>I may regret jumping in here, however, it's almost the weekend and I'll not engage again until Monday so here goes...
>
>>If so, could you please comment on the vigorously tested assertion that the increasing cost per capita every year is more in the US under the current system than in universal care systems.
>
>The simple answer is that better care costs more.

Not necessarily. According to this Dr. better healthcare can cost less.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?yrail

Another interesting (unintended) take-away from this article is that a single payer system (which I favor) probably would not be effective in controlling the type of cost differences he describes (he uses Medicare stats as his source of data).


>
>Some specific factors include higher per capita income, burdensome overhead from both private and public insurance due to rising legal costs and malpractice costs, fewer health care workers entering the profession and of course governmental regulation and intervention, mainly through mandated employer-provided care.
>
>Contrary to popular opinion, I'd suggest that per capita spending on health care is far too low around the world and I'd cite rationing of care as primary evidence.