By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Aeolus451 said:
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. 

The government has the ability to impose price control and it already does to a very great extent with Medicare.  There is no reason why we can't do it here.  There is no reason why we can't lower costs.  There is no reason why we can cut waste.  Europe isn't evil you know.  They do it to take care of their people.  There is always some motive with the folks who don't want people to get care or to save money.  That is the real evil holding us back.  Some people, especially conservatives in the US are programmed by politicians to think a certain way and its alarming how fast they bow down to them.   Liberals have similar issues but Conservatives have mastered the ability to get their followers to fight against their own self interest tooth and nail.   Libs aren't quite there yet.