We don't need further polarization to accomplish this, and Trump is anything but hard-right. For most of the time he's been in the public eye he has been more of a conservative democrat than any sort of republican.
It will be a long wait. Washington doesn't police itself the way they should. But then, it's too much to expect in the first place. Consider all the "bombshells" we have been nearing about for the last 3 years. None of them panned out, in either direction. Pure establishment politics. I never liked Trump either, and there aren't too many people in Washington that I do like. But that's not why I vote, I have all the "friends" I need. What I want is public servants who do the job expected of them instead of looking for ever more clever ways to feather their nests. However, that part has always been part of politics going back to the Greeks.
Google. Just ask a question in regular words and remember the question mark. Google is even better than Ask Jeeves was!
And this So like I said, a universal healthcare system will reduce demand for the treatment of advanced diseases that are easily treated when caught early. I'm still not convinced the infrastructure isnt there. You're providing the number of hospitals in the US with no context attached to it.
I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt But when someone gives the ol' snarky "google" answer, it does start to look like they dont have an actual source
"How many doctors are there in the US?" "How many hospitals are there in the US?" "How many nurses are there in the US?" "How many ways do you want me to hold your hand on this issue?"
That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking where you're getting that we need 3 times what we already have to pull it off. I would assume you're referencing some sort of study and not just pulling that claim out of thin air
Oh, that I got from my wife actually. She runs a hospital outside of Atlanta. I put her through college 3 times, so she's smarter than I am about healthcare. I know more about water treatment and emissions control systems (which are doing remarkably well in the US). It's a general measure, but she says that a million doctors and 1.5 million nurses might be enough for 100 million people. She also says there are not enough CNAs or LPNs either and it's largely because of stigma and the way schools push for everyone to be an RN (to score a buck).
Your wife isnt an in depth study that you can provide for me to reference and analyze myself. I mean I can make any claim and provide my uncle as the source but how is that going to help anyone else learn and provide a frame of reference for them to shape their opinions? out of 350 million people, 27.5 of them are uninsured. So already, that makes your wife's claims that we only have the infrastructure for 100 million a bit dubious. And if she runs a hospital I also cant treat her as an unbiased source. Hospital administration is one of the reasons healthcare costs are so high in the US
Perhaps it contributes, after all the administrators have to be paid. However, my wife is a nursing PhD, not a bean counter. The biggest cause of rising healthcare costs is drug companies, then salaries. Also, if I pointed you directly to a succinct study of this issue, do you really think you'd take it seriously coming from me? I don't. Do your own research, you'll be happier with the result.
How many beds? And how many beds are filled in the US at any given time? How does this compare to countries with universal healthcare that have more of a focus on preventative care? You can actually drill down into this topic fairly deeply. Like when I was following your suggestion to use google to magically find something your wife verbally told you, I came across a study that measured the efficiency of hospital treatment in the US and Canada. Which is a good point to raise, as the number of beds is relevant to how quickly they can get patients in and out of them with decent outcomes