| the-pi-guy said: Except it wouldn't. Because people would latch onto anything that would prove what they want about the system. Here's a made up example (made up numbers): Let's say New York currently spends $500 billion in healthcare across all private and public facilities. There are currently 1 million people that are uninsured out of about 20 million. Expense per person goes from $26,316 down to $25,500. People that don't want this system will argue that it's costing more money, and they'd be right. People that do want this system will argue that it's costing the average family, less money. And they'd also be right. They realize that those million people are also bringing in more money. These things aren't all that clear cut. Even when they are, there would still be people arguing that it's evil or |
Well wouldn't that mean that those million people don't see the value in having health insurance ? Insurance can only work on the basis that the unfortunate few is subsidized by the larger customer pool ...
Disregarding all of that I still wonder why democratic strongholds like California and New York which are one of the 3 most populous states haven't tried passing a motion for state subsidized healthcare program yet when these are the states with the most ideal conditions for attempting a policy experiment that are consistently stated to have numerous multiple ideal conditions such as a large patient pool and the fact that they are one of the higher income states per capita so what's the hold up ? I can maybe understand New York since democrats don't have a majority in the state senate but California on the other hand they have a clear super majority in both of it's state legislative chambers to do nearly whatever they want yet it's so intriguing that they also won't try since out of the two states California is the more important state to experiment with the idea which would send a bigger message ...
