The idea is for the government to spend that $20k/year somehow (and hopefully get a big discount by buying in bulk). Spending that much on countless homeless people, and turning a large fraction of them into productive citizens, isn't "vile" at all: it would make the homeless people much happier for one thing, but would also save the rest of society a lot of money by not having to deal with the negative effects of their homelessness, plus increase the GDP and thus the tax base, easily paying for itself.

I don't think that's what they were advocating, the way I read it they were saying that people should spend that money on themselves and neglected the idea of people who couldn't afford it. But yeah if the idea is for the government to lift people out of poverty that's great we just haven't seen much of that in this country, or at least not as much as I think we could practically afford.

I wasn't really advocating anything, just pointing out that the math works.

Who might pay the $20k of course varies a lot, depending on the health care system.

One thing I've learned over the years is to not try "reading between the lines" to suss out what people are "really saying". It's just too error prone, and you rarely end up communicating.

>the way I read it they were saying that people should spend that money on themselves

I would think it's plainly obvious that schizophrenic homeless people don't have $20k to spend on anything, so I didn't interpret it that way.

Fact is, government run public health does look at numbers at the end of the day. A medicine that increases "value" (however you define that) more than it costs is more likely to get gov funding.

Turning away from the elephant in the room because it is "vile" doesn't help anyone and just entrenches the status quo.

You're looking at this in a very American Centric way, a lot of other countries figure out how medicines for very low costs. When that happens the numbers change a lot.

I'm from one of those other countries. Yes, its not as insane as america, but budgets and cost vs value tradeoffs are still a thing.

Drugs cost money to develop whether you like it or not, the only question is how exactly the money flows.

If it was taxpayer funded research it would still cost this much.

Making a public policy argument for subsidizing a helpful medical intervention isn't "disgusting and vile".

> Making healthcare a for-profit venture guarantees that poor people suffer disproportionately.

This is true of literally every industry; the poor always get less than the rich. Why not nationalize everything so that the poor always get the same as the rich? Surely if the government can run healthcare it can run toy shops and grocery stores.

Correct, this does happen in every industry. But industries are not created equal. Some are really important, and some are just kind of there.

A kid not getting a toy is sad, but it's not the end of the world. However, healthcare is literally life or death. It makes complete sense to single out healthcare.

Healthcare being life or death is why we should do anything but depend on the government to be the sole option for its administration.

This doesn't align with real-world statistics. Public options like the UK's NHS provide a higher quality of care, for a lower cost, and they're quicker in emergencies.

This isn't just the NHS, however. Virtually every developed nation's public option, because pretty much all but the US have them, outpaces the US in virtually any metric you can choose.

Not only do we pay much, much more, but we also get lower quality care. We also get slower care. We also get more extreme care.

The core issue with the private sector is they have absolutely zero incentive to provide good care. If they're smart, they should provide suboptimal care and unnecessary care - that way they can get more money in the long run.

The "free market" is not the magic bandaid to fix everything on planet Earth. You HAVE to think about incentives. What will the free market actually do here? Even a cursory, naive analysis will show the free market should promote sickness because sick people don't have options. This doesn't delve into insurance, which quite literally has an incentive to not give out treatment.

We have seen more than 100 other countries nationalize healthcare and seen it work well. Arguing against it is silly, bordering on irrational.

Capitalism simply doesn't work in an environment where one side has infinite leverage.

Even those countries, it is still a for profit verture. Companies are paid for products, Doctors and healthcare professionals are paid to go to work.

These other countries didn't nationalize their industries. They simply use spending controls. The government says we "will pay $X and you can take it or leave it". The US is rather rare in that we say "We will take it no matter the cost".

Companies are more or less greedy in different countries. They are the same companies!

By this logic anything that involves money ever is a for-profit venture, that clearly isn't the case.

Most human labor IS motivated by profit.

There can be specific individuals or organizations that seek no profit, but they are almost always working with and through other for profit entities.

To say something like an entire industry should be nonprofit is pie in the sky, which is what I am trying to highlight.

Overly broad moral sentiments like people should not seek profit when it comes to healthcare quickly break down when examined in any detail.

I think What people usually mean is simply that they think health insurance should be funded by taxes and accessible to all. Instead of simply saying this, they end up justifying it with overly broad and poorly thought out moral laws.