Does National Health Care Really Work?

[Kasz216]

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.

You would think this too... but New York has one of the worst Medicaid programs in the US.  Land density is a problem... but government competency is an even bigger problem.

With only two parties and not even an extra "half" party to rig things... there is no accountability.  Since most states are pure red or pure blue... if you get in... your set.  Unless you kill someone or have an affair or cheat on your taxes.

Our government can't accomplish anything as efficently as other countries because republicans and democrats by in large don't have to do anything to keep their jobs but cling to their blind ideologies.  Even if they're failed and faulted (as both are) they'll still keep getting reelected because that's all there is.

There is no motivation except for a few people that are self motivated... and they're mostly just self motivated because they like being in power.