Some people in this thread seem to want the government to provide unlimited healthcare to absolutely everyone with no rationing based on cost, priority or qualification. I can't see any problems with this.
Massachusetts is doing great btw.
Basically, yes. And when this gets mentioned, conservatives act like it's suggesting offering unicorns and fairy dust, instead of something that's worked for decades for many other countries who spend less as % of GDP than we do on health care, have much much better statistics (infant mortality, life expectancy, etc.) than we do, and report much higher satisfaction with that care.
Basically, yes. And when this gets mentioned, conservatives act like it's suggesting offering unicorns and fairy dust, instead of something that's worked for decades for many other countries who spend less as % of GDP than we do on health care, have much much better statistics (infant mortality, life expectancy, etc.) than we do, and report much higher satisfaction with that care.
Some people in this thread seem to want the government to provide unlimited healthcare to absolutely everyone with no rationing based on cost, priority or qualification. I can't see any problems with this.
What's interesting is that those who mock unicorns use what happens in different countries with different demographic, who do not understand why mortality stats are what they are, appeal to the "magic missile" spell of other nations.
Pray tell- educate us.
Except the problem is that half of health care spending is by the government, which means that the government is already spending as much on health care in the US as in other countries, but is failing to provide health care to the majority of the population.
I listed several things we should expect people to do to minimize their chances of become burdens to the state previously:
Add in surcharges for those who smoke and are obese and you are probably doing pretty well.