[ExI] Single Payer Healthcare

spike spike66 at att.net
Tue Mar 28 14:34:12 UTC 2017



From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 7:10 AM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare


On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:55 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:


​> ​>…I would propose that we estimate what it would cost to have such a system, then as soon as the government is running a surplus at that level for three years in a row, we suggest to congress using that consistent surplus to create such a system. 


​>…But Spike, you're implying such a system would cost the country more, but all indications are ​

​it would cost less than half what we spend now, and we'd get better health care too…


Not at all.  I agree it would cost less.  So here’s the plan: run a three consecutive year surplus of the total cost of healthcare now.  If we achieve that, then use that money to retire as many of those bonds and other loans the government took out now.  Then since we are running a surplus, we start a universal healthcare system that costs less than the surplus, we have money left over to continue retiring the debt we are running up now.  Such a deal!  I’m in.



​> ​>…Using the three previous years of enormous surplus we can at least make a dent in the huge bills we have racked up in the last 20 years.


​>…It hasn't been just the last 20 years, with the exception of the final 3 years of Bill Clinton's administration the USA has run a deficit every year since 1835, and I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell of that streak stopping anytime this side of the Singularity…


Ja you and I agree.  The reason we don’t have a single payer system is that the single payer can’t afford it.  The Federal government has only income taxes as a source of income.  The states on the other hand, can tax anything they want: property, income, sales, whatever they want.  So… fifty payer system.


This would also have the benefit of collectively identifying the system which works best.  States could compare systems and see what works.  Further advantage: states must balance their budgets; the Fed does not and cannot, anytime this side of the Singularity.  Its failure is as foreseeable as the sunrise.  We cannot hand over our healthcare system to that authority.  Furthermore, the Federal government should remove all its regulation entirely from healthcare, and let all that be done at the state government level as well.  Then we get to see what governmental controls work best with 50 individual laboratories working on it.  We would get some workable arrangements out of it.



​>…In a growing economy it would be irresponsible for a government to have a balanced budget, it should run a deficit because in the future when today's debts have to be payed off money will be much cheaper than it is now. And in the years leading to the Singularity the economy will quite certainly be growing…John K Clark


John this is where you and I fundamentally part company.  I do not feel it is morally justifiable to speculate that the future will be richer and it is my solemn responsibility to spend its wealth.  That the future will be more prosperous is my firm belief, but my firm belief might be wrong.  The future might be poor.  It will be very poor we don’t figure out a way to generate low cost energy, then do it.  It will be very poor if we don’t get a handle on wildly growing population, if we don’t figure out a way to control anti-science memes, if we aren’t successful in adapting education, if a lot of things that might well come to pass.  By running big deficits, we might be robbing from the poor to give to the rich.












-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170328/c4e81b22/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list