• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    that’d totally end up just being rolled into taxes

    That’d partially get rolled into your taxes. Without the need to extract profit – and even more importantly, without the ridiculous inefficiency of having all the insurance middlemen – the taxes needed to provide the same quality of service would be vastly cheaper than what we’re paying now.

    • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      I’m certainly not an economist, a politician, or in healthcare but I’d be surprised if you could actually build a working healthcare system for less than we spend now even if you took out the profit motive.

      You need to rebuild rural hospitals, hire more doctors and nurses, build clinics and staff them in underserved (read: poor) areas, and basically spend an awful lot of time and money to fix the broken mess that the insurance companies have caused.

      I mean you COULD just change who pays the people and places that exist now, but that’s not really… fixing anything.

      Perhaps it’s me, but I’d be fine paying what I’m paying similar amounts for an actually funded and working healthcare system, if it covers everyone. Just need to tap into the AMERICA #1 bullshit somehow, and get the uh, poorly informed, on board and do it. Again not a politician or political strategist so that’s someone else’s problem, but I won’t complain about paying for it.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        I’d be surprised if you could actually build a working healthcare system for less than we spend now even if you took out the profit motive.

        It’s so hard that only every other first-world country has managed it.