Here is the full text of the letter writer. If his claims about the relative percentage of GNP spent on health care are true, that is disturbing. I must note that he gives no breakdown between government and private expenditures:
“I’m glad national health finally passed. You would think we could have simply expanded medicare coverage, but, considering the lack of cooperation from the other side in Congress, we’re lucky we got this hodge-podge. It’s a start.
One question: Why as a nation are we willing to blow endless trillions on unnecessary wars and war toys, but scream bloody murder about spending one trillion on social programs?
One comment: the BBC had some interesting United Nations based statistics on health care on their web site the other day. The US currently spends 16% of the gross domestic product (GDP) on health care, versus 11% in France, 9% in the UK - both national health countries. Americans spend over $7000 per capita on health care, over twice what the French ($3600) and British ($3000) spend. But our life expectancy is slightly less than theirs, and our infant mortality rate, at 6.7%, is worse than either Britain’s 4.8% or France’s 3.8%. And 45 million Americans were uninsured.
If the numbers are correct - and I suspect they are - sounds like someone has been ripping us off but good for health care. Wonder if that could be the same someone whipping up the current poisonously anti-national health frenzy? Naaaah - of course not!
If the citizens of comparable national health countries indeed pay half what we in the US currently do, wouldn’t it be logical to say that, while the new system is going to cost $1 trillion, continuing the old one would have cost us $2 trillion. I know. Naaah - of course not!”