Quote from Sparohok:
Then all I'm saying is that ALSO providing very basic, free public health services is likely to actually SAVE money overall. The net cost of very basic free public healthcare could very well be NEGATIVE due to the savings in emergency care. This is not such a hard concept, why do I feel like I'm pulling teeth here?
If you can show that I am wrong, great. I'm not a healthcare economist, I was clear from the very start that I don't have all the answers.
Martin
there are 2 issues here
1) the micro economic issue of the health care. On this issue you are correct
2) the macro issue, of a major political battle, of Amnesty. Citizens do not want it, plain and simple. And yes, the law is in favor of the citizens, the law is supoposed to reflect the will of the citizens, not some elitist vision of 'what the citizens are supposed to think'. The cost could be 2.5 trillion
2.5 trillion/300 million comes to about $8300 per person, or about $40,000 per family of 4, since many housholds pay no taxes at all
this battle had a major vote less than a month ago, June 28
every concession given, is political momentum
better to lose on issue 1, to maintain position 2
