/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>20788972
> Additionally, you constantly typing "FACT" in the middle of provably false statements does not make them true, regardless of what your leftist idols may state.
Ohhhh is that so? Then back it up, retard. Im lying? Okay, you said it yourself. The BACK IT UP and cite a source :). Show universal health care is in fact more expensive

Also, "less innovation". Super Ironic. You are stating that as a fact without backing it up. Pic related. Also:
> The single biggest source of medical research funding, not just in the United States but in the entire world, is the National Institutes of Health (NIH): Last year, it spent more than $28 billion on research, accounting for about one-third of the total dollars spent on medical research and development in this country (and half the money spent at universities). The majority of that money pays for the kind of basic research that might someday unlock cures for killer diseases like Alzheimer’s, aids, and cancer. No other country has an institution that matches the NIH in scale. And that is probably the primary explanation for why so many of the intellectual breakthroughs in medical science happen here.

> Another virtue of more centralized health care is its ability to generate savings by reducing administrative waste. A universal coverage system that significantly streamlined billing (either by creating one common form or simply replacing basic insurance with one, Medicare-like program) and cut down on the need for so many insurance middle-men would leave more resources for actual medical care–and real medical innovation.

http://pnhp.org/news/does-universal-health-care-suppress-innovation/

The rest is you whining like a bitch kek. No need to greentext that bullshit.

Also, burden of proof is on you to show me that universal healthcare would result in no innovation.