justth3fax said:
tfraser said:
*snip*

I thank you for the additional (more recent) info that I couldn't locate, the numbers which you present, I believe, make what i am saying even stronger...

 

A smaller percentage consuming an even higher amount...

 

When you say $350 billion cheaper...well, it has been my observation that you get what you pay for...remember the government buys from the low bidder...what is the value you place on your health?  Do you eat the cheapest food you can find?  Do you drive the cheapest car on the market?  Do you live in the lowest rent tenement possible?  I don't.  I work hard and try to get the best I can.  I'm sure we all do.

Does anyone remember the pictures of Walter Reed Army Hospital that were on the news?

 

Yes, some veterans have unique needs but so do alot of non veterans as well...I would say that it is actually lower than the general population as prior to service there is an extensive health screening...lots of people are rejected for minor things.  During service there is continual on-going health evaluation and if some one is found to be in need they are plugged into that treatment program before they even get to the VA.

 

All that is really not the point, put the numbers aside...My point is, the government projections are always wrong, the debt is unsustainable and government can't ever do anything well.  Look @ Medicare...Look @ Medicaid....Look @ Social Security...All are bankrupt, insolvent, unfunded.  Tax revenues cannot cover what the government is spending. DEBT DEBT DEBT it is not sustainable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you say $350 billion cheaper...well, it has been my observation that you get what you pay for...remember the government buys from the low bidder...what is the value you place on your health?

 

You can't have it both ways. You can't have the best of everything at an affordable price. Much of the debate has been about how the health care system in its current state is on course to bankrupt your whole country, but when I make the proposition for a different setup that would be substantially cheaper you still defend the current system. It's astonishing.

 

And, I am not proposing that you should have to put a lower value on your health. I would not suggest that you should forfeit you're private insurance or visit a public hospital. Ideally, as many people as possible should use private care rather than public care because it means less spending burden for the government. I am just saying that when you have a public hand in the market, prices are pushed down and that benefits the 99.9% of the population that doesn't have a financial interest in private health insurance.

 

Also, "you get what you pay for" is seemingly not always applicable; remember that amongst industrialised OECD nations, the U.S. spends about twice as much per capita on health but has the worst quantitative outcomes.