No, I don’t hate the message, it’s nonsense, I don’t care about you individually either. As I said, big numbers don’t scare me, and I won’t even bother posting links of different studies using different assumptions. Change, for example, the assumptions on taxes, or improvements in inefficiency within the system, and the end result changes. Assumptions on economic and wage growth would do so too. The present healthcare system will cost this country about 100 trillion over the next few decades. We would spend less, trillions less, if we had single payer. The size of the US economy over that time period (the “infinite horizon”) will be thousands of trillions of dollars. You want to scare people with big numbers without putting anything into context. The costs of existing programs are entirely manageable; we could easily do more than we are doing. If you want to argue that we will literally not have enough natural resources to do particular things, go ahead, but that is a separate argument.
This is from your own article. The propaganda here is too obvious, “The fiscal gap is the present value of all projected future expenditures less the present value of all projected future taxes. The fiscal gap is calculated over the infinite horizon. But since future expenditures and taxes far off in the future are being discounted, their contribution to the fiscal gap is smaller the farther out one goes. The $210 trillion figure is based on the Congressional Budget Office’s July 2014 Alternative Fiscal Scenario projections, which I extended beyond their 75-year horizon.”
Okay, so let’s play this game of yours. The present healthcare system, the privatized, inefficient train wreck that it is, will cost 49 trillion over the next decade. Let’s assume no growth in the costs of the system in real terms, how much would the system cost in over the next 75 years? Again, being generous and very basic in my assumptions, how much would the system cost over the next 75 years (I won’t even “extend beyond their 75-year horizon”)? 367.5 trillion! How much would single payer cost using the same assumptions? 240 trillion. That’s a 127.5 trillion-dollar gap. Boo! And I have really conservative assumptions there and didn’t extend it beyond 75 years. What are the costs of doing little, the state that is, in regards to the environmental crisis over the “infinite horizon”? What cost would you attach to our species going away and society collapsing? See how this is done? And the fiscal gap, by the way, is the amount of money that the government is leaving in the private economy. The fiscal gap is the state leaving more money in the non-public sector. Even if we were to reduce that, where in the non-public sector would that come from? I will anticipate your response, not from the oligarchy, rentier interests and the like. Fight the power!
“I understand. The defense of a Socialist State is an impossible task. My condolences.”
Please, you think far too highly of yourself. Obviously, I was struggling with how to respond to your mountain of bullshit. Silly ass.
“I suppose you’re right. A country that wages endless war, stole the land from the indigenous peoples, was founded on slavery and is run by corrupt kleptocrats would never do anything as dishonorable as default on its debts. I stand corrected”
What in the hell does that stuff have to do with the government paying its debts? All of that has been true to this point, the government is still here and its debt is still accepted. Try a better response FightCommonSense.