, which are often the only care in an area, and working through that would cost billions.
I’m very pro-single payer/socialized healthcare in the US, but I do wonder what a transition would look like. If tomorrow, Congress passed (lol) a bill for socialized medicine (lolol) and was willing to pay whatever it took (lololololol), I bet we would increase the deficit significantly during the transition, which would be maybe 5-10 years. By the time we made that back from efficiency savings, it might be more like 30+ years. Wonder if there’s a model or white paper of that.
I’m skeptical that cost overall is a good argument in favor of single payer, at least in the short/medium term. Now, that’s the fault of the current private healthcare industry, not the fault of socialized medicine. My strongest argument is in terms of a human right to health, and an improvement to civilized society.
I don’t find “the orphan grinder technicians would need to find new jobs” a very compelling argument, but I imagine the orphan grinder technicians and their families do.
We should probably have basic income and stronger social programs, too. But we have a republican party that would rather die of measles than see their outgroup have one iota of comfort.
Also, “it would be expensive to improve our quality of life, so let’s leave the nightmare in place” is a bonkers view.
But maybe this is the important part. An argument for who? I think most of the people who oppose single payer health care are doing so for emotional reasons, so facts and charts won’t compel them. They might lie to you and themselves about how the money doesn’t work out, but those are lies.
If a government institution is inefficient, about 80% of the time it was very deliberately starved by conservatives.
Claims will still need to be handled, the government just aims for net zero instead of profits for CEOs and shareholders. If companies choose not to participate in the new system it will not be due to lack of job availability but rather loss of profit incentive for rich assholes.