There are plenty of studies on how efficient it is, and they indicate that the US could cover everyone with the amount it is spending now.
The inauguratioin of almost every major government entitlement has been accompanied by detailed predictions from experts showing how low the costs would be over coming years. Without exception, such predictions have turned out to underestimated drastically, sometimes by an order of magnitude. The same will be true of prescription coverage, but by then, as with Medicare and Social Security, private alternatives will have withered away, and we'll be stuck.
I see no reason to believe any predictions that socialized medicine will cost us less, and even less evidence that a government bureacracy will be more efficient in use of funds than a private organization. Given the everyday evidence of this, one would think the latter would be obvious to most people.
As Dean pointed out Vermont appears to have it and is able to afford it.
I get a little tired of Dean bragging about all the cool things he managed to do in Vermont with budgets and programs. It's like bragging about how well you can ride a tricycle. The city of San Francisco alone has more people in it than Vermont does. (about 776,000 compared to about 609,000 in 2000)
Current Events » in reply to re: Democrats who want Single payer healthcare.
Cost predictions, and Dean's bragging
The whole thread (38 posts)
- "Full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing..."
- re: signifying nothing
- And, speaking of which...
- With all due respect...
- Sounds like he is projecting pretty desperately
