[malfist]

Oh please, this is just repackaged "Don't give poor people money, they'll just spend it on drugs" drivel.

Even if you're telling the truth, you're advocating a state where people suffer because you personally couldn't handle a tiny bit of welfare.

[prosqlinjector]

> because you personally couldn't handle a tiny bit of welfare.

If there was a segment of the population who "couldn't handle" welfare, where do you think we would find them?

[malfist]

I think you need to prove there is a population that "can't handle" welfare.

[prosqlinjector]

It was your idea. He suggested it was a universal temptation, you suggested it was a personal problem. If it's personal, there is a community of people with that same problem.

[gottorf]

Since we're talking about people receiving public funds, I think it's correct that the recipient has to prove that they can handle it, not the other way around.

[mptest]

if only idiocy like your comment recognized that dumb ass margaret thatcher reagen esque measuring of who gets aid and who doesn't costs more than just fucking giving people the money. How are you idiots actually rehashing 90's austerity shit. Wtf?

look no further than healthcare for all by every study[0], showing it would SAVE money. Hey idiots, turns out hiring a bunch of people to decide who is allowed to get a checkup costs more than the checkup. Not to mention the money you save from the whole "ounce of prevention vs a pound of cure" math. Ridiculous, brazenly unscientific, and extremely cruel sentiment.

[0] https://www.citizen.org/news/fact-check-medicare-for-all-wou...

[gottorf]

Please tone down the rhetoric if you want to have a productive, rational discussion. It's disappointing to come across comments like yours on HN.

> look no further than healthcare for all by every study[0], showing it would SAVE money

Your source lists, among others, a "study by the Koch-funded Mercatus Center"[0], which presumably would be the strongest argument against their position that "Medicare for All" would save money. It claims that even the aforementioned study found that M4A "would save around $2 trillion over a 10-year period", which they arrived at by the cumulative 10-year estimated savings on national healthcare expenditures, but fails to mention it also estimates that an additional $32T will need to be raised over the same time period to pay for it.

The UMass Amherst study[1], presumably more favorably inclined to M4A, estimates that an additional $20T will be needed over 10 years to finance it.

So all of those studies are really just saying that in the aggregate, we would spend less on the direct healthcare expenses through a combination of better drug pricing, removing redundant administration (both private and public), and paying providers less, but at the cost of needing to raise much more in taxes than we would save on those direct healthcare expenses. Which makes sense, since a lot more people would be covered under M4A than currently, and you may very well argue that that is an admirable goal; but it's a verbal sleight of hand to say that somehow the nation as a whole would save money. It's just shifting where the money is counted and who pays for what.

At the individual level, sure, some people may come out ahead, especially those not targeted by the burden of the additional required taxation.

Over the past 10 years, the health insurance industry as a whole made about $15B in profits per year[2] and spends another $81B a year on administration (salaries for workers, etc). Let's round that up to an even $100B a year and call it a "parasitic expense" that the for-profit health insurance industry charges on society as a whole and still leaves some people uninsured. If we remove that $100B and add the $2-3.2T a year that M4A would require, what happens? Your source says it'll save 68k lives a year, which would come at a cost of (taking $2.5T as the midpoint of the estimates) $36.8M per life. Fantastic! It's estimated that there are 27.6 million people who don't have health insurance currently. Great, now they will be insured at a cost of $90k a year. But of course, at least nobody would have to pay a dime out of pocket.

M4A is not a magic wand to be waved that will produce more and better healthcare for free. Honestly, a federally-funded mandatory fat camp would lower total health expenditures a lot more for a lot less money.

And more broadly speaking, welfare benefits in general also are not things that will improve society as a whole at no cost. When we're talking about the public's money, the costs and benefits have to be weighed carefully.

[0]: https://default.salsalabs.org/Ta48eb44d-4343-4204-9a7c-846ce...

[1]: https://default.salsalabs.org/T4931fba7-4f9b-4f24-a6f7-edfc3...

[2]: https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/2021-Annual-Hea...

[mptest]

You're right, sorry about the rhetoric, i was extremely angry at such "welfare queen" rhetoric. I've calmed down and read your comment twice. Of course it's not magic. Of course it shifts the burden elsewhere (9 people own more wealth than 3.6 billion combined, there's plenty of burden that need be fricken shifted). Of course it would require new taxes (mostly on the rich, most people end up paying less for care, i'll pay 500 in taxes over 1k in premiums any day of the week). We will spend more on healthcare either way as you note, this is the cheapest way through the storm with the best allocation of the tax burden.

I also completely agree with the prophylactic notion of reducing medical burden by increasing healthiness. Idk about fat camp specifically but shit like better healthier foods in schools and killing food deserts and reducing poverty would all go a great extend to help. Like you are agreeing with me in a different form, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" and early healthcare before problems get bad is part of that.

>And more broadly speaking, welfare benefits in general also are not things that will improve society as a whole at no cost.

Who said they would do it at no cost? I think i simply noted it would be cheaper than the inhumane way we do it now. So it's more humane AND the math is better. Literally the only reason to think like that crab in a bucket i replied to does is if you're a meanie who wants the poor to suffer instead of accepting a poor might get some healthcare or not starve on their tax dime. that's what made me so mad. I am still sorry for commenting in the manner as I did. I was fully prepared to be quickly flagged lol.

Re welfare benefits, they produce some of the best return of dollars spent by the government. Like besides the irs, (quick search shows 400$ in revenue per 1$ spent on irs, 6:1 $ gain if we spent more on enforcement) nothing comes back quicker per dollar spent than giving poor people money. It goes straight in to the economy.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/golden-truth-behind-w...