Hacker News Reader

Comment by b9a2cab5 | Hacker News Reader

Socialized healthcare might be much more amenable if it were single-payer but without subsidies. You pay for insurance just like you do now, except there's only 1 provider and it's the government. The primary benefit most M4A people tout is that costs would be lower under a single payer system. This makes that happen without the welfare leeching.

I and I'm sure many others are opposed to subsidizing people who decided to play video games and smoke weed all day with our tax dollars. If you're an entrepreneur, you're not harmed by this, you can afford to pay for it. If you're a small business owner, this should save you money. If you're disabled or old, you already get subsidized and would continue to get subsidized. Everyone else - pay for the services you receive.

View on HN

I, for one, am sick of subsidizing people who will decide to play video games and smoke weed all day with our tax dollars.

IIUC, one of the best predictors of a person's earning potential (which we can of course use as a proxy metric for their worth to the economy) is the wealth of their parents. So, why not quit funding public schools? It's two birds with one stone: only those who choose to have children will be responsible for paying for the services they receive (viz. tuition for an education), and we eliminate a subsidy for undesirables who (statistically speaking) are much more likely to become welfare leeches.

That's what I call a win-win.

edit: rather horrifyingly, this sarcasm is going over people's heads (my fault, of course). See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29388282

I think you're forgetting that public schools serve a purpose other than enriching the wealthy. I have such a hard time with takes like these. Would you have public schools turning away children that can't pay?

It was sarcasm, intended to (at the very least) draw attention to the possibility of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater", and the perils of focusing on imaginary "welfare leeches" at the expense of general prosperity.

I almost added an /s, and perhaps I should have. haha

This is the internet, even if you were serious it wouldn't even be in the bottom quartile of dumb takes.

I hope you realize this is already the case. Property taxes are voted on locally and go to pay for local schools and there is vehement opposition towards redistributing funding for schools state wide. People move to certain cities where schools are known to be good (and no surprise, those cities also have lots of generous property tax-based and PTA-based funding for schools).

I might add that the people who can afford it move to those certain cities. But yes, you're right, we already do a great job making sure that not all children have equal opportunity.

Yeah you should have. I was about to comment on how toxic this kind of worldview is, but held back. At any rate, this kind of thinking ensures a world where opportunity is increasingly siloed such that even the best and brightest wind up losing for want of wealthy benefactors.

Thanks for clarifying, had a Poe's law moment there.

Do you want to live in a world where most people are completely uneducated?

The sarcasm went over my head initially. Sadly, I think it is because your post is 100% something I believed I would find on HN.

so what about people who just cannot afford it? homeless, addicts, single mothers raising kids, collage kids, kids kicked out of home because of religious/abortions/pregnancy/LGBTQ/ect? do they just not get healthcare?

Last 3 categories can afford it if they get a job. Single payer proponents claim on the order of 10x cost savings compared to the status quo. Presumably insurance costs wouldn't exceed $200/mo under single payer. Amazon pays $15/h minimum nationally. That's a day and a half of work for health insurance for the month.

The first 2 categories need better help than healthcare insurance. I think it's plainly obvious after SF spending $50k/homeless person that more money isn't going to help them.

So they just don't get healthcare? Or are you suggesting an additional welfare system to cater to those subsets specifically?

“The first 2 categories need better help than healthcare insurance. I think it's plainly obvious after SF spending $50k/homeless person that more money isn't going to help them.”

Yes, I read the original non-answer and was looking for a little clarification. If 50k isn't enough to help them, are you suggesting we should give them more, less, or none?

Ah good. I don't want to subsidize the health care of SF "entrepreneur" lads who want to sit around all day writing software nobody needs. If they want healthcare they can get a real job in an Amazon fulfillment center.

> Single payer proponents claim on the order of 10x cost savings compared to the status quo.

Who's saying that? The U.S. pays about twice as much per capita as most other developed countries for healthcare which implies that a 2x savings should be at least theoretically possible, but I don't think there are serious claims of 10x savings unless you're talking about premiums for low-income people that are heavily subsidized.

> I think it's plainly obvious after SF spending $50k/homeless person that more money isn't going to help them.

The only conclusion I draw from that is that the money San Francisco is spending isn't being used efficiently.

not everyone can get a job. not everyone lives where there are jobs. not everyone can move to where there is job. not everyone is capable of holding down a job. so I guess they don't need healthcare and we should just let them die?

If below 133% of the U.S. federal poverty level, they are eligible for Medicaid, which does not require payment of premiums.

edit: s/medicare/medicaid/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com