View Single Post
Old 09-11-2018, 05:03 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,093
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The 3.6 trillion figure is from the Mercatus center's estimate which I believe everyone interested in the subject is familiar with.
It is actually about 100 billion a year more than is projected to be spent without Medicare for all, but it is in the ballpark.
So your $3.6 trillion scare figure should have been $100 billion increase. Why not go with truth? The difference between Tr-tr-tr-tr-trillion and B-b-b-b-billion might have been lost in your screed anyway.

With the correct arithmetic, instead of "Wars in Iraq as far as the eye can see" you could have written "need to cut down on our orders of Ford-class aircraft carriers." We're already scheduled to spend about $50 billion on the Joint Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle. Maybe if we didn't have "Wars in Iraq as far as they eye can see" we wouldn't need them. How large a fleet of Boeing P-8 Poseidons does the USAF have? 100? If that fleet were just 99 planes, the savings would enable every uninsured child in the nation to visit doctor and get antibiotics next time he has an ear infection.

Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
I am not sure what point you think you are making. It makes a huge difference as to who pays for the healthcare system. If individuals do it and it grows unaffordable then those individuals have to adjust their lifestyles or go without. An awful outcome to be sure, but it is not going to destabilize the nation.
However, if the government can not afford to pay, then it has to have a huge tax hike or cut lots of other spending. This is going to be politically difficult and have huge effects on the economy ...
So much is wrong here. For starters, one minor point is that $100 billion is much less than $3.6 trillion!

You also seem unaware that health insurance is already unaffordable for many Americans. I've highlighted that to help you focus on it. Some Americans can only analyze in the context of "What's best for me ME ME?" but that isn't you, right puddleglum ?

But the strangest misconception you have is the insistence that money acquires a different character when it passes through government hands. Rather than pursuing this confusion down an abstract rabbit hole, let's compare with public education.

Governments in the U.S. spend about $650 billion on K-12 education far more than the projected increase with medicare for all. Your argument, if valid, should apply equally to that K-12 spending, no?

If parents spent this money themselves, they could respond to any price hikes by cutting down on their fine wines and iPhones, or by keeping their children home. "Awful, but not destabilizing." But with government involved, what if K-12 education costs increase? Wouldn't this also be a huge problem?

Do you advocate repeal of "K-12 education for all"? To be consistent, it seems you should. First answer this question and then we can go on from there.
andros had more faith in an American jury than I had; and he was right. I'm happy to lose a bet and hope this trend continues.