I don't understand why we always pay attention to only the jobs side of decisions like this. Why is the main concern always preserving existing jobs? The extreme version of that is obviously silly. The savings is real and lowers prices, increasing social mobility and spending elsewhere. How many people are locked out of moving for a job that matches them better, or taking some training for a better job and so on just because of medical debt leaving them no flexibility? And if we could save that trillion by eliminating jobs, doesn't that kind of imply those jobs (or at least the system requiring them) were terrible allocation of human capital?

▲

GuB-42 a day ago | parent [-]

I am not saying it is a bad thing. What I am saying is that when we are talking about trillions we are talking big changes, and big change doesn't come without suffering, and people don't like suffering.

Usually big change doesn't happen without a catastrophic event, like a war, a coup, or an economic crisis, or maybe more optimistically, a technical or scientific breakthrough. So when an article mentions trillions without hinting at such an event, to me, it is incomplete, or wrong.

The French revolution would be an extreme example. It is a win for freedom and democracy, but the period following it is called "the reign of terror", for good reasons.

▲

SpaceNoodled a day ago | parent | next [-]

Americans are already suffering under the broken healthcare system. Overall suffering would decrease as a result.

	▲	secabeen 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, but it's a different group of Americans, and the ones who are currently thriving in this broken system will fight tooth and nail to preserve their way of life.

▲

chermi a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I see. But I think that's kind of the same diffuse vs. visible problem that underlies a lot of impedents to progress. The jobs thing is one example. We focus on one set of workers because we can picture being in their position. We can't internalize and "feel" the diffuse but greater benefit of a more efficient healthcare system, which I'm 100% would be a net positive, just spread out over the whole population.

I don't know the solution, but do you agree that the problem is basically one of individuals not being able to accurately model the tradeoffs in their head?