4 ms·
All the countries that have tried it are less in the red than the U.S. by any financial measure, and have longer life expectancies/lower infant mortality rates/
by fatbird 8y ago
All the countries that have tried it are less in the red than the U.S. by any financial measure, and have longer life expectancies/lower infant mortality rates/better aggregate outcomes than the U.S., which is typically at the bottom of the scale for first world nations where medical outcomes are considered. And they spend less public dollars per capita than the U.S., which is an ironic twist.
The pure, brute facts show that taxpayer-funded universal health care is a vastly superior means of making healthcare accessible, effective and less expensive than any other setup, especially the American one. Your health care system is an insane joke that annually kills tens of thousands of Americans needlessly.
- linuxftw 8y agoIf it's such an affordable and great idea, why don't CA & NY implement it independently of the rest of the states and let their residents utilize the system? Why does it have to be an every-state solution?
- fatbird 8y agoThey could, and in fact the medicare block grants in Obamacare are for that purpose. States accepting the block grants expanded access to medicare, massively reducing the number of uninsured. It doesn't have to be an every-state solution, but like any insurance it benefits from economies of scale. Why don't they? There's a lot of people in CA and NY who don't think it's more affordable and better, notwithstanding 20 or 30 countries who have done it successfully. The private insurance industry is, understandably, a huge lobby against it since it would likely reduce or eliminate their business (the mandate to buy insurance, under Obamacare, was pretty explicitly a payoff to the insurers to accept it because they would receive a huge influx of new customers), etc.