Hacker News Reader

Comment by garbawarb | Hacker News Reader

That would be a massive hit to our GDP.

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.

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.

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.

Some would, but some would just put that money into savings and investments instead.

From a retirement standpoint I keep hearing that not enough Americans are saving for retirement, so this would still be a win for me.

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com