3 ms·
The other side of the coin is that regardless of who is holding the money the government not being able to spend it could be considered a better allocation just
by luxuryballs 9y ago
The other side of the coin is that regardless of who is holding the money the government not being able to spend it could be considered a better allocation just because they are so damn wasteful. Just because the government SHOULD be correct doesn't mean it actually is, and just because a law says money shall be allocated for X doesn't mean any real value is coming out of X, and the work the money is doing by being kept away from the government should also be considered as a loss when paying for X (so more than just the cost of X is spent).
- robotresearcher 9y agoAgain, that claim is easily refuted by considering the state of medical spending in the US. Unless by 'government' you mean only the US government. Many other governments are daily demonstrating their ability to deliver more affordable and cost-effective healthcare than the US.
- briandear 9y agoHow much medical/pharma R&D spending happens in the U.K.? How much happens in the US? It’s an apples and oranges comparison because The US effectively subsidizes the advances enjoyed by other countries.
- conanbatt 9y ago> Again, that claim is easily refuted by considering the state of medical spending in the US One could argue that the medical system the us has right now is inefficient BECAUSE of the current legislation. It is a very regulated industry, it hasnt gotten to this point because of its unregulated capitalism.