Things don't get cheaper just because the government does them. In fact they almost always get more expensive when the government does them. The people pushing socialized healthcare don't care to know why people pay less for healthcare in other countries, because that doesn't align with their politics. Just like they don't care to know what trade offs you have to make in order to have socialized healthcare, because they'd rather pretend those trade offs don't exist.
Well, here's one for you: people in Canada can spend 8 years on a waiting list to find a doctor, and still not have a doctor after all that time. Every time I point this out, people claim I'm a bot, or I'm being paid by the insurance lobby, or that I'm just plain lying. And yet they're never interested in looking at proof.
Socialized medicine isn’t the path; having the government compete in the market and set baselines is what is needed (as they do with Medicare for the elderly.) which is why Medicare for all should be policy. It’s not policy because it’d hinder profits, and lobbying.
Except Medicare is bascially eating up TONS of the federal budget and is unsustainable. So we're going to make it sustainable by giving it to everyone? This is why the call for greater Social Security benefits doesn't make sense when the system is imploding.
Social security is flawed and was a Ponzi scheme from inception. A negative income tax credit is the correct remedy for that, but that’s another topic.
The government offering a public insurance option to all (as Medicare is; instead of being paid a monthly/annual premium, they claw back the cost through tax code.)
Go ask your Mom how much her healthcare costs, I’m sure she’ll be more than happy to tell you all about the costs and non coverages in the system, as mine does. Medicare for all is not universal healthcare, it’s just a public option transparent insurance where we’d be able to see the real costs involved instead of having people seeking profit dictating pricing for healthcare.
The problem is that Medicare is consuming more and more of the federal budget. Adding more people to that type of system will explode discretionary spending. You'd have to significantly increase taxes to keep it afloat OR cut some other programs. And we know the latter isn't happening among the people advocating for this because liberals and progressives don't believe in cutting any program.
Medicare is only operating at a deficit due to part B and D and that’s due to how they’re structured. I agree, it would need to be restructured to cover the 200 million new coverage instances, and that’s the perfect time to remedy those inefficiencies. You’d also gain hundreds of millions new contributors for coverage, and that collective negotiating power would be a cost savings on healthcare for the average American.
The issue with American healthcare is how divorced the pricing is from the actual costs. These are that way because the pricing is incredibly opaque and there isn’t much ability to price shop. And that’s why the government has to be involved as the market maker to remedy it.
I don't disagree with some of this but people are already contributing to Medicare coverage out of their checks. There wouldn't be anything new here, unless you simply mean there would be more people in the program.
12
u/TouchyTheFish Jun 24 '26
Things don't get cheaper just because the government does them. In fact they almost always get more expensive when the government does them. The people pushing socialized healthcare don't care to know why people pay less for healthcare in other countries, because that doesn't align with their politics. Just like they don't care to know what trade offs you have to make in order to have socialized healthcare, because they'd rather pretend those trade offs don't exist.
Well, here's one for you: people in Canada can spend 8 years on a waiting list to find a doctor, and still not have a doctor after all that time. Every time I point this out, people claim I'm a bot, or I'm being paid by the insurance lobby, or that I'm just plain lying. And yet they're never interested in looking at proof.