"It is more cost effective"... why prove things when its so much simpler to just assert bullshit. So far nothing the federal government produces is cost effective or cheap so this is a rather extraordinary claim.
I am sure that the young are very fond of having to pay for your health care and getting 0.0005% of the cost back. I don't think you understand, no one is so stupid as to fall for this. You would get much more respect if you just admitted to being a loser who wants free shit, at least then you would be honest.
Implementing a Universal Healthcare System Costs Less, Provides Better Care
The U.S. spends more money on administrative costs than anywhere in the world, according to a recent article in Health Affairs
By Samuel Metz, M.D.
The Lund Report (Portland, Ore.), Nov. 11, 2014
Honoring a rather unpleasant tradition, the September issue of Health Affairs published yet another peer-reviewed study confirming that administrative costs in the U.S. healthcare system are the highest in the world. These administrative costs do not improve patient care. They pay for more administrators.
Each American physician requires 10 administrators to stay in business. Why does American healthcare require twice as many administrators as any other healthcare system?
Because these additional administrators perform a function totally unnecessary in other countries: They restrict access to healthcare and limit benefits of patients who do gain access.
If restricting access and limiting benefits produced a healthier population at lower cost, then Americans could be proud of our massive number of administrators. But the U.S. does not have a healthier population and our healthcare is not inexpensive. In fact, our public health is the worst in the developed world, and our healthcare system is the most expensive of any nation on the planet.
Some blame government bureaucracies for these excessive administrative costs. But let’s not be hasty. Per patient, private insurance overhead exceeds that of Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA – combined. We may have doubts about our government to spend money in other areas, but when it comes to reducing the administrative costs of health care, government programs are ten times as efficient as private insurance.
Restricting access and limiting care is an expensive process, consuming more money than we would spend simply providing unrestricted access and treating all treatable diseases. How do we know? Because every healthcare system in the world that implements universal care without limiting benefits ultimately provides better care to more people for less money.
Where does our private insurance model lead us astray? The primary goal of insurance companies, like all other businesses, is to make more money than they spend. But an insurance company cannot stay solvent selling comprehensive policies at affordable prices to people who will get sick. So insurance companies spend a lot of money to avoid populations that include sick people, to shift costs to patients, to limit benefits, and to exclude physicians who care for patients with expensive diseases (e.g., AIDS, cancer). After all, who will buy a policy that lets you go broke before you get better?
Implementing a Universal Healthcare System Costs Less, Provides Better Care | Physicians for a National Health Program
