安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题



That much money and the man won't pay a dentist.
I hate to admit it, but this is more or less the truth of the matter.
Single-payer won't work out for the US the way it does for Europe, AUS, etc; our population is too large, and the density of that population is all over the place. Distribution of funding would be wildly different in urban and rural areas as a function of population concentration, and the relative tax bases supporting each would only exacerbate the situation.
But the present Republican model of "just let people buy their own healthcare" is a non-starter, too. Insurance markets have shown, time and again, that they will not self-regulate in any way that is affordable--or even accessible--for the majority of Americans. My wife and I carry solid insurance, and I was still out of pocket over a grand for X-rays and an ultrasound after a recent knee injury. That outlay didn't hurt us near as much as it might have hurt other couples, as we do alright financially, and we don't have children, but it could've been bad if we had little ones to support--and that was just for initial care, before physical therapy and the ortho surgeon got hold of me.
...and this is to say nothing of premiums paid when you're not even using the service (yes, I know how premium-vs-payout works, but still).
Short of grabbing the insurance and pharmaceutical companies by the short hairs (which neither party will do in any meaningful fashion), I don't know what the answer is.