The 50 most developed countries in the world and Universal Healthcare.

[BluesLegend]

Why does the United States, the wealthiest country in the world and the 3rd wealthiest per captia country, still not provide Universal Healthcare for its citizens?

Because we are so wealthy people pay for their own health insurance.

 

[sakinago]

It means telling people that those who do not put into the system will not be allowed to benefit from the work of those who do.

So disabled people who can’t work should be left to die? That’s a great America?

Feel free to pay all their medical bills. No one is trying to stop you.

You’re a selfish prick.

It appears you are the one who refuses to help the people you pretend to be so concerned about.

I’m for universal health care. So yes, I would help.

You don’t know what universal care is. Know what you’re talking about before trying to upend an extremely complex system with many moving parts that will have drastic consequences.

 

[Taz]

So disabled people who can’t work should be left to die? That’s a great America?

Feel free to pay all their medical bills. No one is trying to stop you.

You’re a selfish prick.

It appears you are the one who refuses to help the people you pretend to be so concerned about.

I’m for universal health care. So yes, I would help.

You don’t know what universal care is. Know what you’re talking about before trying to upend an extremely complex system with many moving parts that will have drastic consequences.

I know what it is, I lived in Canada for a while.

 

[sakinago]

Feel free to pay all their medical bills. No one is trying to stop you.

You’re a selfish prick.

It appears you are the one who refuses to help the people you pretend to be so concerned about.

I’m for universal health care. So yes, I would help.

You don’t know what universal care is. Know what you’re talking about before trying to upend an extremely complex system with many moving parts that will have drastic consequences.

I know what it is, I lived in Canada for a while.

Medicare for all is socialized medicine. Universal just mean everyone is to be covered. Either through mandate requiring purchase of private insurance, or single payer, or a mix. For Medicare for all to work, you have to abolish private insurance, or force all doctors to accept the single payer method, then you’d get a 2 tier system. You could be universal and free market like the Swiss, which many rubes who don’t know the difference will point to the Swiss and say “see socialized medicine works great in that universal system.”

 

[Taz]

You’re a selfish prick.

It appears you are the one who refuses to help the people you pretend to be so concerned about.

I’m for universal health care. So yes, I would help.

You don’t know what universal care is. Know what you’re talking about before trying to upend an extremely complex system with many moving parts that will have drastic consequences.

I know what it is, I lived in Canada for a while.

Medicare for all is socialized medicine. Universal just mean everyone is to be covered. Either through mandate requiring purchase of private insurance, or single payer, or a mix. For Medicare for all to work, you have to abolish private insurance, or force all doctors to accept the single payer method, then you’d get a 2 tier system. You could be universal and free market like the Swiss, which many rubes who don’t know the difference will point to the Swiss and say “see socialized medicine works great in that universal system.”

In Canada they have free health care for everyone as well as private health care as well if you have money...

 

[sakinago]

It appears you are the one who refuses to help the people you pretend to be so concerned about.

I’m for universal health care. So yes, I would help.

You don’t know what universal care is. Know what you’re talking about before trying to upend an extremely complex system with many moving parts that will have drastic consequences.

I know what it is, I lived in Canada for a while.

Medicare for all is socialized medicine. Universal just mean everyone is to be covered. Either through mandate requiring purchase of private insurance, or single payer, or a mix. For Medicare for all to work, you have to abolish private insurance, or force all doctors to accept the single payer method, then you’d get a 2 tier system. You could be universal and free market like the Swiss, which many rubes who don’t know the difference will point to the Swiss and say “see socialized medicine works great in that universal system.”

In Canada they have free health care for everyone as well as private health care as well if you have money...

And I see Canadian cancer patients all the time, I’m over 4 hours away from the border. Were you in Canada when you had to get specialized care or surgery? If Medicare for all works, why is there a need for private insurance?

 

[Taz]

I’m for universal health care. So yes, I would help.

You don’t know what universal care is. Know what you’re talking about before trying to upend an extremely complex system with many moving parts that will have drastic consequences.

I know what it is, I lived in Canada for a while.

Medicare for all is socialized medicine. Universal just mean everyone is to be covered. Either through mandate requiring purchase of private insurance, or single payer, or a mix. For Medicare for all to work, you have to abolish private insurance, or force all doctors to accept the single payer method, then you’d get a 2 tier system. You could be universal and free market like the Swiss, which many rubes who don’t know the difference will point to the Swiss and say “see socialized medicine works great in that universal system.”

In Canada they have free health care for everyone as well as private health care as well if you have money...

And I see Canadian cancer patients all the time, I’m over 4 hours away from the border. Were you in Canada when you had to get specialized care or surgery? If Medicare for all works, why is there a need for private insurance?

Some people prefer their own doctor, and it can be faster to see them.

 

[sparky]

The simple fact that concentrated wealth exists , and is doing so exponentially evidences the rest of us loosing it Blues.

That we also live in a cyclical boom/bust economy means winners and loosers are defined by their social status , by that i mean the 1% of the top 1% .

Now i could also prattle on anedotally about owning my own biz and farm w/o the aid of banksters , yet it's no more than d*ck waving among the self made men fallacy

Which should all have been clearly revealed via the '08 crash....

~S~

You are in no risk of losing what you own to someone who owns more
You are in no way prevented from increasing your net worth because someone else increased their net worth.


The 08 crash was the result of meddling in the markets and the fed was one of the most guilty culprits

Interest rates were held artificially low and not allowed to rise as they would have done naturally which would have slowed down the growth of the real estate bubble and would have resulted in a leveling off of the spike in real estate values

And let's not forget the law that Clinton signed that repealed the laws that kept Banks, Investment firms and insurance companies sharply delineated from each other. It was deregulation that allowed too big to fail to happen.

The tax code is tilted that middle class tax dollars are being used to subsidize low wage workers. The working and middle class had savings and equity, until Reagan changed the tax code and the wealth of the nation started flowing unabated to the top 20%. The working class is now dependent on government handouts, and the middle class is shrinking.

The 08 crash happened for the same reason as the 1929 crash, and the 1986 - cheap interest rates, loose lending practices which gave mortgages to people who could not afford to repay them, tax cuts and deficit spending. Clinton signed the Bill deregulating the banks as a "lame duck". Republicans wrote and passed the legislation. Bill had no reason to veto it.

Deregulation is definitely a factor and Trump just deregulated Wall Steet, cut taxes and created the biggest deficits in history. How is this going to end differently than the last three times Republicans did this? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Clinton owns that bill 100% don't try to rationalize it and in retrospect he had very good reason to veto it didn't he? But then again we all know Clinton has absolutely no integrity.

And government tax cuts and deficit spending had nothing to do with the real estate bubble the majority of the blame for that lies with the Fed who artificially depressed interest rates which made sub prime loans profitable for lenders and let's not let the idiot home buyers who knew they could barely manage the mortgagees they were signing of the idiots who kept refinancing their homes every time the value went up off the hook.

You realize you're describing the cause/effect of rescinding Glass Steagal Blues....???~S~

 

[Blues Man]

The simple fact that concentrated wealth exists , and is doing so exponentially evidences the rest of us loosing it Blues.

That we also live in a cyclical boom/bust economy means winners and loosers are defined by their social status , by that i mean the 1% of the top 1% .

Now i could also prattle on anedotally about owning my own biz and farm w/o the aid of banksters , yet it's no more than d*ck waving among the self made men fallacy

Which should all have been clearly revealed via the '08 crash....

~S~

You are in no risk of losing what you own to someone who owns more
You are in no way prevented from increasing your net worth because someone else increased their net worth.


The 08 crash was the result of meddling in the markets and the fed was one of the most guilty culprits

Interest rates were held artificially low and not allowed to rise as they would have done naturally which would have slowed down the growth of the real estate bubble and would have resulted in a leveling off of the spike in real estate values

And let's not forget the law that Clinton signed that repealed the laws that kept Banks, Investment firms and insurance companies sharply delineated from each other. It was deregulation that allowed too big to fail to happen.

The tax code is tilted that middle class tax dollars are being used to subsidize low wage workers. The working and middle class had savings and equity, until Reagan changed the tax code and the wealth of the nation started flowing unabated to the top 20%. The working class is now dependent on government handouts, and the middle class is shrinking.

The 08 crash happened for the same reason as the 1929 crash, and the 1986 - cheap interest rates, loose lending practices which gave mortgages to people who could not afford to repay them, tax cuts and deficit spending. Clinton signed the Bill deregulating the banks as a "lame duck". Republicans wrote and passed the legislation. Bill had no reason to veto it.

Deregulation is definitely a factor and Trump just deregulated Wall Steet, cut taxes and created the biggest deficits in history. How is this going to end differently than the last three times Republicans did this? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Clinton owns that bill 100% don't try to rationalize it and in retrospect he had very good reason to veto it didn't he? But then again we all know Clinton has absolutely no integrity.

And government tax cuts and deficit spending had nothing to do with the real estate bubble the majority of the blame for that lies with the Fed who artificially depressed interest rates which made sub prime loans profitable for lenders and let's not let the idiot home buyers who knew they could barely manage the mortgagees they were signing of the idiots who kept refinancing their homes every time the value went up off the hook.

You realize you're describing the cause/effect of rescinding Glass Steagal Blues....???~S~

Yes and Clinton signed the law that was responsible

 

[sparky]

You’re a selfish prick.

It appears you are the one who refuses to help the people you pretend to be so concerned about.

I’m for universal health care. So yes, I would help.

You don’t know what universal care is. Know what you’re talking about before trying to upend an extremely complex system with many moving parts that will have drastic consequences.

I know what it is, I lived in Canada for a while.

Medicare for all is socialized medicine. Universal just mean everyone is to be covered. Either through mandate requiring purchase of private insurance, or single payer, or a mix. For Medicare for all to work, you have to abolish private insurance, or force all doctors to accept the single payer method, then you’d get a 2 tier system. You could be universal and free market like the Swiss, which many rubes who don’t know the difference will point to the Swiss and say “see socialized medicine works great in that universal system.”

Then there's forcing all of the medical community under the insurance cabal umbrella , which folks during these debates conveniently forget.

~S~

 

[sparky]

The simple fact that concentrated wealth exists , and is doing so exponentially evidences the rest of us loosing it Blues.

That we also live in a cyclical boom/bust economy means winners and loosers are defined by their social status , by that i mean the 1% of the top 1% .

Now i could also prattle on anedotally about owning my own biz and farm w/o the aid of banksters , yet it's no more than d*ck waving among the self made men fallacy

Which should all have been clearly revealed via the '08 crash....

~S~

You are in no risk of losing what you own to someone who owns more
You are in no way prevented from increasing your net worth because someone else increased their net worth.


The 08 crash was the result of meddling in the markets and the fed was one of the most guilty culprits

Interest rates were held artificially low and not allowed to rise as they would have done naturally which would have slowed down the growth of the real estate bubble and would have resulted in a leveling off of the spike in real estate values

And let's not forget the law that Clinton signed that repealed the laws that kept Banks, Investment firms and insurance companies sharply delineated from each other. It was deregulation that allowed too big to fail to happen.

The tax code is tilted that middle class tax dollars are being used to subsidize low wage workers. The working and middle class had savings and equity, until Reagan changed the tax code and the wealth of the nation started flowing unabated to the top 20%. The working class is now dependent on government handouts, and the middle class is shrinking.

The 08 crash happened for the same reason as the 1929 crash, and the 1986 - cheap interest rates, loose lending practices which gave mortgages to people who could not afford to repay them, tax cuts and deficit spending. Clinton signed the Bill deregulating the banks as a "lame duck". Republicans wrote and passed the legislation. Bill had no reason to veto it.

Deregulation is definitely a factor and Trump just deregulated Wall Steet, cut taxes and created the biggest deficits in history. How is this going to end differently than the last three times Republicans did this? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Clinton owns that bill 100% don't try to rationalize it and in retrospect he had very good reason to veto it didn't he? But then again we all know Clinton has absolutely no integrity.

And government tax cuts and deficit spending had nothing to do with the real estate bubble the majority of the blame for that lies with the Fed who artificially depressed interest rates which made sub prime loans profitable for lenders and let's not let the idiot home buyers who knew they could barely manage the mortgagees they were signing of the idiots who kept refinancing their homes every time the value went up off the hook.

You realize you're describing the cause/effect of rescinding Glass Steagal Blues....???~S~

Yes and Clinton signed the law that was responsible

It was catalyst to fiscal disaster , the derivatives market and hedge fund management assuming our mortgages ......

But that's how the 1% of our top 1% rolls here, all while the nation was focused on a blue dress....

~S~

 

[U2Edge]

About that myth that people in the UK are healthier: they're getting tubbier too.

The term "obese" describes a person who's very overweight, with a lot of body fat.

It's a common problem in the UK that's estimated to affect around one in every four adults.

In 2016 according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nearly 27 per cent of adults in the United Kingdom were obese, the highest proportion in Western Europe and a 92 per cent increase since 1996.

It's claimed that by 2030, half of the UK could be obese if the trends continue.

In September 2018, a UN study reported the UK was the third-fattest nation in Europe - behind just Turkey and Malta with an obesity rate of 27.8 per cent.

And in December the UK was crowned the 26th fattest country in the world.

What is the obesity crisis, how does alcohol affect your weight and how can childhood obesity be prevented?

People in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States. They spend less on healthcare and everyone is provided healthcare.

Your posts make me think of an equivalent I heard lately regarding the difference between a million and a billion (or millionaires and billionaires). 1 million seconds is about 11 days, 1 billion seconds is about 30 years. So yes, I agree that taxing the ultra-wealthy more is probably what is best for our society, that said raising taxes on anyone else traditionally stifles economic growth in virtually all sectors other than public employees. I don’t feel as confident as you seem to, that vast government spending and large government agencies to deliver health care will automatically improve the care being delivered to those who need it most, though. In all fairness, attempts at communism (socialism’s extreme cousin) have all resulted in direct and indirect carnage for populations. Not to say you’re advocating communism, but in order for the federal government to take over health care in this country we would have to allow our government to completely control that sector of the economy, no?

The target of increased taxes is always the Kulaks (successful middle class) because there just aren't enough Uber Rich to pay for everything:

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day
Seems like these days I hear a lot of whiney whiners whining about "out of control government spending" and "insane deficits" and such, trying to make hay out of a bunch of pointy-head boring finance hooey. Sure, $3.7 trillion of spending sounds like a big number. "Oh, boo-hoo, how are we going to get $3.7 trillion dollars? We're broke, boo-hoo-hoo," whine the whiners. What these skinflint crybabies fail to realize is that $3.7 trillion is for an entire year - which translates into only a measly $10 billion per day!

Mister, I call that a bargain. Especially since it pays for all of us - you and me, the whole American family. Like all families, we Americas have to pay for things - health, food, safety, uncle Dave America with his drinking problem. And when little Billy America wants that new quad runner they promised, do Mom and Dad America deny him? No, they get a second job at Circle K, because they know little Billy might have one of his episodes and burn down the house.

So let's all sit down together as an American family with a calendar and make a yearly budget. First, let's lock in the $3.7 trillion of critical family spending priorities; now let's get to work on collecting the pay-as-we-go $10 billion daily cash flow we need.

12:01 AM, January 1
Let's start the year out right by going after some evil corporations and their obscene profits. And who is more evil than those twin spawns of Lucifer himself, Exxon Mobil and Walmart? Together these two largest American industrial behemoths raked in, between them, $34 billion in 2010 global profits. Let's teach 'em both a lesson and confiscate it for the public good. This will get us through...

9:52 AM January 4
Okay, maybe I underestimated our take. But we shouldn't let Exxon and Walmart distract us from all those other corporate profiteers out there worth shaking down. In fact, why don't we grab every cent of 2010 profit made by the other 498 members of the Fortune 500? That will net us another, let's see, $357 billion! Enough to get us to...

2:00 AM February 9
So we're running out of corporate cash, but look - it's Super Bowl time! As we all know, the game has become a crass disgusting festival of commercialism. So let's take all the TV ad money spent on stupid Super Bowl ads, and apply that to government needs. That would be $250 million, enough to fund us for, let's see... 36 minutes. The half time show, at least. But why stop there? Let's take every cent of ad money spent on all 45 Super Bowls, a cool $5 billion, which would cover us until...

2:00 PM February 9
Speaking of sports, why should the players be immune to our pressing public needs? Lord knows professional athletes make obscene salaries for playing a dumb game. So let's take the combined salaries of all players in the NFL, Major League Baseball, the NBA, and the NHL. Hey, they've got endorsement deals, they'll hardly miss it. Throw in the total winnings of everybody on the PGA tour and NASCAR, and we get $9.4 billion, enough to get us through until...

1:00 PM February 10
Okay, it's time to stop messing around. Athletes aren't the only ones greedily raking it in. What about America's rich - those fancy pants fat cats living the high life in the above-$250,000 income bracket? According to IRS statistics, these 1.93% of US households are hogging 25% of US income. And why do they need it? For crying out loud, they probably stole it anyway. I say let's take 100% of every penny they make above $250,000. They can use the rest to pay their state and local taxes. Now we're talking big bucks, brother. How much? Let's see...

A: Number of US households: 116,000,000
B: Average US household income: $68,000 (median = $52,000)
C: Total US household income (A * B): $7.89 trillion
D: Percent of households above $250k income: 1.93%
E: Number of households above $250k income (A*D): 2,238,800
F: Percent of national income earned by households making $250k or more = 25%
G: Total income of households making $250k or more (C*F): $1.97 trillion
H: Total income of households in excess of $250k (G - E*$250,000) = $1.412 trillion

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day

The rich derive their wealth not just from annual income. Its also there in form of capital gains, estate, property etc. The top 20% of income earners have 80% of the wealth, wealth here being far more than just annual income. The bottom 80% of only 20% of the wealth. So yes, the rich can afford to pay a lot more in taxes and it won't hurt the economy and will greatly benefit the country.

You also need to factor in how much consumer spending do households with an income of 250K or more do. Consumer spending is 70% of economic growth. These 2,238,000 households probably do go to the movies, out to eat, shopping, and other basic things that drive most economic growth. But their consumer spending on these things is a tiny fraction of what the other 113,000,000 households who make less than 250K are doing. You want to keep the taxes low on those doing the most consumer spending which in this case is the 113,000,000 households making less than 250K a year. You can gradually increase taxes on the group making over 250K a year for two reasons: 1. they typically don't reduce their consumer spending when their taxes are increased unlike the middle and lower classes. 2. Even if they did, their contribution to basic consumer spending is much less than the 113,000,000 million households making less than 250K.

You're a LIAR!

List of Countries with Universal Healthcare

No, I'm not. Look at the map in the link:

Here's a Map of the Countries That Provide Universal Health Care (America's Still Not on It) - The Atlantic

The latest UN Human Development Index can be found here:

List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia

 

[U2Edge]

Yes because they have better eating habits overall in Europe. Nothing to do with healthcare. Mutually exclusive. Have you ever traveled?

About that myth that people in the UK are healthier: they're getting tubbier too.

The term "obese" describes a person who's very overweight, with a lot of body fat.

It's a common problem in the UK that's estimated to affect around one in every four adults.

In 2016 according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nearly 27 per cent of adults in the United Kingdom were obese, the highest proportion in Western Europe and a 92 per cent increase since 1996.

It's claimed that by 2030, half of the UK could be obese if the trends continue.

In September 2018, a UN study reported the UK was the third-fattest nation in Europe - behind just Turkey and Malta with an obesity rate of 27.8 per cent.

And in December the UK was crowned the 26th fattest country in the world.

What is the obesity crisis, how does alcohol affect your weight and how can childhood obesity be prevented?

People in the UK on average live longer than people in the United States. They spend less on healthcare and everyone is provided healthcare.

Your posts make me think of an equivalent I heard lately regarding the difference between a million and a billion (or millionaires and billionaires). 1 million seconds is about 11 days, 1 billion seconds is about 30 years. So yes, I agree that taxing the ultra-wealthy more is probably what is best for our society, that said raising taxes on anyone else traditionally stifles economic growth in virtually all sectors other than public employees. I don’t feel as confident as you seem to, that vast government spending and large government agencies to deliver health care will automatically improve the care being delivered to those who need it most, though. In all fairness, attempts at communism (socialism’s extreme cousin) have all resulted in direct and indirect carnage for populations. Not to say you’re advocating communism, but in order for the federal government to take over health care in this country we would have to allow our government to completely control that sector of the economy, no?

Again, 45 out of the 50 most developed countries in the world are already providing Universal Healthcare for all their citizens Employers in these countries don't have to worry about providing healthcare for their employees. So that actually helps business, especially many small business's.

A for profit healthcare system that allows and industry to profit off of people being sick and ill is not a good system. Its why healthcare cost grow over year and it is bankrupting the country. Healthcare cost right now are on an annual basis are over 22% of annual GDP. Compare that to spending on the military which is only 4% of GDP.

Its time that the United States adopt a healthcare system that is ubiquitous in the developed world. The evidence shows that such a system increases life expectancy, covers everyone, and on average cost about half as much as our system. Its one sector of the economy, not the entire economy by any means.

As far as taxes go, when IKE was President, the top federal tax rate each year he was President was 80% or more. Today its only 37%. In 1990, the top federal tax rate was 28%. This was increase by Bush and then increased by Clinton up to 40%. After that you had the ECONOMIC BOOM of the late 1990s. Raising taxes on the rich at these levels does not hurt the economy. The evidence for that is widespread. Yes, keep taxes low for the 90% of the workers who make less than $100,000 a year. But over that level, it needs to be gradually increased, especially once you get to the millionaire and billionaire levels. From 1945 to 1980, the top federal tax rate every year was always above 70%. U.S. economic growth from 1945 to 1980 was much stronger then, than it has been since then, especially since the year 2000.

The top 20% of income earners in the country have 80% of the wealth. The bottom 80% have only 20% of the wealth. Yet, most consumer spending is done by the bottom 80% of income earners. That is why you want to keep the bottom 80% of income earners taxes low. Consumer spending is 70% of what drives real quarterly GDP growth. The lower class and middle class do most of the consumer spending. That's why their taxes need to remain low or even cut. The Rich though typically don't change their level of consumer spending based on their tax rate, another great benefit of being rich. The rich don't go to the movies and out to eat less when their taxes get raised. That's why you can increase tax rates on the rich without hurting the economy.

How would you pay for it. Of those 45 countries how many have even close to the population of the US?

The United States is the wealthiest country in the world. 3rd wealthiest per capita. So the size of the US population is not a problem since the United States has more wealth per capita than all those countries except two. The fact is, these countries have LESS wealth per capita than the United States, yet they still provide Universal Healthcare for their citizens. In terms of population and wealth, its easier for the United States to provide Universal Healthcare than it is for these other countries.

 

[U2Edge]

Below are the 50 most developed countries in the world ranked according to the UN Human Development index which measures development and standard of living through estimates of GDP per capita, life expectancy, and education. There are a total of 197 countries in the world today. 193 of those countries are part of the United Nations. 45 out of the 50 most developed countries in the world below provide UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE for its citizens, essentially medicare for all. The following are the five countries from the list below that do not:

01. Cyprus
02. United Arab Emirates
03. Qatar
04. Bahrain
05. United States

Cyprus is currently In the process of moving to a Universal Healthcare system which will be completed in a few years. That will leave the United States alone with three Arab countries as being the only countries, of the 50 most developed in the world, that do not have Universal HealthCare.

Why does the United States, the wealthiest country in the world and the 3rd wealthiest per captia country, still not provide Universal Healthcare for its citizens? How could anyone say that Universal HealthCare is impossible or too expensive for the United States when nearly all of the 50 most developed countries in the world provide it for its citizens?


50 MOST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD RANKED:

01 - Norway
02 - Switzerland
03 - Australia
04 - Ireland
05 - Germany
06 - Iceland
07 - San Marino
08 - Sweden
09 - Singapore
10 - Netherlands
11 - Denmark
12 Canada
13 - United States
14 - United Kingdom
15 - Monaco
16 - Vatican City
17 - Finland
18 - New Zealand
19 - Belgium
20 - Liechtenstein
21 - Japan
22 - Austria
23 - Luxembourg
24 - Israel
25 - Taiwan
26 - South Korea
27 - France
28 - Slovenia
29 - Spain
30 - Czech Republic
31 - Italy
32 - Malta
33 - Estonia
34 - Greece
35 - Cyprus
36 - Poland
37 - United Arab Emirates
38 - Andorra
39 - Lithuania
40 - Qatar
41 - Slovakia
42 - Brunei
43 - Saudi Arabia
44 - Latvia
45 - Portugal
46 - Bahrain
47 - Chile
48 - Hungary
49 - Croatia
50 - Argentina

Okay then, if those very civilized countries have such awesome free health care, why do so many folks FROM this very civilized countries always come here to get their major health issues addressed? How come no one from the USA spends the time and money to get their cancer treated, yet a guy from Cypress will come here for treatment? Then take this guy here,



“A fCancer patient appeals to health minister to save his life - Cyprus Mailew small cancer cells which first showed up my 2015 CT scan have spread to my liver and lung and are growing daily.”


McIntyre was informed that he did not meet the criteria to obtain a Cyprus health card, even though he had applied on grounds of ‘special circumstances’ covering only chemotherapy treatment. As he does not have the thousands needed to pay for it privately, he believes the state has handed out a possible death sentence.

He was or IS in one of those most civilized countries you mentioned. Here, if he were a guy on a $25,000 a year salary and in the same shape even medicade would only “make him comfortable”, yet he could go directly to the company who makes the chemo he needs and get them for free as long as he has a Dr. to administer them. Not so in them civilized countries. And many drug company can’t do this anymore because half black Jesus had to do some legacy building. Still, as a poor person, if I had cancer my chances are much better for survival then any of those “most civilized” countries. I never got told no for any medicine I needed until Obamacare passed.

People don't flock to other countries for health care BECAUSE IT'S NOT ALLOWED.

When people's tax dollars are paying for the health care in your country, it's for your citizens first, not some guy with a big wad of cash, UNLESS, you live in the USA and have for-profit health-care.

Canadian tax dollars educate our docutors and nurses, build our hospitals, and keep the system running. We come first. The day we have surplus capacity, we'll cut capacity. Our health care system is bought and paid for with Canadian tax dollars. It is illegal for providers to sell the services our tax dollars pay for, for profit.

Only in America is there a for-profit system which uses public tax money to build, support and staff the system, and pay for research, and allows those who run the system to ignore the American people, and to sell their services to the highest bidder.

My family and I have no right to healthcare, But I do have the right to earn healthcare for me and my family.

If you have the right to life, you have the right to healthcare. You can't separate a right to life from healthcare. The two are intertwined. That is why everyone in prison has universal healthcare. Since the United States provides Universal Healthcare to its criminals, it should also provide it to its law abiding citizens.

 

[Crixus]

Below are the 50 most developed countries in the world ranked according to the UN Human Development index which measures development and standard of living through estimates of GDP per capita, life expectancy, and education. There are a total of 197 countries in the world today. 193 of those countries are part of the United Nations. 45 out of the 50 most developed countries in the world below provide UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE for its citizens, essentially medicare for all. The following are the five countries from the list below that do not:

01. Cyprus
02. United Arab Emirates
03. Qatar
04. Bahrain
05. United States

Cyprus is currently In the process of moving to a Universal Healthcare system which will be completed in a few years. That will leave the United States alone with three Arab countries as being the only countries, of the 50 most developed in the world, that do not have Universal HealthCare.

Why does the United States, the wealthiest country in the world and the 3rd wealthiest per captia country, still not provide Universal Healthcare for its citizens? How could anyone say that Universal HealthCare is impossible or too expensive for the United States when nearly all of the 50 most developed countries in the world provide it for its citizens?


50 MOST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD RANKED:

01 - Norway
02 - Switzerland
03 - Australia
04 - Ireland
05 - Germany
06 - Iceland
07 - San Marino
08 - Sweden
09 - Singapore
10 - Netherlands
11 - Denmark
12 Canada
13 - United States
14 - United Kingdom
15 - Monaco
16 - Vatican City
17 - Finland
18 - New Zealand
19 - Belgium
20 - Liechtenstein
21 - Japan
22 - Austria
23 - Luxembourg
24 - Israel
25 - Taiwan
26 - South Korea
27 - France
28 - Slovenia
29 - Spain
30 - Czech Republic
31 - Italy
32 - Malta
33 - Estonia
34 - Greece
35 - Cyprus
36 - Poland
37 - United Arab Emirates
38 - Andorra
39 - Lithuania
40 - Qatar
41 - Slovakia
42 - Brunei
43 - Saudi Arabia
44 - Latvia
45 - Portugal
46 - Bahrain
47 - Chile
48 - Hungary
49 - Croatia
50 - Argentina

Okay then, if those very civilized countries have such awesome free health care, why do so many folks FROM this very civilized countries always come here to get their major health issues addressed? How come no one from the USA spends the time and money to get their cancer treated, yet a guy from Cypress will come here for treatment? Then take this guy here,



“A fCancer patient appeals to health minister to save his life - Cyprus Mailew small cancer cells which first showed up my 2015 CT scan have spread to my liver and lung and are growing daily.”


McIntyre was informed that he did not meet the criteria to obtain a Cyprus health card, even though he had applied on grounds of ‘special circumstances’ covering only chemotherapy treatment. As he does not have the thousands needed to pay for it privately, he believes the state has handed out a possible death sentence.

He was or IS in one of those most civilized countries you mentioned. Here, if he were a guy on a $25,000 a year salary and in the same shape even medicade would only “make him comfortable”, yet he could go directly to the company who makes the chemo he needs and get them for free as long as he has a Dr. to administer them. Not so in them civilized countries. And many drug company can’t do this anymore because half black Jesus had to do some legacy building. Still, as a poor person, if I had cancer my chances are much better for survival then any of those “most civilized” countries. I never got told no for any medicine I needed until Obamacare passed.

People don't flock to other countries for health care BECAUSE IT'S NOT ALLOWED.

When people's tax dollars are paying for the health care in your country, it's for your citizens first, not some guy with a big wad of cash, UNLESS, you live in the USA and have for-profit health-care.

Canadian tax dollars educate our docutors and nurses, build our hospitals, and keep the system running. We come first. The day we have surplus capacity, we'll cut capacity. Our health care system is bought and paid for with Canadian tax dollars. It is illegal for providers to sell the services our tax dollars pay for, for profit.

Only in America is there a for-profit system which uses public tax money to build, support and staff the system, and pay for research, and allows those who run the system to ignore the American people, and to sell their services to the highest bidder.

My family and I have no right to healthcare, But I do have the right to earn healthcare for me and my family.

If you have the right to life, you have the right to healthcare. You can't separate a right to life from healthcare. The two are intertwined. That is why everyone in prison has universal healthcare. Since the United States provides Universal Healthcare to its criminals, it should also provide it to its law abiding citizens.

Let me tell you something, prision health care ain’t so awesome. Still, if universal healthcare is great in Canada and the rest of the world, why is it that everyone from other countries come here when they can do so?

 

[U2Edge]

Below are the 50 most developed countries in the world ranked according to the UN Human Development index which measures development and standard of living through estimates of GDP per capita, life expectancy, and education. There are a total of 197 countries in the world today. 193 of those countries are part of the United Nations. 45 out of the 50 most developed countries in the world below provide UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE for its citizens, essentially medicare for all. The following are the five countries from the list below that do not:

01. Cyprus
02. United Arab Emirates
03. Qatar
04. Bahrain
05. United States

Cyprus is currently In the process of moving to a Universal Healthcare system which will be completed in a few years. That will leave the United States alone with three Arab countries as being the only countries, of the 50 most developed in the world, that do not have Universal HealthCare.

Why does the United States, the wealthiest country in the world and the 3rd wealthiest per captia country, still not provide Universal Healthcare for its citizens? How could anyone say that Universal HealthCare is impossible or too expensive for the United States when nearly all of the 50 most developed countries in the world provide it for its citizens?


50 MOST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD RANKED:

01 - Norway
02 - Switzerland
03 - Australia
04 - Ireland
05 - Germany
06 - Iceland
07 - San Marino
08 - Sweden
09 - Singapore
10 - Netherlands
11 - Denmark
12 Canada
13 - United States
14 - United Kingdom
15 - Monaco
16 - Vatican City
17 - Finland
18 - New Zealand
19 - Belgium
20 - Liechtenstein
21 - Japan
22 - Austria
23 - Luxembourg
24 - Israel
25 - Taiwan
26 - South Korea
27 - France
28 - Slovenia
29 - Spain
30 - Czech Republic
31 - Italy
32 - Malta
33 - Estonia
34 - Greece
35 - Cyprus
36 - Poland
37 - United Arab Emirates
38 - Andorra
39 - Lithuania
40 - Qatar
41 - Slovakia
42 - Brunei
43 - Saudi Arabia
44 - Latvia
45 - Portugal
46 - Bahrain
47 - Chile
48 - Hungary
49 - Croatia
50 - Argentina

Let me be among the first to say, we're not interested in emulating other countries, so telling us, "THESE countries do it, so we should" doesn't mean much. My advice is that if you think any or all of them are better than this country, you should GO LIVE THERE, rather than demanding that the rest of us becoming something different to suit your tastes.

Well, I love my country, and I think that once it has Universal Healthcare, the countries life expectancy and standard of living will dramatically increase. It will be good for the United States and will actually make the country stronger. The other countries on the list are of systems of healthcare that work. They cost less, cover everyone, and increase life expectancy. If someone does something better than you, you should try to emulate them or find a way to equal or top them.

 

[U2Edge]

The United States ranks 34th in the world in terms of Life Expectancy. That's despite the fact that the United States spend more on healthcare than any country in the world. Yet despite all that spending, the United States is not taking care of all of its citizens like the rest of the world is and essentially has a different system of care for those that are rich vs lower class. HOW IS THAT SMART?

Explain how our ranking in life expectancy is related to our health care system?

Healthcare saves lives which naturally increases the average life expectancy in a country.

 

[U2Edge]

Below are the 50 most developed countries in the world ranked according to the UN Human Development index which measures development and standard of living through estimates of GDP per capita, life expectancy, and education. There are a total of 197 countries in the world today. 193 of those countries are part of the United Nations. 45 out of the 50 most developed countries in the world below provide UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE for its citizens, essentially medicare for all. The following are the five countries from the list below that do not:

01. Cyprus
02. United Arab Emirates
03. Qatar
04. Bahrain
05. United States

Cyprus is currently In the process of moving to a Universal Healthcare system which will be completed in a few years. That will leave the United States alone with three Arab countries as being the only countries, of the 50 most developed in the world, that do not have Universal HealthCare.

Why does the United States, the wealthiest country in the world and the 3rd wealthiest per captia country, still not provide Universal Healthcare for its citizens? How could anyone say that Universal HealthCare is impossible or too expensive for the United States when nearly all of the 50 most developed countries in the world provide it for its citizens?


50 MOST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD RANKED:

01 - Norway
02 - Switzerland
03 - Australia
04 - Ireland
05 - Germany
06 - Iceland
07 - San Marino
08 - Sweden
09 - Singapore
10 - Netherlands
11 - Denmark
12 Canada
13 - United States
14 - United Kingdom
15 - Monaco
16 - Vatican City
17 - Finland
18 - New Zealand
19 - Belgium
20 - Liechtenstein
21 - Japan
22 - Austria
23 - Luxembourg
24 - Israel
25 - Taiwan
26 - South Korea
27 - France
28 - Slovenia
29 - Spain
30 - Czech Republic
31 - Italy
32 - Malta
33 - Estonia
34 - Greece
35 - Cyprus
36 - Poland
37 - United Arab Emirates
38 - Andorra
39 - Lithuania
40 - Qatar
41 - Slovakia
42 - Brunei
43 - Saudi Arabia
44 - Latvia
45 - Portugal
46 - Bahrain
47 - Chile
48 - Hungary
49 - Croatia
50 - Argentina

Okay then, if those very civilized countries have such awesome free health care, why do so many folks FROM this very civilized countries always come here to get their major health issues addressed? How come no one from the USA spends the time and money to get their cancer treated, yet a guy from Cypress will come here for treatment? Then take this guy here,



“A fCancer patient appeals to health minister to save his life - Cyprus Mailew small cancer cells which first showed up my 2015 CT scan have spread to my liver and lung and are growing daily.”


McIntyre was informed that he did not meet the criteria to obtain a Cyprus health card, even though he had applied on grounds of ‘special circumstances’ covering only chemotherapy treatment. As he does not have the thousands needed to pay for it privately, he believes the state has handed out a possible death sentence.

He was or IS in one of those most civilized countries you mentioned. Here, if he were a guy on a $25,000 a year salary and in the same shape even medicade would only “make him comfortable”, yet he could go directly to the company who makes the chemo he needs and get them for free as long as he has a Dr. to administer them. Not so in them civilized countries. And many drug company can’t do this anymore because half black Jesus had to do some legacy building. Still, as a poor person, if I had cancer my chances are much better for survival then any of those “most civilized” countries. I never got told no for any medicine I needed until Obamacare passed.

People don't flock to other countries for health care BECAUSE IT'S NOT ALLOWED.

When people's tax dollars are paying for the health care in your country, it's for your citizens first, not some guy with a big wad of cash, UNLESS, you live in the USA and have for-profit health-care.

Canadian tax dollars educate our docutors and nurses, build our hospitals, and keep the system running. We come first. The day we have surplus capacity, we'll cut capacity. Our health care system is bought and paid for with Canadian tax dollars. It is illegal for providers to sell the services our tax dollars pay for, for profit.

Only in America is there a for-profit system which uses public tax money to build, support and staff the system, and pay for research, and allows those who run the system to ignore the American people, and to sell their services to the highest bidder.

My family and I have no right to healthcare, But I do have the right to earn healthcare for me and my family.

If you have the right to life, you have the right to healthcare. You can't separate a right to life from healthcare. The two are intertwined. That is why everyone in prison has universal healthcare. Since the United States provides Universal Healthcare to its criminals, it should also provide it to its law abiding citizens.

Let me tell you something, prision health care ain’t so awesome. Still, if universal healthcare is great in Canada and the rest of the world, why is it that everyone from other countries come here when they can do so?

Some people come here, the vast majority do not.

 

[Andylusion]

Below are the 50 most developed countries in the world ranked according to the UN Human Development index which measures development and standard of living through estimates of GDP per capita, life expectancy, and education. There are a total of 197 countries in the world today. 193 of those countries are part of the United Nations. 45 out of the 50 most developed countries in the world below provide UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE for its citizens, essentially medicare for all. The following are the five countries from the list below that do not:

01. Cyprus
02. United Arab Emirates
03. Qatar
04. Bahrain
05. United States

Cyprus is currently In the process of moving to a Universal Healthcare system which will be completed in a few years. That will leave the United States alone with three Arab countries as being the only countries, of the 50 most developed in the world, that do not have Universal HealthCare.

Why does the United States, the wealthiest country in the world and the 3rd wealthiest per captia country, still not provide Universal Healthcare for its citizens? How could anyone say that Universal HealthCare is impossible or too expensive for the United States when nearly all of the 50 most developed countries in the world provide it for its citizens?


50 MOST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD RANKED:

01 - Norway
02 - Switzerland
03 - Australia
04 - Ireland
05 - Germany
06 - Iceland
07 - San Marino
08 - Sweden
09 - Singapore
10 - Netherlands
11 - Denmark
12 Canada
13 - United States
14 - United Kingdom
15 - Monaco
16 - Vatican City
17 - Finland
18 - New Zealand
19 - Belgium
20 - Liechtenstein
21 - Japan
22 - Austria
23 - Luxembourg
24 - Israel
25 - Taiwan
26 - South Korea
27 - France
28 - Slovenia
29 - Spain
30 - Czech Republic
31 - Italy
32 - Malta
33 - Estonia
34 - Greece
35 - Cyprus
36 - Poland
37 - United Arab Emirates
38 - Andorra
39 - Lithuania
40 - Qatar
41 - Slovakia
42 - Brunei
43 - Saudi Arabia
44 - Latvia
45 - Portugal
46 - Bahrain
47 - Chile
48 - Hungary
49 - Croatia
50 - Argentina

The problem is, simply listing countries that have "universal health care" doesn't mean they are getting good care.

We have universal health care for veterans. It sucks.

Similarly, Cuba is supposed to have universal health care. It sucks. Same with Greece, which you have listed there. Their health care sucks. Same with Venezuela.

Saying something is government policy, doesn't mean it is good.

Equally, we have a massive government run health care system, of free clinics across this entire country. I've been to some of them. They suck. I would much rather pay for good quality care, than get the crappy garbage care provided by government run health clinics and hospitals.

The problem with the left-wing, is that they want to drag everyone down, and force them into garbage care, while jacking up taxes on everyone.

 

[Crixus]

Below are the 50 most developed countries in the world ranked according to the UN Human Development index which measures development and standard of living through estimates of GDP per capita, life expectancy, and education. There are a total of 197 countries in the world today. 193 of those countries are part of the United Nations. 45 out of the 50 most developed countries in the world below provide UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE for its citizens, essentially medicare for all. The following are the five countries from the list below that do not:

01. Cyprus
02. United Arab Emirates
03. Qatar
04. Bahrain
05. United States

Cyprus is currently In the process of moving to a Universal Healthcare system which will be completed in a few years. That will leave the United States alone with three Arab countries as being the only countries, of the 50 most developed in the world, that do not have Universal HealthCare.

Why does the United States, the wealthiest country in the world and the 3rd wealthiest per captia country, still not provide Universal Healthcare for its citizens? How could anyone say that Universal HealthCare is impossible or too expensive for the United States when nearly all of the 50 most developed countries in the world provide it for its citizens?


50 MOST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD RANKED:

01 - Norway
02 - Switzerland
03 - Australia
04 - Ireland
05 - Germany
06 - Iceland
07 - San Marino
08 - Sweden
09 - Singapore
10 - Netherlands
11 - Denmark
12 Canada
13 - United States
14 - United Kingdom
15 - Monaco
16 - Vatican City
17 - Finland
18 - New Zealand
19 - Belgium
20 - Liechtenstein
21 - Japan
22 - Austria
23 - Luxembourg
24 - Israel
25 - Taiwan
26 - South Korea
27 - France
28 - Slovenia
29 - Spain
30 - Czech Republic
31 - Italy
32 - Malta
33 - Estonia
34 - Greece
35 - Cyprus
36 - Poland
37 - United Arab Emirates
38 - Andorra
39 - Lithuania
40 - Qatar
41 - Slovakia
42 - Brunei
43 - Saudi Arabia
44 - Latvia
45 - Portugal
46 - Bahrain
47 - Chile
48 - Hungary
49 - Croatia
50 - Argentina

Let me be among the first to say, we're not interested in emulating other countries, so telling us, "THESE countries do it, so we should" doesn't mean much. My advice is that if you think any or all of them are better than this country, you should GO LIVE THERE, rather than demanding that the rest of us becoming something different to suit your tastes.

Well, I love my country, and I think that once it has Universal Healthcare, the countries life expectancy and standard of living will dramatically increase. It will be good for the United States and will actually make the country stronger. The other countries on the list are of systems of healthcare that work. They cost less, cover everyone, and increase life expectancy. If someone does something better than you, you should try to emulate them or find a way to equal or top them.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care


Crossing the Border for Care
Frustrated by long waits, some Canadians are heading to the U.S. for medical treatment.



Why do they come here if it’s so good in Canada ? Are you just not going to answer? Name a country and people from that country come here to receive treatment for cancer and major illnesses. Why?