ManusJustus on 08 September 2009
| highwaystar101 said: AnywayI've been thinking about this and models you could relate the USA system too. Yes the NHS costs £98Bn ($162Bn) and that covers a population that is around 5 to 6 times smaller than the USA over a much smaller land area that results in a far higher population density. The UK would be a bad model for the USA to adopt in this case as it would lead to an inefficient healthcare system. If a study is to be conducted to find an existing model that would closely resemble what a good USA social healthcare plan would be then the logical choice would be Australia as it bears far more resemblance. It has a population that is sparsely spread out over a large area, with some areas of high population density which is similar to USA, and the government probably has a roughly a similar rate of efficiency as the USA. |
The United States pays twice as much for healthcare as Australia does (per capita).
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_tot_per_cap-care-funding-total-per-capita
The United States, Great Britain, and Australia are very similar countries in regards to economics, government, and society, yet somehow America pays a huge amount more for healthcare than they do.
