I don't know that it can, perhaps it might, but you miss the point. It's a matter of life and death for many people, in addition to bankruptcy when serious illness occurs. So, even IF it is somewhat inefficient, DO IT... We don't seem to have much of a problem creating 2 billion a copy stealth bombers that have to sit in climate controlled hangers because rain damages their skin. They take them out every so often and drop a few bombs on Iraq, then put em back in storage. We don't seem to have a problem developing 300 million a copy F-22 fighters. The Republicans don't seem to have a problem demonizing union workers for wanting a decent wage and good health benefits, while providing trillions to folks raping America thru financial machination... We also don't seem to have a problem fighting multiple trillion dollar wars that have no end in sight.
Besides, our vaunted 'private' health insurance system has already resulted in per capita costs WAY HIGHER than countries that have universal care. Last anyone looked, the number 47 million uninsured was being thrown around. Guess what, 3.6 million jobs lost over the past year, millions more this year, so that number will be interesting to see in 2010.... Companies are dumping health care left and right (along with pension and 401k (make that 201k) benefit cuts) on the worker anyway, so the goverment will play an increasing role no matter what you want.
As far as efficiency is concerned, perhaps medicare can be used as a base model, I've read some good things about how that system works...
Disjointed rant off... |
