Medicare For All-Mercatus Study of Sanders' Plan

[GeneralVeers]

In a true “single payer” system - no. It is illegal to accept cash payments. My wife’s family is Greek and spends 1/3 of the year in Laconia. Black market “tips” are customary in the villages if you want good care.

Anyway, the CBO scored this BS last week. A single payer system would essentially double our budget with an extra $3T needed per year. Keep in mind that we have a $1.0T shortfall on our current budget every year, so doubling everyone’s taxes wouldn’t work. Making matters worse, the CBO said there was a reasonable chance that such a system would increase costs; so much for the savings we would get by eliminating those evil insurance companies. Then, there is that pesky problem of 1 million insurance employees being suddenly displaced from their jobs once their industry becomes illegal.

There would certainly not be a cost saving. I'm not sure why Democrats ignore human nature and past experience. If we make healthcare "free" then usage will 100% not remain the same and will increase. This is completely predictable, and will absolutely occur, wiping out any "perceived" savings from efficiencies. Anyone says otherwise has no business even commenting on policy as they lack the fundamentals of human behavior and markets.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted480308]

You’re insinuating the government is going crazy and banning light bulbs. It’s like saying the government was trying to ban cars when they required new cars to come with catalytic converters, which of course they were not.

Which one of us is playing dumb?

Or do you sincerely long for the days when Americans could fill up their cars with leaded gas?

But they are banning bulbs we used to be able to buy, and furnaces we used to be able to buy, and cars we used to be able to buy, and toilets we used to be able to buy......

You being cool with the changes doesn’t mean they aren’t eventually enforced with jail

 

[namethatsmell]

But they are banning bulbs we used to be able to buy, and furnaces we used to be able to buy, and cars we used to be able to buy, and toilets we used to be able to buy......

You being cool with the changes doesn’t mean they aren’t eventually enforced with jail

You are certainly correct that everybody will have, and is entitled to, different views on changes to improve the environment.

But I get the sense from you dodging my questions that you care more about the fact the government gets involved with climate change rather than the changes the government makes. Or you simply don’t wish to acknowledge that the government is capable of doing helpful things. Or perhaps you don’t think eliminating child labor etc are worthy causes for the government to get involved in. Regardless, it seems unlikely that we’re going to see eye to eye. So it goes.

 

[deleted480308]

You are certainly correct that everybody will have, and is entitled to, different views on changes to improve the environment.

But I get the sense from you dodging my questions that you care more about the fact the government gets involved with climate change rather than the changes the government makes. Or you simply don’t wish to acknowledge that the government is capable of doing helpful things. Or perhaps you don’t think eliminating child labor etc are worthy causes for the government to get involved in. Regardless, it seems unlikely that we’re going to see eye to eye. So it goes.

I answered you very clearly

Yes, I do have an issue with govt using force to interfere in a voluntary transaction/activity between two consenting adults. The govt certainly can do helpful things but the list of things the govt should is much smaller than govt tends to think it is

 

[GeneralVeers]

You are certainly correct that everybody will have, and is entitled to, different views on changes to improve the environment.

But I get the sense from you dodging my questions that you care more about the fact the government gets involved with climate change rather than the changes the government makes. Or you simply don’t wish to acknowledge that the government is capable of doing helpful things. Or perhaps you don’t think eliminating child labor etc are worthy causes for the government to get involved in. Regardless, it seems unlikely that we’re going to see eye to eye. So it goes.

Government does very few things well. It does a lot of things terribly:

- Healthcare
- Wealth redistribution
- Retirement plans
- Combating climate change
- Combating homelessness
- War on drugs
- Wars in the Middle East

We should probably keep them out of things they do poorly.

 

[namethatsmell]

Government does very few things well. It does a lot of things terribly:

- Healthcare
- Wealth redistribution
- Retirement plans
- Combating climate change
- Combating homelessness
- War on drugs
- Wars in the Middle East

We should probably keep them out of things they do poorly.

The government is quite fallible. But how well have big businesses addressed those issues you mention? Is Envision, USACS, HCA etc good for healthcare? Was Enron good for their employees retirement plans? Did Blackwater perform nobly in the Middle East?

Capitalism, when reckless, has it's own issue too. Let's view some through the lense of the environment since that's been a popular topic on this thread...

You think PG&E would have regulated themselves after they dumped millions of gallons of chromium wastewater into California and decimating Hinkley, CA in the process?

Would you have trusted BP to have no government oversight following their mess after Deepwater Horizon? How would market forces alone have encouraged them to properly address their mess?

After the Exxon Valdez spill did oil companies and transport companies decide to just make the more expensive double-hulled tankers the standard for the industry? No. The government did.

Sure, the government could have handled things better in those cases--but what they did was better than nothing.

FWIW I think capitalism is amazing. But sometimes the quest for dollars results in consequences that the market and economic theory alone cannot adequately address. I'll sign off from this thread now as it's feeling like we're starting to chase our tails. I appreciate that we've been able to keep the exchange of ideas going in a civil way.