vivster said:
All I'm reading in this thread is about higher cost for the government. Let's assume for a moment the US is not able to have a long term plan for UHC that's cheaper than the current system. So it's gonna be a bit more expensive. Wouldn't it be alright to increase the cost of a system if that means overall higher coverage? |
It's not a bit more expensive. Blahous mentioned in this report that it would cost the government at least 32 trillion extra and it would cost at least 6 trillion more overall. He said those are low ball figures and they are likely higher. No especially since it would stifle our advancement of meds, tech and medical procedures. It wouldn't end up as a net positive for everyone. In the current system, taxes are low for everyone and anyone just pays for whatever healthcare they want with no rationing.
