'In an aging society, medical costs increase.
To reduce them, one idea might be to increase individual medical expenses.'
What I want to say in the above example is that the people will be able to
depend less on the national health insurance system and the people have to pay more money for their medical care.
Is 'individual medical expenses' OK?
Is there any simpler expression to describe the situation?![]()
Thank you in advance.
If you can say what you are trying to say in the explanation (and you can), then use that.
In other words, phrase your first paragraph more like your second. Nothing is more important that clarity!
Thank you for your response.
I agree with you that clarity is important.
My last example was a bit vague.
I changed it this way.
'In an aging society, medical costs increase.
To reduce them, one idea might be to have the people pay more money for their medical care and depend less on the national health insurance system.'
That's clearer. However, are these two separate things or part and parcel of the same idea?
>However, are these two separate things or part and parcel of the same idea?
I guess 'these two separate things' refer to 'to have the people pay more money for their medical care' and to have the people depend less on the national health insurance system'.
I think that the both are closely related with each other; if they cannot depend on the health insurance system of their country, they will have to pay money for their health care.
Also it would reduce the medical costs of the country, because
the government have to pay less money for the medical care of the people.
Here we can see the transition from a large government to a small government.![]()
Any advice?![]()
It depends. If the increased payments go to the state, in increased presciption charges, etc, then they are not really the same and there is no reduction in state dependency in that model. But if people are encouraged to go private, then they are spending more and less dependent. To me, it depends on the model being used.