ManusJustus said:
Kasz216 said:
ManusJustus said:
mrstickball said:
ManusJustus said:
An example of this is healthcare. Not only does government provided healthcare cost less, but government healthcare is also extremely helpful for business. In Europe, a business doenst have to worry about health benefits for employees, but in America all employers pay heavily into benefits, so much so that once flagbearers of our economy like Ford cannot compete with other countries auto industries because they pay so much in health benefits and retirement.
|
Could you give some data to support this claim?
|
See the link I posted, it is a list of total healthcare funding (public and private) per country. The United States is spending way more for healthcare than countires similar to us, like Europe. Quality of healthcare is debatable, but no one could argue that America's healthcare is three times better than the United Kingdom (US pays three times more than they UK).
American businesses pay a large portion of their labor costs in benefits. Ford, for example, owes around $50 billion in benefits to its employees. Having the government provide benefits would be a simple cost cutting measure for Ford, effectively lowering its labor cost.
|
There are no countries similar to us. We are far bigger then any other country out there.
Additionally, our government already spends something like 6% of GDP on healthcare on what few people it covers. If you think there is much savings to be had there... your mistaken. The US government nearly spends what the UK government does per GDP on healthcare... right now.
There is a reason why the success of government programs seems to correlate with the size of the country. The smaller your country, the better nationalized healthcare works.
|
Size does not matter in terms of healthcare (and many other economic factors), the only things that matters in that regard is urban verse rural. Obvioulsy, a country like Luxembourg or Singapore is urban and cannot be compared with a country like the United States or the United Kingdom, but countries that have similar urban and rural characteristics can be compared with each other.
Though you can compare Luxembourg to New York City, and not suprisingly they are similar in many regards.
|
No. Size really does matter. We've hat this argument before... however yes size matters a LOT when it comes to providing globalized healthcare. It needs more layers of bueracracy as you need more and more layers of overseers. To prevent fraud and make sure people are doing their jobs correctly. For example in the UK system decisions are made on a local level of about 150 healtchare councils. These councils need to be watched by people.
Now say you've got over 1,000 healthcare councils. You need like 7 times the people watching them unless you want to overwork them, additionally you need 7 times the people watching them... and you eventually need one guy at top. So your going to end up adding layers. With higher salaries.
Any international comparisons of healthcare systems are completly assinine though. Look at the link in my post directly above this to realize why.
It's funny how research done a decade ago can still be ignored by people. Only interpopulation healthcare studies hold any merit.
