3 ms·
>That in itself is a reason to do it, because it reduces overall costs due to the amortization effect of preventive medicine that people have a right to access.
by Consultant32452 10y ago
>That in itself is a reason to do it, because it reduces overall costs due to the amortization effect of preventive medicine that people have a right to access.
Reducing the over-all cost isn't necessarily the only goal. One goal could also be to have the highest quality care in the world, which we have today.
>Single-payer coverage doesn't necessarily dry up the market for private insurance, either.
Comparing the private insurance industry in the US and Canada or UK is laughable. The fact that it exists is not the same as saying it isn't dried up.
- Tenhundfeld 10y agoThe US has many of the "highest quality" specialists. The US population does not receive the highest quality healthcare in the world. If you are rich and sick, there's a decent chance that the world's leading specialist on your illness will be in the US. If you are poor and sick, you will receive higher quality healthcare in many other developed countries. These are not the same thing; you are conflating them, I assume to support an ideological point. Just look at any ranking of healthcare outcomes for developed nations.
- Consultant32452 10y ago>Just look at any ranking of healthcare outcomes for developed nations. Yes, I addressed that. Look at our obesity rates. That has almost nothing to do with healthcare access and almost everything to do with our average lifespan.
- andreasklinger 10y agoIsnt obesity usually linked to economic inequality which links to not being able to properly afford health care? Basically: a) "poor people tend to be more obese" b) "healthcare costs are a problem for people who struggle financially"
- astrange 10y agoNobody needs the highest quality healthcare in the world. Did it get Steve Jobs or Satoru Iwata anywhere? (The fancy book learnin term that applies here is "marginal cost")