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

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

It’s less about money and more about supply and demand. If MDs aren’t being paid why would people
Still want to pay the money to become MDs. In those countries you listed, is the education free?

 

[U2Edge]

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

I gave You a link. You lied. It’s not truly Universal in these countries. Liar.

I responded with multiple links to show you that is not true. You failed to look at them.

 

[Anathema]

That's right, over 50% of Americans support Universal Healthcare. Universal Healthcare is coming to the United States whether these anti-healthcare types like it or not.

Let me know when it’s gonna happen so I can make sure my life insurance is up to date, so I can die in peace.

 

[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.

Millions of Americans cannot afford health insurance so that is not true. The Wealthiest 20% of households in the United States have 80% of the country's wealth.

Obamacare fixed that remember.

Sure did. My deductible went from $15 bucks to $80 bucks and $125 for a specialist.

Shut up and enjoy your government Obamacare damn it. Why does everyone bitch and complain about their government Obamacare and losing their doctors and health insurance plans and not saving $2,500 a year and having to pay more than before. There's just no pleasing some people. /sarcasm

 

[U2Edge]

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.

It’s less about money and more about supply and demand. If MDs aren’t being paid why would people
Still want to pay the money to become MDs. In those countries you listed, is the education free?

Its called caring for people. I'd prefer a doctor who was more interested in me and my health outcome than one who was just interested in cashing a pay check.

 

[BluesLegend]

The United States is a democracy, and one day the majority In this country will vote for Universal Healthcare. Its a tragedy that the United States is one of the few countries in the developed world not to take care of all of its citizens. Universal Healthcare is coming to the United States whether you like it or not.

Look I'm not going to work overtime to pay for YOUR health insurance. Work a job, work 2 jobs pay your own damn bills and stop trying to mooch off the rest of us.

 

[Flash]

You are not a "developed" country if you have a system where you steal the money made by some people and use it to pay the health care bills of other people that didn't earn the money.

That is state sponsored thievery.

 

[Crixus]

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.

It’s less about money and more about supply and demand. If MDs aren’t being paid why would people
Still want to pay the money to become MDs. In those countries you listed, is the education free?

Its called caring for people. I'd prefer a doctor who was more interested in me and my health outcome than one who was just interested in cashing a pay check.

You know, I agree with you 100% on that, and that’s just what Obamacare got rid of.

 

[U2Edge]

With Universal Healthcare, people would have better access to doctors, nurses and others that could give advise and help with the conditions you describe. It would have a dramatic effect on U.S. life expectancy. The reason U.S. life expectancy is low, is that it gets brought down by those who live in poverty or near the poverty level and don't have access to low cost quality food and healthcare. It makes a huge differences in the averages and is why the United States continues to lag behind so many other countries in the developed world in life expectancy.

The evidence is obvious. Universal Healthcare would benefit millions of people in the lower class and in poverty in the United States. It would improve U.S. life expectancy and standard of living. Its the right, moral thing to do for people and the country as a whole will benefit. Yet, because some people are blinded by outdated ideology, they will not support the common sense thing to do to help people.

If the evidence is obvious, why don't you present it? How is a government take over of health care going to make people exercise more and not shove their pie holes with beer and pizza and processed foods? How is a government take over of health car going to stop people from using meth and heroin? How is a government take over of health care going to make people safer drivers?

The fact is it doesn't.. Britain has similar problems with morbid obesity, drug use, and people dying to due to poor lifestyles and they have your system, so how do you account for that?

You really don't know what you're talking about. You're just rattling off an opinion you think is correct because it seems in your mind like it should be, but reality is much different.

Universal Healthcare will provide the poor and lower class with better access to doctors, nurses, advise and low cost quality food. When people in the low income spectrum of things get better access to services, it raises their standard of living.

I've got all the relevant facts supporting this.

FACT: People in countries with Universal Healthcare live longer on average than people in countries without Universal Healthcare.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, you would force someone else to pay their bills. Your "compassion" is about 1/10th of an inch deep.

I’m willing for some of my taxes to go for universal health care. That’s willing to help.

Fine, so long as I can prevent my tax dollars from going to your causes. How about we have a check-off system where we get to choose what our taxes pay for?

In Britain?

You're British? Well, you have the healthcare system you deserve - one of the worst in the industrialized world.

The average Brit lives longer than the average American.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with healthcare.

As much as I realize that it confuses and bewilders you, the world is not a simple place, and humans are not simple creatures. People aren't interchangeable cogs, and nations aren't either. Simplistic answers like "Let's just do this the way the Brits do, and that'll make us just like them!" only make sense to children and fools.

First of all, there's just the math to consider. Life expectancy is an estimate, an average figured by the age at which other people die. Great Britain has a population of approximately 64 million people. The United States has a population of approximately 300 million people. How do you suppose that difference might affect the outcome of the equation?

Then there's the fact that life expectancy figured just by geographic area is wildly imprecise, because you're often lumping together people who vary hugely in individual specifics. Women have a longer life expectancy in general than men, so while my life expectancy might be X because I'm American, it's Y because I'm female. This is why life expectancy is usually figured and reported in groups within the larger group: life expectancy for women, life expectancy for white people, life expectancy for Arizona, life expectancy for non-smokers.

Great Britain is a mostly homogenous society in terms of race and ethnicity; the United States definitely isn't. As politically incorrect as it is to mention it, other racial and ethnic groups have quite different life expectancies from white people, some better and some worse, for a variety of different reasons. Those factors change the averages quite a bit. And noticeably, when you break down US life expectancy by racial and ethnic group, they often become comparable to the life expectancies of people in the origin country. It's almost like there are other factors at work there.

I can keep going, listing other factors that have far more influence on life expectancy than how socialized the healthcare system is, but the point is that the differences between countries are varied and complex, which means that making life expectancy the exact same is also far more complex.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The problem is, they don’t know what they are asking for. Notice the op can not explain why Canadians come here to be treated. Canada and the rest of the world.

Some do, most don't. The reasons Canadians live longer than Americans has more to do with their own healthcare system than it does the few who cross the border for private care in the United States.

Prove it.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

1111

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.

Except it doesn't work that way. The reason American life expectancy is less than many of our counterparts is we have higher rates of automobile fatalities, we have higher rates of death due to poor eating habits and lack of exercise (Americans are fat and lazy) and we have higher rates of drug related deaths. None of that has anything to do with our health care system. It has to do with poor cultural habits.

With Universal Healthcare, people would have better access to doctors, nurses and others that could give advise and help with the conditions you describe. It would have a dramatic effect on U.S. life expectancy. The reason U.S. life expectancy is low, is that it gets brought down by those who live in poverty or near the poverty level and don't have access to low cost quality food and healthcare. It makes a huge differences in the averages and is why the United States continues to lag behind so many other countries in the developed world in life expectancy.

The evidence is obvious. Universal Healthcare would benefit millions of people in the lower class and in poverty in the United States. It would improve U.S. life expectancy and standard of living. Its the right, moral thing to do for people and the country as a whole will benefit. Yet, because some people are blinded by outdated ideology, they will not support the common sense thing to do to help people.

The common sense thing? 2005 I needed drugs. The drug was an injectable. It was four shots a month, one month supply cost $1,750 bucks per month. The pills I took with the shot cost $375 a month. On Obama care it’s $120+- plus any specialist. I payed nothing for that and no, I didn’t get medicade, I made to much money. I went to the drug company, provided a W2 and I got all those drugs for free. Today, I take drugs for my lungs. Those are $460 a month. Since polititions in Washington who still get the best private insurance tax payers can provide messed with healthcare, drug companies no longer have these programs. If you like it so much move where they have it. If you already live in a place that has it, keep it.

Sorry, but the facts of life expectancy and Universal Healthcare coverage show that the United States would benefit from a system of Universal Healthcare. Europeans have it, they live longer on average than Americans. That's an indisputable fact.

Before the Unaffordable care act was ENFORCED, where some people didnt want to buy health insurance but now had to or be taxed, the life expectancy was very high, around 80 years old. But since the Dimwitocraps behind closed doors FORCED this boondoggle of a bill upon US (thanks to the stupidity of the liberal voter) the "life expectancy" decreased for the first time. Thanks Obama.

Life Expectancy In U.S. Drops For First Time In Decades, Report Finds

So the news out of the federal government Thursday is disturbing: The overall U.S. death rate has increased for the first time in a decade, according to an analysis of the latest data. And that led to a drop in overall life expectancy for the first time since 1993, particularly among people younger than 65.

 

[U2Edge]

You are not a "developed" country if you have a system where you steal the money made by some people and use it to pay the health care bills of other people that didn't earn the money.

That is state sponsored thievery.

Wrong, because people EARN money from the MARKET! The MARKET decides your salary and how much your house is worth, NOT you. You did not create the market, you were born into it. Those who benefit most from the market are required to pay a higher percentage of their earnings in taxes in order to help build and sustain the market. The market needs to be defended from foreign invasion and it needs law and order to operate efficiently which is provided by a government.

Tell you what, move to Somalia where there is no government to "steal your earnings" and see how you like it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Except it doesn't work that way. The reason American life expectancy is less than many of our counterparts is we have higher rates of automobile fatalities, we have higher rates of death due to poor eating habits and lack of exercise (Americans are fat and lazy) and we have higher rates of drug related deaths. None of that has anything to do with our health care system. It has to do with poor cultural habits.

With Universal Healthcare, people would have better access to doctors, nurses and others that could give advise and help with the conditions you describe. It would have a dramatic effect on U.S. life expectancy. The reason U.S. life expectancy is low, is that it gets brought down by those who live in poverty or near the poverty level and don't have access to low cost quality food and healthcare. It makes a huge differences in the averages and is why the United States continues to lag behind so many other countries in the developed world in life expectancy.

The evidence is obvious. Universal Healthcare would benefit millions of people in the lower class and in poverty in the United States. It would improve U.S. life expectancy and standard of living. Its the right, moral thing to do for people and the country as a whole will benefit. Yet, because some people are blinded by outdated ideology, they will not support the common sense thing to do to help people.

Asserting that something is a fact does not constitute evidence of anything except that YOU think so.

Try PROVING that healthcare is the cause of life expectancy rates, that "universal healthcare" will produce the effects you claim, pretty much prove anything you've asserted.

 

[U2Edge]

1111

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

Except it doesn't work that way. The reason American life expectancy is less than many of our counterparts is we have higher rates of automobile fatalities, we have higher rates of death due to poor eating habits and lack of exercise (Americans are fat and lazy) and we have higher rates of drug related deaths. None of that has anything to do with our health care system. It has to do with poor cultural habits.

With Universal Healthcare, people would have better access to doctors, nurses and others that could give advise and help with the conditions you describe. It would have a dramatic effect on U.S. life expectancy. The reason U.S. life expectancy is low, is that it gets brought down by those who live in poverty or near the poverty level and don't have access to low cost quality food and healthcare. It makes a huge differences in the averages and is why the United States continues to lag behind so many other countries in the developed world in life expectancy.

The evidence is obvious. Universal Healthcare would benefit millions of people in the lower class and in poverty in the United States. It would improve U.S. life expectancy and standard of living. Its the right, moral thing to do for people and the country as a whole will benefit. Yet, because some people are blinded by outdated ideology, they will not support the common sense thing to do to help people.

The common sense thing? 2005 I needed drugs. The drug was an injectable. It was four shots a month, one month supply cost $1,750 bucks per month. The pills I took with the shot cost $375 a month. On Obama care it’s $120+- plus any specialist. I payed nothing for that and no, I didn’t get medicade, I made to much money. I went to the drug company, provided a W2 and I got all those drugs for free. Today, I take drugs for my lungs. Those are $460 a month. Since polititions in Washington who still get the best private insurance tax payers can provide messed with healthcare, drug companies no longer have these programs. If you like it so much move where they have it. If you already live in a place that has it, keep it.

Sorry, but the facts of life expectancy and Universal Healthcare coverage show that the United States would benefit from a system of Universal Healthcare. Europeans have it, they live longer on average than Americans. That's an indisputable fact.

Before the Unaffordable care act was ENFORCED, where some people didnt want to buy health insurance but now had to or be taxed, the life expectancy was very high, around 80 years old. But since the Dimwitocraps behind closed doors FORCED this boondoggle of a bill upon US (thanks to the stupidity of the liberal voter) the "life expectancy" decreased for the first time. Thanks Obama.

Life Expectancy In U.S. Drops For First Time In Decades, Report Finds

So the news out of the federal government Thursday is disturbing: The overall U.S. death rate has increased for the first time in a decade, according to an analysis of the latest data. And that led to a drop in overall life expectancy for the first time since 1993, particularly among people younger than 65.

FACT: People in countries with Universal Health care live longer on average than people in countries without Universal Healthcare.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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.

Except it doesn't work that way. The reason American life expectancy is less than many of our counterparts is we have higher rates of automobile fatalities, we have higher rates of death due to poor eating habits and lack of exercise (Americans are fat and lazy) and we have higher rates of drug related deaths. None of that has anything to do with our health care system. It has to do with poor cultural habits.

With Universal Healthcare, people would have better access to doctors, nurses and others that could give advise and help with the conditions you describe. It would have a dramatic effect on U.S. life expectancy. The reason U.S. life expectancy is low, is that it gets brought down by those who live in poverty or near the poverty level and don't have access to low cost quality food and healthcare. It makes a huge differences in the averages and is why the United States continues to lag behind so many other countries in the developed world in life expectancy.

The evidence is obvious. Universal Healthcare would benefit millions of people in the lower class and in poverty in the United States. It would improve U.S. life expectancy and standard of living. Its the right, moral thing to do for people and the country as a whole will benefit. Yet, because some people are blinded by outdated ideology, they will not support the common sense thing to do to help people.

The common sense thing? 2005 I needed drugs. The drug was an injectable. It was four shots a month, one month supply cost $1,750 bucks per month. The pills I took with the shot cost $375 a month. On Obama care it’s $120+- plus any specialist. I payed nothing for that and no, I didn’t get medicade, I made to much money. I went to the drug company, provided a W2 and I got all those drugs for free. Today, I take drugs for my lungs. Those are $460 a month. Since polititions in Washington who still get the best private insurance tax payers can provide messed with healthcare, drug companies no longer have these programs. If you like it so much move where they have it. If you already live in a place that has it, keep it.

Sorry, but the facts of life expectancy and Universal Healthcare coverage show that the United States would benefit from a system of Universal Healthcare. Europeans have it, they live longer on average than Americans. That's an indisputable fact.

Unless they are being run over by a Box Truck in Nice France, or beheaded by a Muslim in London? Then you have to wait 6 months or more to get into their emergency rooms to see if they can help you, and if they cant, you get 2 aspirin and are told to go home and die..

 

[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.

Except it doesn't work that way. The reason American life expectancy is less than many of our counterparts is we have higher rates of automobile fatalities, we have higher rates of death due to poor eating habits and lack of exercise (Americans are fat and lazy) and we have higher rates of drug related deaths. None of that has anything to do with our health care system. It has to do with poor cultural habits.

With Universal Healthcare, people would have better access to doctors, nurses and others that could give advise and help with the conditions you describe. It would have a dramatic effect on U.S. life expectancy. The reason U.S. life expectancy is low, is that it gets brought down by those who live in poverty or near the poverty level and don't have access to low cost quality food and healthcare. It makes a huge differences in the averages and is why the United States continues to lag behind so many other countries in the developed world in life expectancy.

The evidence is obvious. Universal Healthcare would benefit millions of people in the lower class and in poverty in the United States. It would improve U.S. life expectancy and standard of living. Its the right, moral thing to do for people and the country as a whole will benefit. Yet, because some people are blinded by outdated ideology, they will not support the common sense thing to do to help people.

Asserting that something is a fact does not constitute evidence of anything except that YOU think so.

Try PROVING that healthcare is the cause of life expectancy rates, that "universal healthcare" will produce the effects you claim, pretty much prove anything you've asserted.

FACT: People in countries with Universal Healthcare on average live longer than people in countries without Universal Healthcare.

Its immoral in the wealthiest country in the world, to not provide healthcare for every citizen.

 

[U2Edge]

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

Except it doesn't work that way. The reason American life expectancy is less than many of our counterparts is we have higher rates of automobile fatalities, we have higher rates of death due to poor eating habits and lack of exercise (Americans are fat and lazy) and we have higher rates of drug related deaths. None of that has anything to do with our health care system. It has to do with poor cultural habits.

With Universal Healthcare, people would have better access to doctors, nurses and others that could give advise and help with the conditions you describe. It would have a dramatic effect on U.S. life expectancy. The reason U.S. life expectancy is low, is that it gets brought down by those who live in poverty or near the poverty level and don't have access to low cost quality food and healthcare. It makes a huge differences in the averages and is why the United States continues to lag behind so many other countries in the developed world in life expectancy.

The evidence is obvious. Universal Healthcare would benefit millions of people in the lower class and in poverty in the United States. It would improve U.S. life expectancy and standard of living. Its the right, moral thing to do for people and the country as a whole will benefit. Yet, because some people are blinded by outdated ideology, they will not support the common sense thing to do to help people.

The common sense thing? 2005 I needed drugs. The drug was an injectable. It was four shots a month, one month supply cost $1,750 bucks per month. The pills I took with the shot cost $375 a month. On Obama care it’s $120+- plus any specialist. I payed nothing for that and no, I didn’t get medicade, I made to much money. I went to the drug company, provided a W2 and I got all those drugs for free. Today, I take drugs for my lungs. Those are $460 a month. Since polititions in Washington who still get the best private insurance tax payers can provide messed with healthcare, drug companies no longer have these programs. If you like it so much move where they have it. If you already live in a place that has it, keep it.

Sorry, but the facts of life expectancy and Universal Healthcare coverage show that the United States would benefit from a system of Universal Healthcare. Europeans have it, they live longer on average than Americans. That's an indisputable fact.

Unless they are being run over by a Box Truck in Nice France, or beheaded by a Muslim in London? Then you have to wait 6 months or more to get into their emergency rooms to see if they can help you, and if they cant, you get 2 aspirin and are told to go home and die..

If that were the case, they would have a MUCH lower life expectancy. They don't. ITs higher.

 

[Crixus]

1111

Except it doesn't work that way. The reason American life expectancy is less than many of our counterparts is we have higher rates of automobile fatalities, we have higher rates of death due to poor eating habits and lack of exercise (Americans are fat and lazy) and we have higher rates of drug related deaths. None of that has anything to do with our health care system. It has to do with poor cultural habits.

With Universal Healthcare, people would have better access to doctors, nurses and others that could give advise and help with the conditions you describe. It would have a dramatic effect on U.S. life expectancy. The reason U.S. life expectancy is low, is that it gets brought down by those who live in poverty or near the poverty level and don't have access to low cost quality food and healthcare. It makes a huge differences in the averages and is why the United States continues to lag behind so many other countries in the developed world in life expectancy.

The evidence is obvious. Universal Healthcare would benefit millions of people in the lower class and in poverty in the United States. It would improve U.S. life expectancy and standard of living. Its the right, moral thing to do for people and the country as a whole will benefit. Yet, because some people are blinded by outdated ideology, they will not support the common sense thing to do to help people.

The common sense thing? 2005 I needed drugs. The drug was an injectable. It was four shots a month, one month supply cost $1,750 bucks per month. The pills I took with the shot cost $375 a month. On Obama care it’s $120+- plus any specialist. I payed nothing for that and no, I didn’t get medicade, I made to much money. I went to the drug company, provided a W2 and I got all those drugs for free. Today, I take drugs for my lungs. Those are $460 a month. Since polititions in Washington who still get the best private insurance tax payers can provide messed with healthcare, drug companies no longer have these programs. If you like it so much move where they have it. If you already live in a place that has it, keep it.

Sorry, but the facts of life expectancy and Universal Healthcare coverage show that the United States would benefit from a system of Universal Healthcare. Europeans have it, they live longer on average than Americans. That's an indisputable fact.

Before the Unaffordable care act was ENFORCED, where some people didnt want to buy health insurance but now had to or be taxed, the life expectancy was very high, around 80 years old. But since the Dimwitocraps behind closed doors FORCED this boondoggle of a bill upon US (thanks to the stupidity of the liberal voter) the "life expectancy" decreased for the first time. Thanks Obama.

Life Expectancy In U.S. Drops For First Time In Decades, Report Finds

So the news out of the federal government Thursday is disturbing: The overall U.S. death rate has increased for the first time in a decade, according to an analysis of the latest data. And that led to a drop in overall life expectancy for the first time since 1993, particularly among people younger than 65.

FACT: People in countries with Universal Health care live longer on average than people in countries without Universal Healthcare.

FACT, the cost of health care has gone up every year since the imposition of Obamacare. FACT, more Americans are not satisfied with their healthcare since the impossible of Obamacare. America ain’t Europe for a reason. If you like it so much, go there.

 

[Crixus]

Except it doesn't work that way. The reason American life expectancy is less than many of our counterparts is we have higher rates of automobile fatalities, we have higher rates of death due to poor eating habits and lack of exercise (Americans are fat and lazy) and we have higher rates of drug related deaths. None of that has anything to do with our health care system. It has to do with poor cultural habits.

With Universal Healthcare, people would have better access to doctors, nurses and others that could give advise and help with the conditions you describe. It would have a dramatic effect on U.S. life expectancy. The reason U.S. life expectancy is low, is that it gets brought down by those who live in poverty or near the poverty level and don't have access to low cost quality food and healthcare. It makes a huge differences in the averages and is why the United States continues to lag behind so many other countries in the developed world in life expectancy.

The evidence is obvious. Universal Healthcare would benefit millions of people in the lower class and in poverty in the United States. It would improve U.S. life expectancy and standard of living. Its the right, moral thing to do for people and the country as a whole will benefit. Yet, because some people are blinded by outdated ideology, they will not support the common sense thing to do to help people.

The common sense thing? 2005 I needed drugs. The drug was an injectable. It was four shots a month, one month supply cost $1,750 bucks per month. The pills I took with the shot cost $375 a month. On Obama care it’s $120+- plus any specialist. I payed nothing for that and no, I didn’t get medicade, I made to much money. I went to the drug company, provided a W2 and I got all those drugs for free. Today, I take drugs for my lungs. Those are $460 a month. Since polititions in Washington who still get the best private insurance tax payers can provide messed with healthcare, drug companies no longer have these programs. If you like it so much move where they have it. If you already live in a place that has it, keep it.

Sorry, but the facts of life expectancy and Universal Healthcare coverage show that the United States would benefit from a system of Universal Healthcare. Europeans have it, they live longer on average than Americans. That's an indisputable fact.

Unless they are being run over by a Box Truck in Nice France, or beheaded by a Muslim in London? Then you have to wait 6 months or more to get into their emergency rooms to see if they can help you, and if they cant, you get 2 aspirin and are told to go home and die..

If that were the case, they would have a MUCH lower life expectancy. They don't. ITs higher.

Then go there. Live longer.