• LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Still cheaper than the way we do it, so even going by a cost analysis, we’d be saving money.

    But it’s not about the cost, it’s about siphoning money over to the big shots, and keeping healthcare tied to employment.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Those savings come from a reduction in individual spending on premiums, not reduced government spending.

      Without a doubt there are ways to construct a public system that would be dramatically more efficient than the clusterfuck we have right now, but speaking strictly from the financial perspective of the government, it absolutely is a massive increase in spending (that would presumably be funded by a tax that largely replaces the premiums of today, but regardless, foreign aid is an absolute drop in the bucket compared to something like fundamentally reforming the entire health care industry)

      • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You understand that if people were taxed for their health insurance instead of paying directly that the government would be able to supply lower rates because of collective bargaining… right?

        The idea is that the increase in government spending doesn’t matter because Americans won’t be paying for health insurance anymore, instead paying (less) for it through taxation.