2 ms·
The question wasn’t should we, it’s how much should we spend.
by bluedino 6y ago
The question wasn’t should we, it’s how much should we spend.
- FalconSensei 6y agoIf you are strictly thinking about economical choices, there are two options that would cost less: 1 - Medicare for all, so those patients would receive treatment on early stages, which would cost less. 2 - No Medicare at all. Save money on treatment AND paying them retirement. I think 2 is kinda bad though
- spaetzleesser 6y agoThat’s a good question. I think the brits have these numbers. But keep in mind: the US is spending way more per GDP than any other country including the ones with universal health care. So you get less coverage for way more money. And life expectancy isn’t better either. Basically the current US system is way overpriced for the results it delivers.