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

This puts Republicans in a tough position, because they understand economics and know that the private system will not be as efficient as the public system, and that the private system could never reach any goals that they could reasonably propose the to public.

What? Is that bolded part a joke?

The problem is the private system will be far more efficient then the public system...

The United States healthcare system is not as efficient as the healthcare systems of other developed countries.  For instance, the United Kingdom pays three times less for healthcare than the United States, and there is no way America's private system could bring costs down that low while still covering the entire population.  Before you say anything, because I know you will, the United Kingdom has private hospitals and, even if you were to argue that their public hospitals are slow, they could build three times as many hospitals and hire three times as many doctors and blow the United States out of the water if they wanted to waste that much money.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_tot_per_cap-care-funding-total-per-capita

We are not talking about the UK, we are talking about the US. The US government is not as efficient as the UK. Plus size does matter. The larger you get, the less efficient you are.

Tell me one thing the US government is more efficient on then the private sector?

In the US, 20% of all the insured is covered under a government plan. They pay as much to insure them, as the private sector pays to insure the other 80%. Yes, the 20% they cover are higher cost, but most of those 20% have private insurance as well.