Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

Is Walter Reed Hospital an indication of what single-payer, government-run health care will be like?

0
Posted

Is Walter Reed Hospital an indication of what single-payer, government-run health care will be like?

0

Universal healthcare does not have to be awful. Here’s a tale of two hospitals – Chelsea and Westminster, and St Thomas and Guys. They’re about the same size. Their catchment areas are about the same size, population-wise. At first, they both received about the same amount of money from the government. On the one hand, you have Chelsea and Westminster, which is shiny, modern, efficient, well-staffed, quick appointments, quick treatment, decent beds, decent food. On the other hand, you have St Thomas and Guys, which is dirty, horrible, chaotic, the nurses just stand around and gossip all day, the people who are supposed to help you diss you, there aren’t enough doctors, they don’t let you stay overnight unless you’re dying and who would want to anyway because the place is awful, depressing, cold… So what happened to St Thomas and Guys? Well, they had a bunch of money and they wasted it, blew it all on nobody knows what. Chelsea and Westminster, on the other hand, can account for every

Related Questions

What is your question?

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.

Experts123