this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
903 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

68244 readers
4073 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who has since moved on to greener and perhaps more dangerous pastures, told an audience of Stanford students recently that “Google decided that work-life balance and going home early and working from home was more important than winning.” Evidently this hot take was not for wider consumption, as Stanford — which posted the video this week on YouTube — today made the video of the event private.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Overall, not without raising taxes though. The money just doesn't stop getting spent by people and appear in the government budget without it.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

If your "taxes" go up by $7 but your health insurance costs go down by $10, why the hell would you care? There are several more dollars in your pocket. Or if you are concerned about tax amount, let's rename current health insurance fees to taxes and we can simply market Medicare for All as a massive tax cut that increases service.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They're deliberately being contrarian. They showed their hand earlier.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

I'm aware. However, it is good exercise and may help others fight ridiculous arguments.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Where does that math come from? I can't think of anything that got more efficient just because the government got involved.

I love the idea of Medicare For All but it should be a choice for people who want it.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The $100+ billion per year comes from an analysis of Sanders' Medicare for All plan by the libertarian think tank Cato Institute. So basically the worst case scenario that is very unlikely.

The $7 tax vs $10 date insurance is hypothetical to make a point. But if you want a real world example, you can compare our largely private system with countries that have socialized systems. 19% of our GDP goes towards healthcare costs vs 11-12% how other developed countries. So if we had something like theirs, most people would get a 10% raise in their income.

It would not be Medicare for All nor a better deal if people could simply opt out. Republicans would simply whittle it down to being worthless otherwise.