Why are U.S. citizens ignoring the 6% gain on GDP, by not nationalizing health care?
Statistics show that the average U.S. citizen pays considerably more for their, --- bankruptcy creating inhumane medical system, --- than other countries who have nationalized health care. The gain in GDP is around 3%.
It follows economies of scale gains are likely to be about 3%. If a penny saved is a penny earned, I am justified in saying that there would be a 6% saving to the average U.S. citizen.
Why are Americans wasting such a huge amount of gains, when going single payer could bring such a huge gain to each American?
I ask all my Yankee friends; what the hell? Recognize that single payer, pays great dividends.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/hea ... countries/
Regards
DL
-
In total there are 18 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 18 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am
Why are U.S. citizens ignoring the 6% gain on GDP, by not nationalizing health care?
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
- Gnostic Bishop
-
Just realized BookTalk.org is awesome!
- Posts: 790
- Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:36 pm
- 9
- Has thanked: 92 times
- Been thanked: 131 times
- DWill
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6966
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
- 16
- Location: Luray, Virginia
- Has thanked: 2262 times
- Been thanked: 2470 times
Re: Why are U.S. citizens ignoring the 6% gain on GDP, by not nationalizing health care?
I don't know the answer to your question. Perhaps the words "socialized medicine" continue to exert a backward pull on people, thanks to campaigns by the AMA. Today, the AMA is less reactionary, stating it supports universal healthcare, even though not going as far as advocating for a public option.
The result of all the current disruption, with the partial failure of Obamacare (exacerbated by the Trump administration) and the awful look of the new Republican proposal, may be to get us to nationalized care. In time, our conservatives will get over their revulsion and learn to accept that, like public education, healthcare is a public good. I'm told by a British friend that British liberals and conservatives do not debate the need for the existence of their nationalized system.
That's my sentiment, at least, my strong wishful thinking. As anyone knows (except apparently the president), healthcare is complicated. Going to single payer will not be simple at all and may be hugely expensive given our particular healthcare environment. Today the Washington Post came out against single payer. It had been a strong supporter of the original ACA, but says that our experience so far with public options (Medicare, Medicaid) should give us pause when we consider modeling our entire system after those programs. Sure, it sounds good to just do what Europe does, but here in the U.S. we might not be able to find ways to make it affordable without some high structural and political barriers coming down.
The result of all the current disruption, with the partial failure of Obamacare (exacerbated by the Trump administration) and the awful look of the new Republican proposal, may be to get us to nationalized care. In time, our conservatives will get over their revulsion and learn to accept that, like public education, healthcare is a public good. I'm told by a British friend that British liberals and conservatives do not debate the need for the existence of their nationalized system.
That's my sentiment, at least, my strong wishful thinking. As anyone knows (except apparently the president), healthcare is complicated. Going to single payer will not be simple at all and may be hugely expensive given our particular healthcare environment. Today the Washington Post came out against single payer. It had been a strong supporter of the original ACA, but says that our experience so far with public options (Medicare, Medicaid) should give us pause when we consider modeling our entire system after those programs. Sure, it sounds good to just do what Europe does, but here in the U.S. we might not be able to find ways to make it affordable without some high structural and political barriers coming down.