|
|
|
|
|
by rl3
486 days ago
|
|
>Just to put things in perspective, Medicaid is hardly an actual healthcare program as it applies to less than 20% of our population. That's still a cool 70 million people. >However it somehow(?) costs more than 4x as much as the entire NHS. Sounds like a good argument for [properly-administered] single-payer, universal healthcare. |
|
Yes, hence why I'm comparing it to the NHS supporting the UK (~70M pop). Also note the NHS's coverage far exceeds Medicaid.
> Sounds like a good argument for [properly-administered] single-payer, universal healthcare.
The opposite right now! The US government is SO bad at managing healthcare, that they are somehow making the NHS look great.
We need to get our bureaucracy and spending under control. Then definitely yes, government funded healthcare, we can have a system closer to Australia in efficacy.
This is a tangent to this thread but I think in practice we will probably end up with something closer to the Swiss hybrid system.