44 ms·
The source is pretty clear: taxes. My guess it that ratio of tax money spent on health care vs. money spent on killing people (military) does not look nice.
by rimantas 13y ago
The source is pretty clear: taxes. My guess it that ratio of tax money spent on health care vs. money spent on killing people (military) does not look nice.
- sliverstorm 13y agoWell of course it would have to be taxes if the government was going to cover all that, but do you raise taxes? That isn't going to fly. Do you take money from other programs? That isn't going to fly either. And thus, the problem.
- grey-area 13y agoThe US currently spends far more per capita on health care than the UK - more than any other country in the world. It also spends at least the same on public healthcare from US taxes as a % of GDP. Moving to a national health service would dramatically reduce the bill, probably result in lower taxes, and certainly lower bills overall, when compared to the many other countries with single-payer public healthcare systems.
- ixacto 13y agoUnited States | health spending | at parity | all sectors | $2.199 trillion per year (2007) Military $503.4 billion per year (US dollars per year) (2005 estimate) I assume these numbers have expanded since then. What is really disturbing in my mind though is that while it is quite easy for most people to get EBT/Welfare in the USA to purchase beer/cigarettes/chips, it is much more difficult to get effective healthcare. HFCS-laden soda is quite cheap, so are trans-fat laden baked goods and frozen foods. Diabetes and heart disease are not though.
- sliverstorm 13y agoHFCS-laden soda is quite cheap I've heard it's mostly taxes/tariffs on imported sugar that make it this way; most of the rest of the world, sugar cane is cheaper than HFCS, so they use sugar cane.