Some here have been putting out statistics comparing healthcare in the US to other countries. Now I’m not here to proclaim that the US system is the best in the world, but rather simply to ask how fair are healthcare statistics between countries that have drastically different population sizes and drastically different immigration/migration policies/problems? The US is the third most populated country in the world and has loose and not the most strictly enforced immigration laws. Many countries often brought up have tiny populations and very strict immigration laws. So when one takes different variables into account doesn’t that skew certain statistics? In other words is it truly “apples & apples” or is it “apples & oranges”?
As you look at population size and per capita costs of developed nations, there’s a trend that the costs go lower. That is until you get to the US. We’re an outlier. Population size is irrelevant.
The onus is on you to show that a country with more immigration would result in higher per capita costs.
Those people who use services are already baked into the per capita cost figure regardless of whether they pay. The fact is we pay significantly more than ANY other developed nation. Shifting to single payer won’t cause that per capita figure to go up. It will result in its decrease.
The statistics I’m talking about are not just about costs (although you can’t say that our current immigration situation doesn’t impact costs), I’m also asking about outcomes.
The fact is that population size and immigration are two significant variables that absolutely can impact stats. Are you implying that when comparing two and one takes in all whether healthy or not and the other only takes in healthy that would not impact healthcare statistics?