7 ms·

That would be a massive hit to our GDP.

dgellow 1mo ago
Are you implying you would decide to sacrifice citizens health for a few GDP points, a somewhat useful but oversimplified metric that doesn’t reflect anything tangible?
nemomarx 1mo ago
Think of all the insurance jobs that would be hit, too. Unfortunately we've bloated the healthcare industry to have a lot of employees
- panzagl 1mo ago
  Somehow I doubt there would be fewer jobs in healthcare if the government takes it over.
bensyverson 1mo ago
Just think about the boost to our GDP by having healthier consumers who live longer, don't go into medical bankruptcy, and continue to buy stuff.
triceratops 1mo ago
Not necessarily, over the long-term. That's $1 trillion more in disposable income.
ovi256 1mo ago
Not at all. Reducing a cost means the payer can spend the money on something else
brainwad 1mo ago
Presumably not; the same national income would just be redistributed from shareholders to insurees (or shareholders of companies that pay for employee health insurance).
karakoram 1mo ago
In all seriousness, this would be a massive stimulus to the economy. Americans are consumers at heart. All the money saved on insurance and/or other healthcare related costs would then be spent elsewhere. Cars, clothes, TVs, Labubu dolls. People will use the savings to buy things. In massive quantities.
- arkh 1mo ago
  There is also some indirect bonus: if people's healthcare is not tied to their employer then it's easier to look for a new one. Also if the system is done well, then many companies would lose the incentives they currently have for not giving full-time employment.
- garbawarb 1mo ago
  Some would, but some would just put that money into savings and investments instead.
  - DerArzt 1mo ago
    From a retirement standpoint I keep hearing that not enough Americans are saving for retirement, so this would still be a win for me.
oa335 1mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Are you implying you would decide to sacrifice citizens health for a few GDP points, a somewhat useful but oversimplified metric that doesn’t reflect anything tangible?

nemomarx 1mo ago

Think of all the insurance jobs that would be hit, too. Unfortunately we've bloated the healthcare industry to have a lot of employees

panzagl 1mo ago
Somehow I doubt there would be fewer jobs in healthcare if the government takes it over.

bensyverson 1mo ago

Just think about the boost to our GDP by having healthier consumers who live longer, don't go into medical bankruptcy, and continue to buy stuff.

triceratops 1mo ago

Not necessarily, over the long-term. That's $1 trillion more in disposable income.

ovi256 1mo ago

Not at all. Reducing a cost means the payer can spend the money on something else

brainwad 1mo ago

Presumably not; the same national income would just be redistributed from shareholders to insurees (or shareholders of companies that pay for employee health insurance).

karakoram 1mo ago

In all seriousness, this would be a massive stimulus to the economy. Americans are consumers at heart. All the money saved on insurance and/or other healthcare related costs would then be spent elsewhere. Cars, clothes, TVs, Labubu dolls. People will use the savings to buy things. In massive quantities.

arkh 1mo ago
There is also some indirect bonus: if people's healthcare is not tied to their employer then it's easier to look for a new one. Also if the system is done well, then many companies would lose the incentives they currently have for not giving full-time employment.
garbawarb 1mo ago
Some would, but some would just put that money into savings and investments instead.
- DerArzt 1mo ago
  From a retirement standpoint I keep hearing that not enough Americans are saving for retirement, so this would still be a win for me.

oa335 1mo ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window