[rescue] SparcCenter 2000E on Ebay

[Mike Meredith]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
Lionel Peterson <lionel4287 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> That's right up there with socialized medicine being "cheaper" because
> it comes from the government!

"socialised medicine?" It sounds like some weird stuff where everyone
sits in a circle and discusses their health problems in the expectation
that they'll just disappear.

The usual reason for establishing government health care is universal
coverage, not saving money ... it certainly cost more in the UK because
at the time if you weren't fairly well heeled, you didn't get health
care. Letting a large proportion of your population go untreated
certainly is cheaper; it is also the sort of thing that can lead to
revolutions.

As it happens, the proportion of GDP spent on health care in the US and
UK is somewhat surprising ... 13.9% for the US, and 6.8% for the UK. The
world's bastion of private sector health care actually spends a greater
proportion of GDP (6.5%) than the UK's public sector (5.8%). The US
spends more than any country in Europe. It would seem that at least in
this area, government control tends to reduce costs, although cost is
just one factor to consider.

Assuming that the private sector is always going to be cheaper is weak
thinking.