bullet_catcher said:If I have understood correctly from the newspapers over here, US citizens have to pay 18% of their income on healthcare insurance if they are not in an occupational welfare scheme (which costs half as much). I suspect that the proportion of income spent on healthcare would drop if a national health service was implemented, even if that meant taking on those currently rejected by the system for being too sick (and stand by to be corrected on this point). The spare money on the consumers' pockets could then be spent in the shops. Speaking from Scotland, that means I can hope for increased exports of whisky to the good old U. S. of A. while people celebrate their de facto pay rise.
Apparently a false assumption according to many "experts" who have analyzed it, including even Congress' own nonpartisan bean counters the CBO. Much of the problem is a perfectly reasonable skepticism of many of us who have seen our federal government in action with even much less ambitious social programs that are horrifically bloated, corrupt and spectacularly inefficient.