Message from @EALootcrates
Discord ID: 359855767769317386
canada
denmark
france
are around 76
*7
Which means that they will almost always either hire shittier staff, pay them worse, or give lower quality care, or both.
well, isn't care expensive for the state too
Yes.
the state gives lower quality care too you know
if they don't make a profit out of it
@Deleted User Didn't social democracy originally meant what democratic socialism means today, before modern sozis have appropriated the term?
I think it was used in such a manner as the previous name of the Bolshevik Party.
the expenditures
are tough
We literally spend the most in the world on healthcare and have some of the least uninsured
Which when you combine that with having to manage hospitals, and equipment, it means that quality will almost always suffer, and lead to longer wait times, and worse care.
Phenian, what?
yes, bernie confuses demsoc and socdem
single payer healthcare in america would be a disaster
300 million people
not paying a dime
@Your Favorite Martian =3 Healthcare is a very difficult thing to manage, both economically and politically.
the quality of healthcare would lower
and the GDP percentage put into it
would skyrocket
no profit would come out of it
no profit?
do healthy people not produce profit?
an estimated 155 million people
under 65
were insured
@Deleted User They do, but you would have to hope that the costs and profits would even out in those terms.
healthcare in the US
has been costing less and less
since the 2000's
people are getting less and less insured
as a result
are you sure that's because of the free market
uh, yes
and not technical advances?
technical advances are a result of capitalism