Do you have any proof that a universal preventative health plan would actually save money?
No, I didn't think so either.
In the short term preventative maintenance saves tons of money. If I'm in better shape I will not require the diabetes or heart medications as soon.
Now long term who knows. I just might die of a more expensive to treat cancer.
What kind of proof would you be looking for? Cost of lost of productivity + cost of treating preventable illnesses vs cost of treating things which kill otherwise healthy folks?
Rabbi's not too bright and very conservative; he rejects anything which does not fit into the ultra right wing model. I suspect he doesn't understand what preventative medicine is so a cost-benefit analysis never occured to him, nor would he accept a cost-benefit analysis not anointed by Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin or a Fox News talking head.
Translation: NO, I cannot provide any study that supports my view. But it sounds good, dammit.
Thanks for playing. It is exactly crappy "common sense" like yours that has us in this mess. It is common sense that if you give people more time to pay on their mortgage then they'll get caught up,right? Wrong. About 80% of people who went through HAMP ended up foreclosed on anyway.
There is no, zero, evidence that a universal program would be cost effective. It would be a way to hire more bureaucrats and increase taxation and control under the rubric of saving money.
Remember when Obamacare was claimed to be a money saver? I realize that is ancient history here but that was the claim.
Your debating skills, logic and knowledge base have been revealed here to be laughable at best.