| sc94597 said: The argument is that there is a diseconomies of scale in providing for 320 million people versus a few million (Canada's single-payer is funded on the provincial level.) If this weren't the case, then Canada would have a national system, which it does not. Americans spend more on healthcare because they demand luxury care (amazing ly comfortable hospitals; end of life care ; etc.) Single-payer systems don't provide this, and it is hard to imagine a national single-payer system which would provide all of the various drugs and benefits needed in the same way that competing insurance companies would. Multi payer in the vein of Switzerland or the Netherlands seems like the way to go. |
You make it sound as if a National healthcare system erodes healthcare quality. It doesn't. I work in the health industry as a Carer looking after the Disabled, Sick and Elderly. I can assure you it's modern, high-quality care. I got a new, modern hostpital for instance:
The USA falters in most of the important statistics. While being more expensive.
The "Higher population" argument is also an invalid one. The costs are done on a per-capita basis, if anything a larger population with a larger amount of patients should give the USA an advantage in the cost statistics, if you have such a large proprtion of the population not paying anything and not accessing your healthcare system, then the per-capita costs are likely higher than the 2.5x of the OECD average for those that are actually paying and using it.
And even if you combined multiple large countries, it still works out superior to that of the US of A.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
