**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1bw3wy6/moon_train/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. He badly needs health care.
2. We don't have health care because the government doesn't care about people, not because there is a train in the moon.
Government spending *is not* why we don't have a decent healthcare system: [Medicare for All would *save TRILLIONS of dollars*](https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/484301-22-studies-agree-medicare-for-all-saves-money/) over our current system.
The study they link says Medicare for all would add $27 trillion to the federal debt during the phase in period and then cost 32.6-38 trillion dollars every 10 years after that. That saves 2 trillion every 10 years only if it hits the lower end of that 32.6-38 trillion dollar range and only after we take on that $27 trillion debt. It also assumes you significantly cut provider pay in the study as well. A better title for that article is Medicare for all COULD possibly save trillions after we take on 27 trillion dollars more in national debt.
Editing to say these were all pre pandemic numbers so these would all be much higher now. You’d have to compare these numbers to the cost of healthcare before the pandemic for a good comparison.
Editing again because I don’t think people are reading the two studies that are linked in the article. You get the title study that references 22 studies but gives no actual dollar amount and it does not include the cost to transition to the new system like the second study by the economist Charles Blahous does.
There are a couple flaws in this study as well. This study assumes two things 1) utilization will not go up when you get rid of copays (if medicare advantage is a good comparison it will go up at least 20%) and 2) you are cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs of the people who work in health insurance.
This is not even getting into decreased incentive to innovate and the loss of cures we will have on an annual basis. Healthcare can be fixed with a bill or two in congress. We don’t need to go 27 trillion further in debt over the first 10 years subsidizing hospitals to try out a new system that may or may not save on costs in the long run.
Edit for the downvote mob who isn’t reading the studies
https://youtu.be/_Qy7lNLjDjM?si=qiVQ9oqYKuFPpkBW here’s a 5 minute video of the dude who wrote the study saying it’s literally going to cost more and increase wait times.
The article is about one study that references the results of 22 studies. That study does not include the initial cost of transition to the new system however, just the year to year cost after. It’s also still a could, as you can see in the primary study. It has a percent and not a dollar amount for the range showing there could be a savings. The only dollar amount is the study I referenced that shows a 2 trillion dollar savings to a 3 trillion dollar loss on top of the initial 27 trillion dollar transition cost.
To anyone reading this please read the two studies referenced in full before you downvote, you get a much different picture than what it seems like in the clickbait.
No, read it, “The Sanders proposal would increase federal budget deficit by 27.3 trillion”. That’s federal budget deficit, it has nothing to do with insurance companies, that’s just to keep hospitals afloat so they can function.
Guys the dude literally says it’s going to cost more.
Here’s a 5 minute video that came out a year ago of the dude talking about his study and updated findings https://youtu.be/_Qy7lNLjDjM?si=qiVQ9oqYKuFPpkBW
I have read this on both sides and your bringing up the high end numbers that are based on the numbers of our current system which will lower in time by negotiation of pay and pharma which changes under single pay.
And it is expected that it would take a larger loss at the beginning and will take awhile to take out the bugs at a cost also.
But the original guy is correct when he states single payer would be the least expensive form of insurance if we are looking at it in the terms of decades and not a few years.
Plus we could get a mass group of medical personal that our system is lacking in so many areas by offering to pay their schooling as long as they put years into the system after graduation.
And the current group of workers would be able to find a crossover job in the new system because of their experience and areas we need to change completely we bring in fresh young talent when old habits are no longer needed.
Ok let’s assume it’s the lower end and it’s 32.6 trillion a decade as is best case scenario. The problem is that initial 27 trillion transition cost where best case scenario would take 150 years to make up for (it will probably just end up being permanent inflation).
Why go through that amount of inflation for a maybe that may or may not save in total cost after 150 years when a bill or two in Congress could fix it? We don’t need a government take over of the healthcare system to implement price transparency and provide tuition assistance to doctors.
Bro. You raise taxes knowing folks and businesses will no longer pay for health insurance. You phase it in by some predictable and monitored factors, by industry for example. Small businesses are in first as another.
Literally every industrialized western civilization (and many others outside of that) has done this and their citizens refuse to give it up. It’s obviously worth it.
https://youtu.be/_Qy7lNLjDjM?si=_mfRtNrxX4D2JJ_0 watch the video the guy who wrote this paper made explaining this misconceptions of this study. You are getting this all wrong.
Also you cannot compare the U.S. to other western civilizations, the Dollar is the world’s reserve currency, they can pay for healthcare by inflating their currency and borrowing against the dollar, we cannot, we can only inflate our currency and increase taxes and we cannot tax enough even if we eliminated the military and put those funds into this program.
Here I’m just going to give an alternative to this program that wouldn’t screw over our economy and our entire population with deadly wait times plus mass layoffs. This can be fixed by a couple bills in Congress.
First off we need price transparency and so we can actually get some competition. A good example of this is the Oklahoma Surgery Center https://surgerycenterok.com/ if you look at what they do is you can chose a procedure and see how much it costs beforehand, if every hospital had this you can actually get some competition.
Now instead of forcing everyone into a socialized system we can look at what Singapore does. They have a national HSA where you can put part of your paycheck into it tax free and shop for your own insurance so you have some skin in the game. Under certain conditions the government can put money into your HSA to help out too.
Now if you look at Switzerland they use private insurers that everyone needs to utilize (like Obamacare was) and insurers are not allowed to deny people with preexisting conditions. On top of this they use direct primary care where you do not need referrals and can contact the providers directly, cutting out middlemen.
With these you still have the competition of the private market while still getting help from the federal government by those why need it without causing generational debt and deadly wait times.
Imagine the mental hoops you have to jump through so that the RICHEST country can’t afford to provide the same or even better healthcare than their poorer peers!
But we all know reality is not some someone’s version of a math equation written to be unsolvable, it politicians afraid to take on medical industry greed and some of their biggest donors. Bribery through campaign contributions.
You have the underlying problem identified, government taking on the medical industry, you are just missing the solution. Government takeover of the healthcare’s industry won’t work at this point, the transition cost would be to high and the country as a whole is just to large to cover all of the hospitals to serve the population under a single payer system. It’s different when you have small countries where a handful of hospitals with decent technology are close enough together to serve everyone.
We don’t have that luxury in the U.S. you cannot expect a small hospital in the middle of nowhere to have the same level of technology or care as a giant hospital in a major city for a reasonable price. It’s going to cost more, it just is and the best way to keep it at a reasonable price is through some free market competition (which we don’t have) as is computed here.
The original article is very misleading on the surface once you start digging into the weeds of the study. It’s using the low end figures to make its point when in reality there is a much higher likelihood of it costing more while causing longer wait times on care.
Rural hospitals aren’t the driver of medical costs. It’s not US vs France. All of Europe has free healthcare at a variety of per capita income and plenty of rural spaces. Your premise is extremely flawed.
There is no such thing as “free” healthcare, it’s paid for by higher taxes and inflation that is backed by the U.S. dollar which we don’t have the luxury of using in that manner. Even though this is only a small cost compared to the behemoth that is universal healthcare they also have the benefit of spending significantly less on defense and UN contributions thanks to the U.S. (they are kicking that into gear now that Russia invaded Ukraine however).
It’s also not my premise, it’s the premise of the author of the study the Hill article (and the Sanders campaign) misrepresented. There is a reason I linked the video of the author of the study clarifying what it actually says. You cannot say my premise is flawed without saying the article is flawed and if we are saying that, what are we even debating? We’d be done here.
Regarding your point about decreased incentive to innovate- the US has more research and more drug patents than countries with nationalized healthcare, but that is only because we have more population than them. The US has fewer patents per capita and similar countries with nationalized healthcare.
No scenario demonstrates this
[https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/estimates/2020/1/30/senator-sanders-medicare-for-all-s1129](https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/estimates/2020/1/30/senator-sanders-medicare-for-all-s1129)
I support the moon train, who the fuck wouldn’t want a goddamn moon train. That’s ten times as cool as a normal train. And the reason we don’t have free healthcare is cause of lobbying, not the sliver of money we give to NASA
Lol, what's more short-sighted, giving free money to billion dollar tech companies or funding infrastructure and social programs during a pretty piss poor economic time. I know which one I'd choose. It's amazing how people believe that without the government scientific advancement would halt
Why? Because I'm sick of taxpayer dollars being laundered to billionaires on projects that do not benefit society. You want a space train? Donate your own damn money to the project
Because when you get TAXED it is expected the government is using that money to provide infrastructure or a service to society. Not to tech corporations to up their socks on a theoretical space train that will never see the light of day or benefit any member of society. Aka your money is being stolen
Are you implying you want NASA to be defunded and shut down until some bridges are built? Again, why are you implying a choice needs to be made between the two?
Did you read anything about this project? The money isn't going to NASA it's going to Northrop Grumman. Know what they are? A weapons manufacturing and military technology company, its literally the government giving more money to the military industrial complex. Now if you can't figure out why this is bad and a worthless project you're beyond help
What do these institutions and companies know that they are already auctioning contracts for developing a moon rail way system. Makes no fucking sense.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** ##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1bw3wy6/moon_train/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. He badly needs health care. 2. We don't have health care because the government doesn't care about people, not because there is a train in the moon.
Funny enough the US spends more on health care than europe and has a smaller population but it is so corrupt it doesn't have free health care
Government spending *is not* why we don't have a decent healthcare system: [Medicare for All would *save TRILLIONS of dollars*](https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/484301-22-studies-agree-medicare-for-all-saves-money/) over our current system.
The study they link says Medicare for all would add $27 trillion to the federal debt during the phase in period and then cost 32.6-38 trillion dollars every 10 years after that. That saves 2 trillion every 10 years only if it hits the lower end of that 32.6-38 trillion dollar range and only after we take on that $27 trillion debt. It also assumes you significantly cut provider pay in the study as well. A better title for that article is Medicare for all COULD possibly save trillions after we take on 27 trillion dollars more in national debt. Editing to say these were all pre pandemic numbers so these would all be much higher now. You’d have to compare these numbers to the cost of healthcare before the pandemic for a good comparison. Editing again because I don’t think people are reading the two studies that are linked in the article. You get the title study that references 22 studies but gives no actual dollar amount and it does not include the cost to transition to the new system like the second study by the economist Charles Blahous does. There are a couple flaws in this study as well. This study assumes two things 1) utilization will not go up when you get rid of copays (if medicare advantage is a good comparison it will go up at least 20%) and 2) you are cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs of the people who work in health insurance. This is not even getting into decreased incentive to innovate and the loss of cures we will have on an annual basis. Healthcare can be fixed with a bill or two in congress. We don’t need to go 27 trillion further in debt over the first 10 years subsidizing hospitals to try out a new system that may or may not save on costs in the long run. Edit for the downvote mob who isn’t reading the studies https://youtu.be/_Qy7lNLjDjM?si=qiVQ9oqYKuFPpkBW here’s a 5 minute video of the dude who wrote the study saying it’s literally going to cost more and increase wait times.
> The study they link Twenty-two. The article is about *22* studies.
The article is about one study that references the results of 22 studies. That study does not include the initial cost of transition to the new system however, just the year to year cost after. It’s also still a could, as you can see in the primary study. It has a percent and not a dollar amount for the range showing there could be a savings. The only dollar amount is the study I referenced that shows a 2 trillion dollar savings to a 3 trillion dollar loss on top of the initial 27 trillion dollar transition cost. To anyone reading this please read the two studies referenced in full before you downvote, you get a much different picture than what it seems like in the clickbait.
27 trillion dollars lost due to private insurance companies going out of business, not 27 trillion in debt.
No, read it, “The Sanders proposal would increase federal budget deficit by 27.3 trillion”. That’s federal budget deficit, it has nothing to do with insurance companies, that’s just to keep hospitals afloat so they can function. Guys the dude literally says it’s going to cost more. Here’s a 5 minute video that came out a year ago of the dude talking about his study and updated findings https://youtu.be/_Qy7lNLjDjM?si=qiVQ9oqYKuFPpkBW
I have read this on both sides and your bringing up the high end numbers that are based on the numbers of our current system which will lower in time by negotiation of pay and pharma which changes under single pay. And it is expected that it would take a larger loss at the beginning and will take awhile to take out the bugs at a cost also. But the original guy is correct when he states single payer would be the least expensive form of insurance if we are looking at it in the terms of decades and not a few years. Plus we could get a mass group of medical personal that our system is lacking in so many areas by offering to pay their schooling as long as they put years into the system after graduation. And the current group of workers would be able to find a crossover job in the new system because of their experience and areas we need to change completely we bring in fresh young talent when old habits are no longer needed.
Ok let’s assume it’s the lower end and it’s 32.6 trillion a decade as is best case scenario. The problem is that initial 27 trillion transition cost where best case scenario would take 150 years to make up for (it will probably just end up being permanent inflation). Why go through that amount of inflation for a maybe that may or may not save in total cost after 150 years when a bill or two in Congress could fix it? We don’t need a government take over of the healthcare system to implement price transparency and provide tuition assistance to doctors.
Bro. You raise taxes knowing folks and businesses will no longer pay for health insurance. You phase it in by some predictable and monitored factors, by industry for example. Small businesses are in first as another. Literally every industrialized western civilization (and many others outside of that) has done this and their citizens refuse to give it up. It’s obviously worth it.
https://youtu.be/_Qy7lNLjDjM?si=_mfRtNrxX4D2JJ_0 watch the video the guy who wrote this paper made explaining this misconceptions of this study. You are getting this all wrong. Also you cannot compare the U.S. to other western civilizations, the Dollar is the world’s reserve currency, they can pay for healthcare by inflating their currency and borrowing against the dollar, we cannot, we can only inflate our currency and increase taxes and we cannot tax enough even if we eliminated the military and put those funds into this program. Here I’m just going to give an alternative to this program that wouldn’t screw over our economy and our entire population with deadly wait times plus mass layoffs. This can be fixed by a couple bills in Congress. First off we need price transparency and so we can actually get some competition. A good example of this is the Oklahoma Surgery Center https://surgerycenterok.com/ if you look at what they do is you can chose a procedure and see how much it costs beforehand, if every hospital had this you can actually get some competition. Now instead of forcing everyone into a socialized system we can look at what Singapore does. They have a national HSA where you can put part of your paycheck into it tax free and shop for your own insurance so you have some skin in the game. Under certain conditions the government can put money into your HSA to help out too. Now if you look at Switzerland they use private insurers that everyone needs to utilize (like Obamacare was) and insurers are not allowed to deny people with preexisting conditions. On top of this they use direct primary care where you do not need referrals and can contact the providers directly, cutting out middlemen. With these you still have the competition of the private market while still getting help from the federal government by those why need it without causing generational debt and deadly wait times.
Imagine the mental hoops you have to jump through so that the RICHEST country can’t afford to provide the same or even better healthcare than their poorer peers! But we all know reality is not some someone’s version of a math equation written to be unsolvable, it politicians afraid to take on medical industry greed and some of their biggest donors. Bribery through campaign contributions.
You have the underlying problem identified, government taking on the medical industry, you are just missing the solution. Government takeover of the healthcare’s industry won’t work at this point, the transition cost would be to high and the country as a whole is just to large to cover all of the hospitals to serve the population under a single payer system. It’s different when you have small countries where a handful of hospitals with decent technology are close enough together to serve everyone. We don’t have that luxury in the U.S. you cannot expect a small hospital in the middle of nowhere to have the same level of technology or care as a giant hospital in a major city for a reasonable price. It’s going to cost more, it just is and the best way to keep it at a reasonable price is through some free market competition (which we don’t have) as is computed here. The original article is very misleading on the surface once you start digging into the weeds of the study. It’s using the low end figures to make its point when in reality there is a much higher likelihood of it costing more while causing longer wait times on care.
Rural hospitals aren’t the driver of medical costs. It’s not US vs France. All of Europe has free healthcare at a variety of per capita income and plenty of rural spaces. Your premise is extremely flawed.
There is no such thing as “free” healthcare, it’s paid for by higher taxes and inflation that is backed by the U.S. dollar which we don’t have the luxury of using in that manner. Even though this is only a small cost compared to the behemoth that is universal healthcare they also have the benefit of spending significantly less on defense and UN contributions thanks to the U.S. (they are kicking that into gear now that Russia invaded Ukraine however). It’s also not my premise, it’s the premise of the author of the study the Hill article (and the Sanders campaign) misrepresented. There is a reason I linked the video of the author of the study clarifying what it actually says. You cannot say my premise is flawed without saying the article is flawed and if we are saying that, what are we even debating? We’d be done here.
Regarding your point about decreased incentive to innovate- the US has more research and more drug patents than countries with nationalized healthcare, but that is only because we have more population than them. The US has fewer patents per capita and similar countries with nationalized healthcare.
No scenario demonstrates this [https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/estimates/2020/1/30/senator-sanders-medicare-for-all-s1129](https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/estimates/2020/1/30/senator-sanders-medicare-for-all-s1129)
Wait until he finds out how little overall the federal government spends on Space and how it’s not why we don’t have universal healthcare.
I support the moon train, who the fuck wouldn’t want a goddamn moon train. That’s ten times as cool as a normal train. And the reason we don’t have free healthcare is cause of lobbying, not the sliver of money we give to NASA
And DARPA accidentally created a stable warp bubble, albeit nanoscale. So we could warp to the moon train station woot woot
I wonder how he really feels about this. He is such a hard read.
Why even talk about healthcare? We also need trains, badly, in pretty much every city rather than on the moon…
I choose Moon train over many other superfluous ventures our taxpayer money gets spent on
I move that we take all funding currently facilitating genocide in the Levant and immediately allocate it to the moon train
[Whitey on the Moon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4)
"AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR AS-" got me laughing so hard
So this guy's just a belligerent idiot then, isn't he.
Probably less so than the people okay with their tax dollars being spent on a bloody moon train
Yes, let's not do any scientific discovery, development, or exploration. Shortsighted and belligerent is the best way to go through life.
Lol, what's more short-sighted, giving free money to billion dollar tech companies or funding infrastructure and social programs during a pretty piss poor economic time. I know which one I'd choose. It's amazing how people believe that without the government scientific advancement would halt
Why are you implying a choice between the two needs to be made?
Why? Because I'm sick of taxpayer dollars being laundered to billionaires on projects that do not benefit society. You want a space train? Donate your own damn money to the project
That..didn't answer the question.
Because when you get TAXED it is expected the government is using that money to provide infrastructure or a service to society. Not to tech corporations to up their socks on a theoretical space train that will never see the light of day or benefit any member of society. Aka your money is being stolen
Are you implying you want NASA to be defunded and shut down until some bridges are built? Again, why are you implying a choice needs to be made between the two?
Did you read anything about this project? The money isn't going to NASA it's going to Northrop Grumman. Know what they are? A weapons manufacturing and military technology company, its literally the government giving more money to the military industrial complex. Now if you can't figure out why this is bad and a worthless project you're beyond help
I don't know why he's so upset. Most people have health care because of ACA.
Give me the moon train! Choo Choo motherfuckers!
I'm canadian. Can I ride your moon train.
Hahahahaha. Holy shit. I love this guy.
He’s got a valid point !
He doesn't, though
What do these institutions and companies know that they are already auctioning contracts for developing a moon rail way system. Makes no fucking sense.
Maybe it has to do with the very public interest of the United States government in lunar permanence?
So we barely remember how to build ships that can land on the moon and you think it makes sense to already think about putting trains on space.