Source?
Source?
You clearly have no idea what you are writing.
Are you being sarcastic or do I need to feel bad for you?
Dude that's basic math.
See, you don't know who is going to get what illness. So take the flu shots. A flu shot is just $30 - $50 roughly. They have different flu shots that cost more for the elderly, than the regular flu shots for everyone else.
If you multiply out the cost of giving each person a flu shot, the cost is up near $10 to $15 Billion dollars.
The cost of dealing with people who have end up hospitalized with the flu, is barely $10 Billion dollars.
So that would seem like a wash. But it actually isn't a wash, because the flu shots can only provide benefits for the specific strain of flu they are designed for. And the government basically makes an educated guess as to what flu strain will be dominate the following year. And even if they guess right, that doesn't mean you won't get a different strain.
So while you might cut the cost of hospitalizations in half, it would still mean you are spending billions of dollars more... not less on health care.
Now again, if an individual wishes to spend the $30 to $50 out of their own pocket, to avoid a possible costly hospital visit... that makes sense. But for the government to provide it? No, that is a money losing idea, not a money saving idea.
And this is true universally of all preventative care.
Cost-savings vs. cost-effectiveness and preventative care
Numerous reports have detailed this. The only reason people fail to realize that preventative care is generally a money loser.... is because all those reports talk about "cost-effective". Cost effective, is not the same as cost-saving. Many preventative care measures are cost-effective. But they are not cost-saving. Just like a flu shot can be cost effective for an individual. Obviously if I spend $30 to avoid a $3,000 hospital visit, that is cost effective. Of course I have never had a flu shot, and never once gone to the hospital for the flu. Cost-effective, and cost-saving, are not the same.
Nevertheless, this is why the US spends more on preventative care than any other socialized health care system in the world.
Even pro-socialized Health Care groups, have no choice but to admit this.
Kind of a crappy pict, but I'll explain it.
Help with diet, exercise and physical activity. US was number one.
Help with getting people off smoking. US was number one.
Mammography screenings. US was number one.
Flu vaccs. US was number 3, but far far ahead of Canada, Sweden, France, Germany, Australia, and Norway. Only behind the UK and New Zealand, and only by a tiny margin.
As for higher survival rates.... name your cancer. Which one would you like me to look up?
All of the reports on this have always showed the same information, that the US survival rates were highest in the world.
US cancer survival rates remain among highest in world
This is doctor out of London, who is openly admitting the US has the best survival rates in the world. Do you need more evidence of that?
You clearly have no idea what you are writing.
Are you being sarcastic or do I need to feel bad for you?
No sir. I have been researching this topic for the last 15 years. I know exactly what I am saying, I know I am right, and I do not need you to feel anything for me. I am completely confident in the authority, accuracy, and validity of the empirical data I am presenting here.
If you wish to feel sorry for someone, pick the person who just got slammed with empirical evidence after suggesting the other didn't know what they are writing about. They seem to need the pity about now.