Comment by keybored
21 days ago
Apparently the US spends twice on healthcare for the same outcomes compared to comparable nations with universal healthcare. Therefore the concern about costs does not add up.
21 days ago
Apparently the US spends twice on healthcare for the same outcomes compared to comparable nations with universal healthcare. Therefore the concern about costs does not add up.
> Apparently the US spends twice on healthcare for the same outcomes compared to comparable nations with universal healthcare.
Sure, but I was talking about costs in other developed countries, not USA. Healthcare in Australia is about 1/4 of government expenditure with welfare being another 1/4, for example.
> Therefore the concern about costs does not add up.
Non-sequitur. Costs obviously do and I explained in very simple terms why (e.g., you could double welfare payments for about the same cost). Please explain your reasoning if you want to support the claim that cost is not a concern.
What's your point equating welfare spending to healthcare spending? To suggest that we fund welfare more instead of putting more money in to healthcare? Why??? Are you simply stating that giving x money to one social program is the same as giving x money to another? What is your point, your policy proscription?
Giving $x to healthcare is almost always better than giving $x to welfare, as well funded universal healthcare reduces OOP costs for citizens, which reduces their need to consume other welfare services.[0,1]
[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10733771/
[1] https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/214481/a...
> What's your point equating welfare spending to healthcare spending?
I'm not equating the spending, only the costs.
> To suggest that we fund welfare more instead of putting more money in to healthcare?
I'm not suggesting that, I'm explaining what the cost of healthcare is in terms of another enormous government programe.
> Why??? Are you simply stating that giving x money to one social program is the same as giving x money to another?
No.
> What is your point, your policy proscription?
To try to give you some perspective about the enormous cost of universal healthcare.
> Giving $x to healthcare is almost always better than giving $x to welfare, as well funded universal healthcare reduces OOP costs for citizens, which reduces their need to consume other welfare services.[0,1]
Calm down and take a breath and try re-reading what I wrote in my first comment. It's extremely simple, maybe the fact I pointed out you were wrong about measles set you off badly. I'm not saying healthcare expenditure is bad or worse than other welfare or that America has a good healthcare system. I said that healthcare is cost gated in countries with universal healthcare systems. Which it is. In your hypothetical fairy land of unicorns and pixies where corporations and billionaires pay for everything, sure it's not cost gated, and neither is your government issued pony. But that is not an answer to my point that healthcare in countries with universal healthcare systems (and America, if it were to adopt one), is cost gated. Cost gated meaning people who need or want treatment will not be able to receive it in a timely manner in all cases.
1 reply →
Yeah, almost like he's a dishonest fool at best, or propagandist who will do anything to avoid acknowledging the simple, universally backed by data assertion that healthcare for all is cheaper, provides better outcomes, and the source of the problems of universal systems - austerity politicians who's m.o i laid out plainly. Defund, claim it doesn't work, privatize.
Complains I didn't answer every one of his points AND that my response was too long. Clearly a dishonest propagandist or a fool.