A new study has found that Medicare for All would save over 100,000 lives in the U.S. per year while also reducing Americans’ health care spending by more than $1 trillion annually. Yale University and University of Maryland researchers have estimated that the universal single payer health care system introduced in the Medicare for All Act would prevent 114,000 deaths per year.

Source


From Truthout via This RSS Feed.

all 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 5 points 3 months ago

Free market think tank: capitalism seeks efficiency, and GDP is a measure of how well the economy is doing

Medicare for all: makes health care more efficient

Think tank: you bastards, you incinerated $1T in GDP!

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    I think you mean, $1T in "profits". /s

  • source
  • 26 comments in c/science@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 60 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Fewer deaths? Less industry profits? No wonder the rich will never let it happen. 😡

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago*

    The deaths help cull the weaker and least productive members of the herd first, improving the overall shareholder value production capabilities of it as whole (higher average productivity + lower expenses taking care of most expensive and non-productive members such as the eldery = higher herd profitability), and the extra 7% of GDP going to Healthcare in comparison with countries with Universal Healthcare (14% vs 7%) means a much bigger cake for the Owner Class to take slices from.

    So win, win for the rich and a great ROI for the money they spend buying politicians.

    It all makes perfect sense if one's a sociopath.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 3 months ago

    Saving 100k lives sounds great, but it would negatively effect shareholder value. Which makes it dirty dirty socialism, which is basically communism. Can't have that now...

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    $1 T... being taken by parasites. Not just any parasite but ones that prey and pray on the misfortune and deaths of others.

    I'd sooner bat an eye if a mosquito got swatted than if they came across an Italian plumber. It's obscene that our laws and "leaders" allow them to walk around free.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago

    A while ago, just after Trump's second election, I attended a rally in my city where Sanders was speaking, along with AOC. The streets were packed. Busses were packed. People from all walks of life had gathered to hear a message of resistance to a dangerous asshole, and the potential better future they could build together. Old people. Young families with children. College students and young professionals and blue collar workers. And among these reasonable, good hearted people, there was this one guy, clearly obese, neckbeard and ponytail, dressed head to toe in tacticool gear.

    I think about that guy anytime I read comments like these.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 3 months ago

    It’s so weird that anyone votes republican to me. They’re so obsessed with cultural issues that they don’t care if it burns the whole country into the ground.

    I also believe that centrist democrats push cultural issues for the same reason just to keep the general public from looking towards the wealthy and the exploitation of the working people.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago
    [–] 11 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    How many politicians and ceos have to be Luigi'd before we can act on this?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    So every board member of every health insurance company needs to by tried for murder by extortion of 114,000 Americans per year

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    From that perspective, it's an amazing idea. Makes you wonder why it hasn't happened

    From the propsective of the ultra-wealthy though, it will cost them 1 trillion in profits. Then you realize why they fight it so much

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    And cut out the oligarchs middlemen? 😲

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    If reasonable healthcare was available without employment, the working class would feel substantially more empowered and might even consider such capitalist sacrilege as a general strike. Oligarchs can’t risk it, even if it would appear to increase the profitability of their businesses by removing an enormous part of the cost of labor. They like the chains.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    This doesn't even consider that health insurance costs are the main factor keeping jobs out of the USA.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    huh. i would've thought we'd just all get standard healthcare similar to a lot of countries. Bonuses didn't cross my mind

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    But think of the poor insurance company CEOs whose kids might be doomed to flying commercial! 😭

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Still won't.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    1T/100k = $10m per life saved, surely people are not millions in medical debt? Am i stupid?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I'm reading that as two different metrics.

    It's more cost effective - saving a trillion dollars a year

    It's more medically effective - saving 100k lives a year.

    You don't divide one by the other, debt isn't related.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    Yeah, but then 14% of the GDP wouldn't be a source of wealth (though their ownership of Private Healthcare and Healthcare Insurance ) for the tiny slice of society who are members of the Asset Owner class.

    Surelly 114 thousand more dead Americans every year is a price worth paying to allow the fatcats to take a slice of a $3.4 trillion cake that's twice as large as it would otherwise need to be (Healthcare as percentage of GDP in countries with universal healthcare is only around 7-8%)

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    But how does it create shareholder value?!?

  • source
  • 16 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 24 points 3 months ago

    It would save more and more money the longer it runs too.

    Preventative care and annual checkups are huge.

    A healthcare system that knows its going to provide care from birth to death, is going to be choke full of long term preventative care and early detections.

    They're not going to ignore a potential issue, because they're on the hook later for it too.

    With insurance tied to employment, they just have to wait till you lose your job and they don't have to keep paying.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    This doesn’t benefit billionaires and or corporations so not important.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago

    A more efficient economy is generally beneficial for billionaires and/or corporations. The majority of the world economy has universal health care (in some shape or form), billionaires and corporations are doing just fine. For example, Switzerland and Sweden have more USD billionaires per capita than the US.

    The primary reason the US doesn't have universal health care is because bribery is legalized and those in whose interests it is to maintain the system - not the rich in general, but specific corporations - have stopped efforts to reform the system.

    A secondary reason is that some GOP (and to a lesser degree Democratic Party) donors, in whose interests it would be to implement universal health care, have funded efforts to stop it because they are stupid and/or evil.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago

    Let's reverse the headline: They are killing 114,000 people to steal 1,000,000,000,000 $ from you. Every year. For decades now.

    Luigi should have been the beginning not the end.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago

    The administration doesn’t want to save lives

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Luckily for Republicans, they don't know the meaning of the word study.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    The goal is not to save people or save government money.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    So… you’re saying that Medicare for All would remove $1T from the economy? Can’t have that now, can we?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah, but the administration wants to kill people.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Save lives, why would rump and friends want to do that? It’s not like they’re trying to get people to have kids or anything. /s

  • source