By KnuckleSandwich - 20/07/2009 19:10 - United States
Add a comment - Reply to : #
You must be logged in to be able to post comments!
Ergh what's with everyone? #35 was very obviously replying to #1 because his comment was connected and a direct response to #1's comment. Seriously, I hate it when people reply to the first post for visibility, but it's stupid when everyone who replies to the first post is regarded as doing this. Amazingly, some people do not abuse the reply system.
No, it wouldn't. Everything I've seen puts the cost-per-head for healthcare lower here in the UK as it is in the US, and we have a (slightly) longer life expectency, (slightly) lower infant mortality rate, and (slightly) better performance in most diseases/cancers, etc. It's a TERRIBLY unreliable source, but nationmaster puts expenditure per capita (private and public funding combined) at $2,899.7 per person in the UK (I can confirm this; the current NHS budget is £90 billion a year. Divided by 60 million people aprox in the UK, that works out to £1500 per person per year, which is roughly $3k), and $6,096.2 per person in the USA From the same source, "healthy" life expectency in the UK is 69.6 years, and in the USA it's 67.6 years. Life expectency at birth: 78.85 years UK. 78.14 years USA. So we pay $3196.5 less per year each than Americans do, but live a smidgen longer, and spend an extra two years of our life in good health than Americans do. So really, whose system is better?
Bet she was just practicing if you know what I mean ;D
OP can i have your daughter's number when she turns 18?