| ManusJustus said: Kasz, reread my edited post, specifcally where I talk about economies of scale. Besides, this doesnt even matter to your healthcare debate because we have the choice between a large private firm or a large public organization. Its not like the government is going to replace Mom and Pop hospitals and health insurance agencies. |
Economics of scale doesn't work here. We're talking about jobs and services people provide. Econimics of scale doesn't work on that.
You can have all the stores in the world. You still need to pay managers the same. If you need to add regional managers... in buisness that's made up by profit. Which isn't found here.
Once again... this has to do with you claiming the UK system wouldn't cost anymore here then there.... it would.
If nothing changed about the UK except it were to be multiplied by 7. Their healthcare system would cost far more per GDP then it does now.
You disagree with this... and your wrong.
Economics of scale in general wouldn't help when you have a government monopoly. If the UK got 7 times bigger things wouldn't be cheaper because the government already controls the pricing.
Such a fact completly defeats your comparison. That and the whole culture thing. Since culture is going to GREATLY effect what you need to spend per person to keep said people healthy.
For example, people Roseto would spend less per capita in healthcare because they don't need to be treated as much as the surrounding nearly identical cities.
Also, actual most health insurance does come from "Mom and Pop" sources, so to speak. The government is BY FAR the countries biggest insuerer... and one of the worst rated in just about everything including denied claims on average.
