4 ms·
Uh, what? Where in my comment did I write the government should provide no financial benefits for its citizens? No idea where you're coming from with that. T
by ordinaryperson 8y ago
Uh, what?
Where in my comment did I write the government should provide no financial benefits for its citizens?
No idea where you're coming from with that.
The question is: should the government pay for everyone's healthcare? Universal health care sounds amazing except no one has a plan to pay for it, at least in the U.S. where our system is outrageously expensive.
If your plan is just to tax a small group of earners to pay these astronomical fees, good luck with that.
More realistically we have to bring the costs of healthcare down, but that seems to get little to no attention.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> More realistically we have to bring the costs of healthcare down Given that places where government pays for everyone's healthcare, in the developed world, get compsrsvle outcomes at much lower per capita and per GDP cost than the US system, I don't see that an idea opposed to universal healthcare so much as a motivation for it.
- ordinaryperson 8y agoYou're assuming they have much lower costs because of socialized medicine -- that's not necessarily the case. But my broader point is just that universal health care is not an honest description of what it is, and our costs are so great we're unlikely to ever implement such a wealth transfer. It's a lot less pie-in-the-sky IMHO to focus on bringing costs down. UHC could help in some ways but it's a broad assumption to make that if say Medicare paid for everything prices would just automatically start to drop.