sporksable
sporksable t1_j1mdanw wrote
Reply to comment by Dark-Myst in Congress adds $1.7 billion for U.S. Space Force in 2023 spending bill by Corbulo2526
People smarter than you or I have crunched the numbers. The costs assume present Medicare reimbursement rates, which are already around 60-70% of private insurance rates. Naturally, such a reduction would have knock on effects. If you wanted to reimburse more to better cover that gap, costs would probably increase.
sporksable t1_j1mbo1h wrote
Reply to comment by Sufficient_Matter585 in Congress adds $1.7 billion for U.S. Space Force in 2023 spending bill by Corbulo2526
Actually that cost figure assumes present medicare rates, which are 70% of private insurance reembursement.
Health policy is extremely complex, and there are trade offs for everything. But I do not believe it's realistic to assume providers will take a 30% reduction in payments and not have that have knock-on effects through the industry. Again, trade offs.
sporksable t1_j1mb4ft wrote
Reply to comment by pugofthewildfrontier in Congress adds $1.7 billion for U.S. Space Force in 2023 spending bill by Corbulo2526
I was wrong, it was about 1.5 Trillion/yr over present spending, an average of 3 Trillion a year (we spend about 1.5 trillion already to cover around half of residents, so that jives fairly well). Which is substantially less than 4 trillion/yr.
The fact remains, though, that DoD budgets, even with the bloated one we have right now, doesn't begin to cover the expenses accrued under the M4A proposals. And that also does not take into account the fact that purely medicare (without medicaid, CHIPS, Tricare, IHS etc) is responsible for more than half of the deficit we have right now (with social security making up the rest). FedGov runs a surplus without these mandatory programs.
But that is getting in the weeds a little bit. Point is, the entire DoD budget doesn't begin to cover M4A. There would need to be substantially more offset.
Oh, and the Mercatus Center study is a really poor one to use, since the author himself states that cost savings are unrealistic. It pretty much assumes that providers will take a 40% cut to reimbursement rates with no knock-on effects.
To be clear here, I'm not saying that M4A or universal healthcare is a bad thing. But I am saying that "stop buying bullets, buy bandages" isn't a realistic way to look at healthcare policy, or paying for universal care.
sporksable t1_j1m02h6 wrote
Reply to comment by Dark-Myst in Congress adds $1.7 billion for U.S. Space Force in 2023 spending bill by Corbulo2526
Last estimate is universal care in the US would cost about 4 Trillion 1.5 Trillion a year more than what we spend now on healthcare (which is substantial). You'd need 4.5 1.5 DoD budgets to cover that, and I ran out of fingers and toes counting how many space force budgets.
sporksable t1_j1lzrs4 wrote
Reply to comment by ZeroTransPat in NASA to Get $25.4 Billion in 2023 Federal Budget by Corbulo2526
Bad take. Medicare is the 2nd most expensive line item in the federal budget, following closely social security.
Over half the US is covered under some form of government paid healthcare scheme (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Tricare, IHS etc.)
sporksable t1_jcdwm26 wrote
Reply to comment by Xeglor-The-Destroyer in Virgin Orbit pauses operations for a week, furloughs nearly entire staff as it seeks funding by Realistic-Cap6526
I would propose we've reached the end of the beginning. The VC fueled smallsat gold rush has ended; only the best positioned companies will survive.