Quote:
Originally Posted by the_neurotic_cat
State controlled of course.
I'm not sure how this applies to the real world. I've never heard of a health service that only treats terminal cancer patients. The NHS has fantastic efficacy compared to private healthcare providers. The USA spends about $2tn on health insurance per year whereas the uk spends about £120bn on the NHS. Calculating exchange rate and adjusting for population the Americans spend over twice the amount per person and don't get nearly as much coverage as we do here in the UK.
£4£ you can have profit, or treatment, not both. Sorry.
|
I'm having genuine difficulty deciding whether you completely missed the point or are deliberately refusing to engage with it. Let's have another go.
If one model treats 60% of those that need it, and the other treats 90%, with money left to financially reward those that made it so efficient, do you seriously contend that the system that fails to treat 40% of those in need is better than the one that fails 10%, simply because in the former system there is no profit incentive?
This is the only way I can rationalize the position you're apparently wedded to. It's not one we're ever going to agree on as you appear to want to put your ideology ahead of making a pragmatic choice to work more efficiently.
Nice try re: the straw bogeyman of the US health system by the way; I never mentioned, nor advocated that system as being one to import into the UK, therefore in the context of this discussion there's little point in you wasting your time constructing arguments against it.