20 of the nation's top economists say Medicare 4 All....

[Bodakane]

https://markets.businessinsider.com/...0-3-1028982528

Open letter from top economists: Medicare for All would lead to massive savings for most Americans and slash waste in healthcare

Compared with the current system, Medicare for All would achieve considerable savings on administration and by reducing payments to monopoly drug companies and hospital networks. Within a few years of operation, M4A could save hundreds of billions of dollars per year from these sources. Additional savings will come when a rational healthcare finance system allows needed investments in coordinated care and preventive care, as well as reductions in fraudulent billing. Over time, global budgeting would slow the rate of future healthcare costs significantly, as has been done in Canada and other countries. Bending the cost curve could save more than $2 trillion over the next decade, and even more with a well-designed system. Costs will be predictable, enabling households and businesses to plan in a way that is impossible today.

[Virthas]

Massive savings and waste slashing are unamerican, apparently. Efficiency is socialist. Happiness is Marxist-Leninist or something.

[Sunseeker]

But then we'll have to kill the poors by hand.

[Gestopft]

Yeah but it wouldn’t please the donors, so checkmate, America

[Elegiac]

No shit. The debate has never been one of actual economic benefit.

[PC2]

Problem is when you get to a debate about liberty vs socialism you're also getting into "is-ought" territory, morality, and societal aesthetic preferences. Meaning there are no experts or authority figures that can answer those type of questions, it's entirely up to the people in a democracy to reason about what is best. A lot of economic theory isn't even very scientific anyways because scientific theory has to be capable of being proven wrong, which a lot of it can't be.

[Elegiac]

Problem is when you get to a debate about liberty vs socialism you're also getting into "is-ought" territory, morality, and societal aesthetic preferences. Meaning there are no experts or authority figures that can answer those type of questions, it's entirely up to the people in a democracy to reason about what is best. A lot of economic theory isn't even very scientific anyways because scientific theory has to be capable of being proven wrong, which a lot of it can't be.

Nobody gives a shit, there's no evidence that privately administered healthcare systems produce better outcomes for anyone but the rich.

We're talking about policy in the real world, and in the real world single payer has tested its worth in every other developed country.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Greed trumps facts and figures.

The companies making mad bank on the current system, are not about helping people, nor saving costs for the government. What problem is it of theirs that they start opioid epidemics and have people choose death over healthcare to not attract dept for their families?

Most people wanting to see change are aware of the facts and figures. Lobbying and certain political ideals will ensure nothing changes.

[PC2]

Nobody gives a shit, there's no evidence that privately administered healthcare systems produce better outcomes for anyone but the rich.

We're talking about policy in the real world, and in the real world single payer has tested its worth in every other developed country.

Okay well I was just making a broader point about how economists aren't a scientific authority over what healthcare and economic policy should be implemented. If that were the case we would just switch from a democracy to a technocracy and then let science determine governmental policy. (Which is impossible)

[Elegiac]

Okay well I was just making a broader point about how economists aren't a scientific authority over what healthcare and economic policy should be implemented. If that were the case we would just switch from a democracy to a technocracy and then let science determine governmental policy. (Which is impossible)

Again, nobody gives a shit; we're talking about actual quantifiable outcomes and the available examples speak to the merits of single payer. Stick to the topic.

[bladeXcrasher]

But think about these people that don't want insurance, think of all the freedumb they would lose.

[PC2]

Again, nobody gives a shit; we're talking about actual quantifiable outcomes and the available examples speak to the merits of single payer. Stick to the topic.

That's what I'm saying though, it's a common misunderstanding that if something is quantifiable then the associated economic theory is a scientific theory.

It is on topic because the OP is making an 'appeal to authority' argument as opposed to putting forward his or her own argument on the matter.

[Sorshen]

Yes yes, but how could we take steps to reign in the corporate at the cost of alleviating human suffering!

[Endus]

Problem is when you get to a debate about liberty vs socialism

If you're debating "liberty vs socialism", you've started out by establishing a bullshit propaganda talking point as the basis of the debate.

There's no conflict between liberty and socialism. None. In fact, socialist systems can, far more readily than capitalist ones, be used to bring about and protect liberties.

[PC2]

If you're debating "liberty vs socialism", you've started out by establishing a bullshit propaganda talking point as the basis of the debate.

There's no conflict between liberty and socialism. None. In fact, socialist systems can, far more readily than capitalist ones, be used to bring about and protect liberties.

Any social program that is paid for by involuntary taxes is inseperable from a liberty vs socialism debate. If we're talking about two different healthcare programs that costs the same amount, then yes, it's less of a libertarian debate but it's still a philosophical debate regarding whether or not people should be raised thinking they don't have to work at all in order to get the products/services they want.

BTW I'm not even trying to convince anyone that they shouldn't support universal healthcare, I've literally never done that. I'm just saying they shouldn't justify it for the wrong reasons such as "top economists said it's the best".

[Elegiac]

I'm just saying they shouldn't justify it for the wrong reasons such as "economists said it's the best".

The term for this is "being a contrarian".

Also known as "contributing nothing of value to the discussion".

[Xarkan]

If you're debating "liberty vs socialism", you've started out by establishing a bullshit propaganda talking point as the basis of the debate.

There's no conflict between liberty and socialism. None. In fact, socialist systems can, far more readily than capitalist ones, be used to bring about and protect liberties.

I think the question is whose liberty to do what..

For example there will potentially be some peoples liberty to do something threatened by a single payer systems, entire industries can fall away

Granted it is some peoples right to exploit others where their survival is concerned that could be limited

[Kokolums]

It doesn't really matter.

100 years from now, robot doctors will perform surgery, diagnose, write prescriptions, and do it 1000x better than any human. People will look back on today's debate between insurance vs government healthcare as hilarious and dumb.

Unless of course our partisan bickering and destruction of trust leads us to nuke ourselves extinct before that happens.

[Xarkan]

It doesn't really matter.

100 years from now, robot doctors will perform surgery, diagnose, write prescriptions, and do it 1000x better than any human. People will look back on today's debate between insurance vs government healthcare as hilarious and dumb.

Unless of course our partisan bickering and destruction of trust leads us to nuke ourselves extinct before that happens.

The debate is independent of that tech

The robot doctors can cost money too

[nonameelf]

Who cares about saving money when you can punish poor people for being poor?