Does National Health Care Really Work?

[hsrob]

highwaystar101 said:

tombi123 said:

TheRealMafoo said:

I looked up some numbers, and the UK in 2009 will spend 111 billion on healthcare. There GDP is 1,439 billion.

So the cost will be 7.7% of GDP. It also equates to around $1,800 per person, for every person.

Due to the UK being a small land mass, with most of its people living in close proximity, they can be far more efficient then we can. If we were even close to them at $2,500 a person in expenses (good luck with that), that would be 750 billion a year in costs.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_health_care_budget_2009_1.html#ukgs302G0

 

To reduce land mass and increase efficiency, couldn't you do it state by state?

 

I think it's the density of the states that is the issue. In some densely populated states like New Jersey it would be easy because you can build hospitals in centers of high density easily, the same way you would in england. Where as in places like Alaska where the population is sparse a nationalised healthcare system, or any system for that, would be quite unaffective.

It certainly makes things much harder but Australia faces this same problem.  90% of the population is in urban areas, but that still leaves the remaining 2 million people dispersed across the other 6+million square km.  We have the Royal Flying Doctor service, which has 56 planes that cover the remoter regions of Australia.  They provide first aid and evacuation for people requiring more intensive medical care.