NKAJ said:
Kasz216 said:
NKAJ said:
ironman said:
Well, hopefully the senate has the brains to say no. Canada is just one example of how horrible the universal health-care is. Look at Great Britain...oh and how about our very own Medicare and Medicaid. Any time government gets involved, well, it's like constipation, bloated and painful, with no benefits whatsoever. |
sorry coudnt agree less...america is the only "wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of insurance).America still psends the most amount of money per person on health
|
And we're passing a bill that will probably raise that amount... so... I don't see how it's going to help that.
http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/press-release/economist-says-healthcare-reform-bill-will-raise-spending-20-percent-gdp-%E2%80%98much-2017%E2%80%99
Which is the issue. Government run healthcare will actually cost us even mroe when it comes to healthcare spending as apart of GDP. America spends more then europe despite not having a universal system because America is a lot different then europe in many ways.
|
yeah but surely this money is actually going to help far more people? so the spendingper person will go down? or i am just making a hole for myself
|
Cost per GDP is spending per person.
Healthcare costs include hospital bills and the like.
Some people will pay less.
Some people will pay more.
Some people who paid nothing because it didn't make sense for them to have healthcare will pay a lot more.
Overall the country will spend more.
More people will be covered by health insurance... yet we'll be spending more as a country instead of less.
It's not like even uninsured people don't get healthcare now anwyay though. The widely used numbers of people who die "because they don't have healthcare" are generally a myth made up by bad statistics. Where they compare the uninsured and insured death rates. Not noting that the poor die more then the rich in every country in high percentages. Even in the UK with equal treatment a poor person is like, I want to say is like 50%+ more likely to die of any treatment.
In the end, a lot less people are going to be helped then people think. Really, if we're going to spend a trillion dollars. Using it to improve the health and wealth of the poor instead of the healthcare of the poor would be a much more viable option and be more likely to save money.
