▲ 127 ▼ White House weighs $100 billion for Israel, Ukraine bill; plans in flux (www.washingtonpost.com) submitted 2 years ago by guckfoogle@sh.itjust.works to c/world@lemmy.world 37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 3 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 3 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 3 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent