Excerpt
SUMMARY: In the U.S., health care costs continue to rise, insurance is more difficult to obtain and millions lack access to care entirely. As a result, some House Democrats want to implement a single-payer, universal coverage system in which all costs are paid by the federal government. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash) talks to Amna Nawaz about the benefits of expanding Medicare for all Americans.
What Medicare for All Means
Universal Health Care in Different Countries, Pros and Cons of Each
How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries?
IMHO: When you have everyone on Medicare for All all costs are spread across everyone, individual cost down. Also, the system we now have puts a for-profit insurance company between the customer and their health care providers (doctors, hospitals, druggists, clinics, etc., with added cost and restrictions), it would be cheaper for a customer's money to directly to providers. As for the 'tax' cost, polls in other nations with universal health care usually have 2 related questions: a) Would you want your taxes lowered, b) Would you give up your health care system to save money? Question (a) is what I call, the meat lover's would you like prime rib at hamburger prices, of course the answer is yes. Question (b) is the 'Is your heath care system worth it,' again the overwhelming answer is yes, their system is worth what they pay in taxes.
No comments:
Post a Comment