Gov’t funded doesn’t drop the cost that much. Countries in the west that are single-payer and/or have national/socialized healthcare systems pay between 1/5 and 2/3 of what we do per capita, on average. It might be better in countries where the entire supply chain is subject to price controls (e…g., China), but I don’t know. But, regardless, if our system cost 20% of what it does now, or $900B, $3B would still be only .3% of the entire expenditure. Part of the problem is that, as far as western countries go, the US is just big. The population of Israel is estimated to be about 9.5M, compared to 340M or so for the US.
Again, to be clear: I’m not suggesting that we should be giving–or selling–Israel anything at this point.
Is that 4.5 trillion including cost to the individual? Or just production.
Because I imagine the cost to the individual is a lot higher than it normally would be because of the profit incentive.
I imagine the number would be somewhat lower if it was near cost because it’s govt funded. Curious how significant that difference would be
Gov’t funded doesn’t drop the cost that much. Countries in the west that are single-payer and/or have national/socialized healthcare systems pay between 1/5 and 2/3 of what we do per capita, on average. It might be better in countries where the entire supply chain is subject to price controls (e…g., China), but I don’t know. But, regardless, if our system cost 20% of what it does now, or $900B, $3B would still be only .3% of the entire expenditure. Part of the problem is that, as far as western countries go, the US is just big. The population of Israel is estimated to be about 9.5M, compared to 340M or so for the US.
Again, to be clear: I’m not suggesting that we should be giving–or selling–Israel anything at this point.