Quote:
Originally Posted by surftheiop
The ironic thing is that the "socialized" countries do a better job of this than we do. Our goverment spends a greater amount of its tax revenue on healthcare than countries that have UHC.
US spends 18.5% of government revenue on healthcare, while Germany, Sweden, France, the UK, Australia, Canada, Japan all spend a lower percent of government revenue on healthcare.
Additionally our healthcare costs are 16% of our GDP while all those other countries are under 11%.
For the full comparative chart scroll to the bottom of this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
There is no way the US political climate is going to let old folks go without healthcare if they haven't saved up, and as soon as we cover old people, its way more efficient to go for full UHC as demonstrated by those stats. |
Did your read the article I linked on Singapore?
FWIW I think that what the US has proven is that the worst possible system is to be half government insurance, half free market. When the government insures everyone then you cover everyone and healthcare costs way,way too much. In the free market some people don't get covered but the free market makes care affordable for most and sustainable in the long run. When half your population is covered by government insurance the half that is covered is enough to make healthcare cost way, way too much, which puts healthcare out of reach of a lot of the other half. We need less or more government. I vote for less, since I think federal health care is well on its way to bankrupting Europe and the US..