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

[Brain357]

Its the assumption that the wealthiest country in the world has the best healthcare. The same assumption that drives people to go the hospital as best in the country. The reality though is much different.

Were not talking about the few with money who choose to travel because they believe something is better. Were talking about average life expectancy in each country and which countries are providing their citizens with Universal Healthcare. Most Europeans do not go to America to get healthcare. They stay in their countries and on average live longer than Americans. That last fact is by FAR the most relevant.

Let me ask you this:

Timely Medical | Timely Surgery at Affordable Prices

This is a company. It's a company operating out of Canada. The entire purpose of this company, is to setup patient, primarily in Canada, with doctors and hospitals in the US.

They charge money, obviously to provide this service.
This is an additional charge to the cost of getting whatever treatment or surgery they get in the US.

The company was started by a Canadian doctor, who was fed up watching patients die while waiting.

So my question to you is this.....

Canada has universal care, that is "free". Please explain to me how Timely medical can find enough consistent flow of customers, willing to pay thousands of dollars for surgery in the US, and to pay them to set them up for that surgery.... if those same customers can all get surgery for 'free'?

If government run health care is so great in Canada, how can this company started by a Canadian doctor, end up with thousands of customers every year willing to pay for health care? How can they find enough people willing to spend thousands of dollar for health care, to escape their Canadian system if it is so great?

Can you explain that to me?

Don't have to. These little individual examples, whether they are true or not, are irrelevant. What matters is the overall averages on life expectancy and the countries that provide Universal Healthcare. Look FRANCE, GERMANY, SWEDEN, NORWAY, ITALY etc. Most people in the top 50 most developed countries in the world stay in their own countries when it comes to healthcare. At least 34 of those countries citizens live longer than Americans on average. One's personal experience, or some off hand example will not change that reality.

France, where doctors went on strike for weeks, and people were left without care, not to mention people died of heat stroke in hospitals during a heat wave years back.

Germany, has a system of private insurance, the nearly all people are part of.

Moreover, nearly all those countries have double our tax rate.

Which is more expensive: Current insurance premiums, or a 50% tax rate on the middle class?

And yes, the fact is, if you want to support your argument, then you do have to explain why people come from all over the world from their 'free health care' systems, to pay for health care here.

If you can't, then whether you admit it, or believe it, you have undeniably lost the argument that free government care is better.

Rich people come here. Just like only rich people here will be able to afford it soon.

Not true. My parents go to Childrens hospital, and serve the people who are here alone, because their family can't afford to come themselves.

They not just serve lunch and dinner, but they take ill-children out on walks and to the zoo, because their middle and lower class parents, have left their children here in the US utterly alone.

Why would parents do this to their 10-year-old daughter? Because in their home countries, they are told to just go home and die.

You are making up crap, to fit your stupid narrative.

Not only that, but even if your made up BS was true......

That would clearly show a two-tier health care system. A system where the Rich escape to find better care, and the poor are doomed to suffer under the government system.

Why would a rich person spend millions going to a different country, when the supposedly equal and fair system they have is free?

Because it sucks. Not only do you doom people to a universal system that sucks... but you tax away their money to pay for that system, which makes them more unable to buy health care from a country that has good care.

The rich laugh their way to better care in the US, while the poor are taxed until they can't afford to do the same.

That's your grand system of equality?

Well what countries are they coming from?

 

[Andylusion]

Market forces don’t exist in healthcare, how can you introduce them? People never refuse emergency care because of cost...

Isn't emergency care what your insurance would be for?

And it is very expensive.

BULL CRAP.
You people....

In 2006, I had catastrophic health insurance coverage, for a whooping $67 a month. Covered up to a Million dollars.

It was perfectly affordable. After Obama-Care-ap, now the cheapest coverage is $300 a month.

It wasn't expensive, until the democraps screwed up the market.

What amazes me, is that the dumbass liberals (redundant statement I know) think that if the government ran our healthcare system, everything will be hunky dory. Hey dumbasses, walk into a DMV or post office and see how well the healthcare system would be run in government control...Geezes H Christo, you mother fuckers are stupid.

Absolutely. What blows my mind, is that we don't even need to look at government run BMV or the USPS..... we have government health care in the US right now.

The VA system is HORRENDOUS.... My brother-in-law came back from Iraq before he married my sister. He had a problem with his hand, from his time in Iraq. Same problem my father had, that got a private doctor, and was healed in a matter of weeks.

My brother waited YEARS to get this simple surgery done on his hand. YEARS. Free health care my butt.

He finally said screw it, got a private doctor, and had the surgery in under 3 weeks.

Gov-care.... 2 years.
Private-care.... 2 weeks.

Pretty clear..... pretty obvious. Many many examples.

These left-wingers are just mindless parrots. They don't care what the reality of government care is... only the idea. Just like the soviets were all about the idea of equality... didn't matter that they were literally eating each other.... cannibalism was rampant across parts of the Soviet empire by the end, because there was no food.

But.... it was fair! it was equal! It was ABSOLUTE CRAP.

 

[Andylusion]

Let me ask you this:

Timely Medical | Timely Surgery at Affordable Prices

This is a company. It's a company operating out of Canada. The entire purpose of this company, is to setup patient, primarily in Canada, with doctors and hospitals in the US.

They charge money, obviously to provide this service.
This is an additional charge to the cost of getting whatever treatment or surgery they get in the US.

The company was started by a Canadian doctor, who was fed up watching patients die while waiting.

So my question to you is this.....

Canada has universal care, that is "free". Please explain to me how Timely medical can find enough consistent flow of customers, willing to pay thousands of dollars for surgery in the US, and to pay them to set them up for that surgery.... if those same customers can all get surgery for 'free'?

If government run health care is so great in Canada, how can this company started by a Canadian doctor, end up with thousands of customers every year willing to pay for health care? How can they find enough people willing to spend thousands of dollar for health care, to escape their Canadian system if it is so great?

Can you explain that to me?

Don't have to. These little individual examples, whether they are true or not, are irrelevant. What matters is the overall averages on life expectancy and the countries that provide Universal Healthcare. Look FRANCE, GERMANY, SWEDEN, NORWAY, ITALY etc. Most people in the top 50 most developed countries in the world stay in their own countries when it comes to healthcare. At least 34 of those countries citizens live longer than Americans on average. One's personal experience, or some off hand example will not change that reality.

France, where doctors went on strike for weeks, and people were left without care, not to mention people died of heat stroke in hospitals during a heat wave years back.

Germany, has a system of private insurance, the nearly all people are part of.

Moreover, nearly all those countries have double our tax rate.

Which is more expensive: Current insurance premiums, or a 50% tax rate on the middle class?

And yes, the fact is, if you want to support your argument, then you do have to explain why people come from all over the world from their 'free health care' systems, to pay for health care here.

If you can't, then whether you admit it, or believe it, you have undeniably lost the argument that free government care is better.

Rich people come here. Just like only rich people here will be able to afford it soon.

Not true. My parents go to Childrens hospital, and serve the people who are here alone, because their family can't afford to come themselves.

They not just serve lunch and dinner, but they take ill-children out on walks and to the zoo, because their middle and lower class parents, have left their children here in the US utterly alone.

Why would parents do this to their 10-year-old daughter? Because in their home countries, they are told to just go home and die.

You are making up crap, to fit your stupid narrative.

Not only that, but even if your made up BS was true......

That would clearly show a two-tier health care system. A system where the Rich escape to find better care, and the poor are doomed to suffer under the government system.

Why would a rich person spend millions going to a different country, when the supposedly equal and fair system they have is free?

Because it sucks. Not only do you doom people to a universal system that sucks... but you tax away their money to pay for that system, which makes them more unable to buy health care from a country that has good care.

The rich laugh their way to better care in the US, while the poor are taxed until they can't afford to do the same.

That's your grand system of equality?

Well what countries are they coming from?

Obviously I don't know all of them, and obviously I don't intend to pry a lonely little girl for all her details.

The two countries I do know about where the UK, and Australia. But I've heard of people from Sweden and France as well.... but I don't know those stories first hand.

Why does it matter? They were all first world countries with supposedly free care.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fact remains that since you stated it as a fact, but provided no proof of it, it's not a fact. It's just what you "know" is true, because you're "sure" of it, but have never bothered to verify it.

https://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/3BackgroundPaperMedBankruptcy.pdf
"Health care costs pose a significant problem in the United States, and a 2007 survey found that 70 million Americans owe medical debt or experience difficulty in paying for treatment.4 Another found that 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000"
Here you go.

Which amazingly doesn't prove that people die because they can't get medical care. Proof of your statement should involve your actual statement.

I should also point out that I don't consider WHO to be much of a reliable source when it comes to healthcare systems. Any group who ranks the quality of a healthcare system on how socialized it is has a little too big an axe to grind in my book.

-You don't think, that not being able to pay for medical care makes receiving medical care impossible? Or is it that you don't think that not getting medical care can make people die?
-As to you not liking my sourcing. I at least provided a source. You did no such thing. You just went with a general, "oh I don't trust the WHO". Since you want me to provide sourcing for my claims, I invite you to source an actual example of the WHO fudging data.

One doesn’t have to pay for medical care here. I just posted one of many ways to acquire expensive medication. And medicade covers doctors. I’m with the other poster. Please provide cases where people have died from lack of medical care here.

-The problem is that would be anecdotal evidence now wouldn't it? Something that the other poster has made clear she does not want. I have such an example by the way.
-So I'll do a simple example. How Much Does A Colonoscopy Cost?
It says that doing a colonoscopy costs 3000 dollar without insurance. Suffice to say that not a lot of people who haven't got insurance will pay that amount. Colon cancer causes about 50000 deaths annually in the US.
-Here everybody is insured and no costs are charged for doing these sorts of screenings. You don't think not having universal healthcare costs lives?

You logic like a little kid. "If medical care was just given away free, EVERYONE would have it and no one would die!"

Adult logic tells you that if medical care wasn't profitable to the people providing it, no one would provide it. Which is essentially where "universal healthcare" countries end up heading.

Here's a question for you: how lifesaving is a "free" colonoscopy if you have to wait so long to get it that the colon cancer is inoperable by the time you do?

So no, "A colonoscopy costs $3000 without insurance, so that means that people without insurance don't get them, and all colon cancer deaths in the US are because people couldn't get colonoscopies!" does not follow in any mind but the most puerile.

Once again, I have proof and you have blank assertions with lots of stuff left out.

Colorectal Cancer - Cancer Stat Facts
Bowel cancer statistics

Estimated deaths from colorectal cancer in the US in 2018: 50,630 - 8.1% of all cancer deaths.
Estimated deaths from colorectal cancer in the UK in 2016: 16,000 - 10% of all cancer deaths.

Survival rate in the US: 64.5%
Survival rate in the UK: 57%

Even granting that the two websites - and the two countries - measure and report their stats in different ways, it really doesn't look to me like your splendiferous "everybody is insured" is actually giving you any better results.

 

[Brain357]

Don't have to. These little individual examples, whether they are true or not, are irrelevant. What matters is the overall averages on life expectancy and the countries that provide Universal Healthcare. Look FRANCE, GERMANY, SWEDEN, NORWAY, ITALY etc. Most people in the top 50 most developed countries in the world stay in their own countries when it comes to healthcare. At least 34 of those countries citizens live longer than Americans on average. One's personal experience, or some off hand example will not change that reality.

France, where doctors went on strike for weeks, and people were left without care, not to mention people died of heat stroke in hospitals during a heat wave years back.

Germany, has a system of private insurance, the nearly all people are part of.

Moreover, nearly all those countries have double our tax rate.

Which is more expensive: Current insurance premiums, or a 50% tax rate on the middle class?

And yes, the fact is, if you want to support your argument, then you do have to explain why people come from all over the world from their 'free health care' systems, to pay for health care here.

If you can't, then whether you admit it, or believe it, you have undeniably lost the argument that free government care is better.

Rich people come here. Just like only rich people here will be able to afford it soon.

Not true. My parents go to Childrens hospital, and serve the people who are here alone, because their family can't afford to come themselves.

They not just serve lunch and dinner, but they take ill-children out on walks and to the zoo, because their middle and lower class parents, have left their children here in the US utterly alone.

Why would parents do this to their 10-year-old daughter? Because in their home countries, they are told to just go home and die.

You are making up crap, to fit your stupid narrative.

Not only that, but even if your made up BS was true......

That would clearly show a two-tier health care system. A system where the Rich escape to find better care, and the poor are doomed to suffer under the government system.

Why would a rich person spend millions going to a different country, when the supposedly equal and fair system they have is free?

Because it sucks. Not only do you doom people to a universal system that sucks... but you tax away their money to pay for that system, which makes them more unable to buy health care from a country that has good care.

The rich laugh their way to better care in the US, while the poor are taxed until they can't afford to do the same.

That's your grand system of equality?

Well what countries are they coming from?

Obviously I don't know all of them, and obviously I don't intend to pry a lonely little girl for all her details.

The two countries I do know about where the UK, and Australia. But I've heard of people from Sweden and France as well.... but I don't know those stories first hand.

Why does it matter? They were all first world countries with supposedly free care.

Sounds like you have no real stats. Rand Paul
Is headed to Canada for his care, can we assume it’s better there?

 

[forkup]

Fact remains people in the US die because some medical care is prohibitively expensive for a significant portion of the populace. I'm sure there are circumstances were medical care in the US is preferable. I'm talking about what medical care system is better for the LARGEST percentage of the populace.

Fact remains that since you stated it as a fact, but provided no proof of it, it's not a fact. It's just what you "know" is true, because you're "sure" of it, but have never bothered to verify it.

https://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/3BackgroundPaperMedBankruptcy.pdf
"Health care costs pose a significant problem in the United States, and a 2007 survey found that 70 million Americans owe medical debt or experience difficulty in paying for treatment.4 Another found that 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000"
Here you go.

Which amazingly doesn't prove that people die because they can't get medical care. Proof of your statement should involve your actual statement.

I should also point out that I don't consider WHO to be much of a reliable source when it comes to healthcare systems. Any group who ranks the quality of a healthcare system on how socialized it is has a little too big an axe to grind in my book.

-You don't think, that not being able to pay for medical care makes receiving medical care impossible? Or is it that you don't think that not getting medical care can make people die?
-As to you not liking my sourcing. I at least provided a source. You did no such thing. You just went with a general, "oh I don't trust the WHO". Since you want me to provide sourcing for my claims, I invite you to source an actual example of the WHO fudging data.

No, I don't think that. I don't know what country YOU think this is, but I can assure you that the US provides lots of ways to get life-saving care.

What I actually think is that you're making a whole lot of ASSumptions based on your own personal and simplistic version of "logic". I have very little patience with people who say, "I just KNOW this is true, because it's just so OBVIOUS to me that it MUST be, therefore it IS true and you must treat it that way."

As to me not "providing a source", what assertions exactly did I make that I was supposed to source and didn't? Please cite them.

And I did NOT "go with a general" anything. I told you precisely why I don't trust the WHO, and I didn't say "fudging data", so please do not attempt to hold ME responsible for what YOU assumed I said because you're too damned illiterate and sloppy to bother reading and understanding the words.

Here's what I said. Take another run at it, and maybe those weird things we call "letters" will make some sense to you this time:

"I should also point out that I don't consider WHO to be much of a reliable source when it comes to healthcare systems. Any group who ranks the quality of a healthcare system on how socialized it is has a little too big an axe to grind in my book."

And yes, I can and will source that, since you've obviously been too busy gulping down anything they say that fits your worldview to bother researching.

From their original report ranking the US 37th in the world:

"The world health report 2000 also breaks new ground in presenting for the first time an
index of national health systems’ performance in trying to achieve three overall goals: good
health, responsiveness to the expectations of the population, and fairness of financial contribution."

From "MEASURING OVERALL HEALTH SYSTEM PERFORMANCE FOR 191 COUNTRIES" on the WHO website:

"The first is improvement in the health of the population (both in terms of levels attained
and distribution). The second is enhanced responsiveness of the health system to the
legitimate expectations of the population. Responsiveness in this context explicitly refers
to the non-health improving dimensions of the interactions of the populace with the
health system, and reflects respect of persons and client orientation in the delivery of
health services, among other factors.1 As with health outcomes, both the level of
responsiveness and its distribution are important. The third intrinsic goal is fairness in
financing and financial risk protection. The aim is to ensure that poor households should
not pay a higher share of their discretionary expenditure on health than richer households,
and all households should be protected against catastrophic financial losses related to ill
health."

From the Cato Institute's analysis of WHO's ranking report:

"WHO’s index is based on
five factors, weighted as follows:

1. Health Level: 25 percent
2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent
5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent"

"Financial Fairness. A health system’s financial fairness (FF) is measured by determining a household’s contribution to health expenditure as a percentage of household income (beyond subsistence), then looking at the dispersion of this percentage over all households. The wider the dispersion in the percentage of household income spent on health care, the worse a nation will perform on the FF factor and the overall index (other things being equal).

The FF factor is not an objective measure of health attainment, but rather reflects a value judgment that rich people should pay more for health care, even if they consume the same amount. This is a value judgment not applied to most other goods, even those regarded as necessities such as food and housing.Most people understand and accept that the poor will tend to spend a larger percentage of their income on these items.

More importantly, the FF factor, which accounts for one-fourth of each nation’s OA score, necessarily makes countries that rely on market incentives look inferior. The FF measure rewards nations that finance health care according to ability to pay, rather than according to actual consumption or willingness to pay."

Unfortunately, I cannot just give you a link to any of these reports, because they all have to be downloaded as pdfs from their host website. I have done so, which is why I can quote them. You're welcome to do so as well and fact-check me if you think I'm making up what they said.

No, I don't think that. I don't know what country YOU think this is

You made this statement not me.

Which amazingly doesn't prove that people die because they can't get medical care.

What I actually think is that you're making a whole lot of ASSumptions

I didn't assume anything, unless you find it an assumption on my end that making healthcare prohibitively expensive for poor people would make healthcare less available for poor people.

what assertions exactly did I make that I was supposed to source and didn't?

This one.

I should also point out that I don't consider WHO to be much of a reliable source

The FF factor is not an objective measure of health attainment, but rather reflects a value judgment that rich people should pay more for health care, even if they consume the same amount.

This is not true. It rather reflects the necessity of taking financial cost of healthcare as a factor in the availability of healthcare. It's the disconnect I see a lot. For some reason, the people who are against universal healthcare seem to say. As long as you can get healthcare, it is available. Regardless of the fact that you can actual afford the treatment. It's kind of like claiming that everybody can get a yacht simply because you can buy one for x amount of dollars.

 

[forkup]

https://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/3BackgroundPaperMedBankruptcy.pdf
"Health care costs pose a significant problem in the United States, and a 2007 survey found that 70 million Americans owe medical debt or experience difficulty in paying for treatment.4 Another found that 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000"
Here you go.

Which amazingly doesn't prove that people die because they can't get medical care. Proof of your statement should involve your actual statement.

I should also point out that I don't consider WHO to be much of a reliable source when it comes to healthcare systems. Any group who ranks the quality of a healthcare system on how socialized it is has a little too big an axe to grind in my book.

-You don't think, that not being able to pay for medical care makes receiving medical care impossible? Or is it that you don't think that not getting medical care can make people die?
-As to you not liking my sourcing. I at least provided a source. You did no such thing. You just went with a general, "oh I don't trust the WHO". Since you want me to provide sourcing for my claims, I invite you to source an actual example of the WHO fudging data.

One doesn’t have to pay for medical care here. I just posted one of many ways to acquire expensive medication. And medicade covers doctors. I’m with the other poster. Please provide cases where people have died from lack of medical care here.

-The problem is that would be anecdotal evidence now wouldn't it? Something that the other poster has made clear she does not want. I have such an example by the way.
-So I'll do a simple example. How Much Does A Colonoscopy Cost?
It says that doing a colonoscopy costs 3000 dollar without insurance. Suffice to say that not a lot of people who haven't got insurance will pay that amount. Colon cancer causes about 50000 deaths annually in the US.
-Here everybody is insured and no costs are charged for doing these sorts of screenings. You don't think not having universal healthcare costs lives?

You logic like a little kid. "If medical care was just given away free, EVERYONE would have it and no one would die!"

Adult logic tells you that if medical care wasn't profitable to the people providing it, no one would provide it. Which is essentially where "universal healthcare" countries end up heading.

Here's a question for you: how lifesaving is a "free" colonoscopy if you have to wait so long to get it that the colon cancer is inoperable by the time you do?

So no, "A colonoscopy costs $3000 without insurance, so that means that people without insurance don't get them, and all colon cancer deaths in the US are because people couldn't get colonoscopies!" does not follow in any mind but the most puerile.

Once again, I have proof and you have blank assertions with lots of stuff left out.

Colorectal Cancer - Cancer Stat Facts
Bowel cancer statistics

Estimated deaths from colorectal cancer in the US in 2018: 50,630 - 8.1% of all cancer deaths.
Estimated deaths from colorectal cancer in the UK in 2016: 16,000 - 10% of all cancer deaths.

Survival rate in the US: 64.5%
Survival rate in the UK: 57%

Even granting that the two websites - and the two countries - measure and report their stats in different ways, it really doesn't look to me like your splendiferous "everybody is insured" is actually giving you any better results.

-Medical care isn't given away for free anywhere. The difference being that in Belgium as in most other countries it is funded to a larger extent out of public funds as opposed to America which has a larger percentage of cost payed out of personal funds. It is a straw man. It's this disconnect so many people have about what taxes are. For some reason once a person pays taxes for a service, a lot of people no longer perceive that service as something they payed for but something that is given. Another part of that is that the government if they take a more active role in healthcare they are better able to regulate the costs. Something they are simply in a better position to do since they do not have to generate profit.
As to the UK. As I pointed out I don't speak for other countries.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fact remains that since you stated it as a fact, but provided no proof of it, it's not a fact. It's just what you "know" is true, because you're "sure" of it, but have never bothered to verify it.

https://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/3BackgroundPaperMedBankruptcy.pdf
"Health care costs pose a significant problem in the United States, and a 2007 survey found that 70 million Americans owe medical debt or experience difficulty in paying for treatment.4 Another found that 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000"
Here you go.

Which amazingly doesn't prove that people die because they can't get medical care. Proof of your statement should involve your actual statement.

I should also point out that I don't consider WHO to be much of a reliable source when it comes to healthcare systems. Any group who ranks the quality of a healthcare system on how socialized it is has a little too big an axe to grind in my book.

-You don't think, that not being able to pay for medical care makes receiving medical care impossible? Or is it that you don't think that not getting medical care can make people die?
-As to you not liking my sourcing. I at least provided a source. You did no such thing. You just went with a general, "oh I don't trust the WHO". Since you want me to provide sourcing for my claims, I invite you to source an actual example of the WHO fudging data.

No, I don't think that. I don't know what country YOU think this is, but I can assure you that the US provides lots of ways to get life-saving care.

What I actually think is that you're making a whole lot of ASSumptions based on your own personal and simplistic version of "logic". I have very little patience with people who say, "I just KNOW this is true, because it's just so OBVIOUS to me that it MUST be, therefore it IS true and you must treat it that way."

As to me not "providing a source", what assertions exactly did I make that I was supposed to source and didn't? Please cite them.

And I did NOT "go with a general" anything. I told you precisely why I don't trust the WHO, and I didn't say "fudging data", so please do not attempt to hold ME responsible for what YOU assumed I said because you're too damned illiterate and sloppy to bother reading and understanding the words.

Here's what I said. Take another run at it, and maybe those weird things we call "letters" will make some sense to you this time:

"I should also point out that I don't consider WHO to be much of a reliable source when it comes to healthcare systems. Any group who ranks the quality of a healthcare system on how socialized it is has a little too big an axe to grind in my book."

And yes, I can and will source that, since you've obviously been too busy gulping down anything they say that fits your worldview to bother researching.

From their original report ranking the US 37th in the world:

"The world health report 2000 also breaks new ground in presenting for the first time an
index of national health systems’ performance in trying to achieve three overall goals: good
health, responsiveness to the expectations of the population, and fairness of financial contribution."

From "MEASURING OVERALL HEALTH SYSTEM PERFORMANCE FOR 191 COUNTRIES" on the WHO website:

"The first is improvement in the health of the population (both in terms of levels attained
and distribution). The second is enhanced responsiveness of the health system to the
legitimate expectations of the population. Responsiveness in this context explicitly refers
to the non-health improving dimensions of the interactions of the populace with the
health system, and reflects respect of persons and client orientation in the delivery of
health services, among other factors.1 As with health outcomes, both the level of
responsiveness and its distribution are important. The third intrinsic goal is fairness in
financing and financial risk protection. The aim is to ensure that poor households should
not pay a higher share of their discretionary expenditure on health than richer households,
and all households should be protected against catastrophic financial losses related to ill
health."

From the Cato Institute's analysis of WHO's ranking report:

"WHO’s index is based on
five factors, weighted as follows:

1. Health Level: 25 percent
2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent
5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent"

"Financial Fairness. A health system’s financial fairness (FF) is measured by determining a household’s contribution to health expenditure as a percentage of household income (beyond subsistence), then looking at the dispersion of this percentage over all households. The wider the dispersion in the percentage of household income spent on health care, the worse a nation will perform on the FF factor and the overall index (other things being equal).

The FF factor is not an objective measure of health attainment, but rather reflects a value judgment that rich people should pay more for health care, even if they consume the same amount. This is a value judgment not applied to most other goods, even those regarded as necessities such as food and housing.Most people understand and accept that the poor will tend to spend a larger percentage of their income on these items.

More importantly, the FF factor, which accounts for one-fourth of each nation’s OA score, necessarily makes countries that rely on market incentives look inferior. The FF measure rewards nations that finance health care according to ability to pay, rather than according to actual consumption or willingness to pay."

Unfortunately, I cannot just give you a link to any of these reports, because they all have to be downloaded as pdfs from their host website. I have done so, which is why I can quote them. You're welcome to do so as well and fact-check me if you think I'm making up what they said.

No, I don't think that. I don't know what country YOU think this is

You made this statement not me.

Which amazingly doesn't prove that people die because they can't get medical care.

What I actually think is that you're making a whole lot of ASSumptions

I didn't assume anything, unless you find it an assumption on my end that making healthcare prohibitively expensive for poor people would make healthcare less available for poor people.

what assertions exactly did I make that I was supposed to source and didn't?

This one.

I should also point out that I don't consider WHO to be much of a reliable source

The FF factor is not an objective measure of health attainment, but rather reflects a value judgment that rich people should pay more for health care, even if they consume the same amount.

This is not true. It rather reflects the necessity of taking financial cost of healthcare as a factor in the availability of healthcare. It's the disconnect I see a lot. For some reason, the people who are against universal healthcare seem to say. As long as you can get healthcare, it is available. Regardless of the fact that you can actual afford the treatment. It's kind of like claiming that everybody can get a yacht simply because you can buy one for x amount of dollars.

Would you like to know what I think of people who slice-and-dice a long post into a handful of partial sentences and then respond to just those? Even less than I do of people who assume that I'm just dying to know all about their excruciatingly boring family of nobodies and to assume the entire world is like them.

Possibly the nicest thing I can say about you is that you're an ignorant, lying, cowardly piece of shit who stands as proof that any system he champions is the worst possible choice the US could make. Not only does it require blatant, unabashed LYING on its behalf, but it clearly makes the people under it dumber than dirt.

Come back when your IQ gains a third digit and your testicles drop, so that you will be both intelligent enough and man enough to respond to my posts. MAYBE I will be feeling gracious and allow you a second chance to prove you're not an ass monkey. If you're fortunate.

Until then, FLUSH!

 

[Crixus]

Which amazingly doesn't prove that people die because they can't get medical care. Proof of your statement should involve your actual statement.

I should also point out that I don't consider WHO to be much of a reliable source when it comes to healthcare systems. Any group who ranks the quality of a healthcare system on how socialized it is has a little too big an axe to grind in my book.

-You don't think, that not being able to pay for medical care makes receiving medical care impossible? Or is it that you don't think that not getting medical care can make people die?
-As to you not liking my sourcing. I at least provided a source. You did no such thing. You just went with a general, "oh I don't trust the WHO". Since you want me to provide sourcing for my claims, I invite you to source an actual example of the WHO fudging data.

One doesn’t have to pay for medical care here. I just posted one of many ways to acquire expensive medication. And medicade covers doctors. I’m with the other poster. Please provide cases where people have died from lack of medical care here.

-The problem is that would be anecdotal evidence now wouldn't it? Something that the other poster has made clear she does not want. I have such an example by the way.
-So I'll do a simple example. How Much Does A Colonoscopy Cost?
It says that doing a colonoscopy costs 3000 dollar without insurance. Suffice to say that not a lot of people who haven't got insurance will pay that amount. Colon cancer causes about 50000 deaths annually in the US.
-Here everybody is insured and no costs are charged for doing these sorts of screenings. You don't think not having universal healthcare costs lives?

You logic like a little kid. "If medical care was just given away free, EVERYONE would have it and no one would die!"

Adult logic tells you that if medical care wasn't profitable to the people providing it, no one would provide it. Which is essentially where "universal healthcare" countries end up heading.

Here's a question for you: how lifesaving is a "free" colonoscopy if you have to wait so long to get it that the colon cancer is inoperable by the time you do?

So no, "A colonoscopy costs $3000 without insurance, so that means that people without insurance don't get them, and all colon cancer deaths in the US are because people couldn't get colonoscopies!" does not follow in any mind but the most puerile.

Once again, I have proof and you have blank assertions with lots of stuff left out.

Colorectal Cancer - Cancer Stat Facts
Bowel cancer statistics

Estimated deaths from colorectal cancer in the US in 2018: 50,630 - 8.1% of all cancer deaths.
Estimated deaths from colorectal cancer in the UK in 2016: 16,000 - 10% of all cancer deaths.

Survival rate in the US: 64.5%
Survival rate in the UK: 57%

Even granting that the two websites - and the two countries - measure and report their stats in different ways, it really doesn't look to me like your splendiferous "everybody is insured" is actually giving you any better results.

-Medical care isn't given away for free anywhere. The difference being that in Belgium as in most other countries it is funded to a larger extent out of public funds as opposed to America which has a larger percentage of cost payed out of personal funds. It is a straw man. It's this disconnect so many people have about what taxes are. For some reason once a person pays taxes for a service, a lot of people no longer perceive that service as something they payed for but something that is given. Another part of that is that the government if they take a more active role in healthcare they are better able to regulate the costs. Something they are simply in a better position to do since they do not have to generate profit.
As to the UK. As I pointed out I don't speak for other countries.

That’s where you misunderstand. You read that somewhere or saw it on TV. And on paper it’s true. No Americans have to go without medical treatment. That’s just a lie.

 

[U2Edge]

Universal health care is coming to the US. It's just a matter of time.

You know why?

Because the GOP has never offered a comprehensive solution to skyrocketing health care costs.

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.

That's wrong. Over 50% of Americans will give approval when you say, "Should healthcare be a right?" When you switch from warm, fuzzy, vague emotions to facts and tell them that it would require higher taxes, or that they personally might not be able to choose to stay with their private insurance, suddenly the approval rates plummet.

Which begs the question: If it's so wonderful, and so many people want it, how come you have to lie to them to get them to agree?

No one is being untruthful. Universal Healthcare is one the way to the U.S.A.. Support is rising. The people who will be paying the most taxes for it are in the top 20% of income earners, Not the majority where 80% of America lives. Universal Healthcare is the trend for the most developed countries in the world. 45 of the 50 most developed countries have Universal Healthcare. The United States is the oddball in that group along with Cyprus, U.A.E., Bahrain, and Qatar that does not provide Universal Healthcare.

 

[Brain357]

-You don't think, that not being able to pay for medical care makes receiving medical care impossible? Or is it that you don't think that not getting medical care can make people die?
-As to you not liking my sourcing. I at least provided a source. You did no such thing. You just went with a general, "oh I don't trust the WHO". Since you want me to provide sourcing for my claims, I invite you to source an actual example of the WHO fudging data.

One doesn’t have to pay for medical care here. I just posted one of many ways to acquire expensive medication. And medicade covers doctors. I’m with the other poster. Please provide cases where people have died from lack of medical care here.

-The problem is that would be anecdotal evidence now wouldn't it? Something that the other poster has made clear she does not want. I have such an example by the way.
-So I'll do a simple example. How Much Does A Colonoscopy Cost?
It says that doing a colonoscopy costs 3000 dollar without insurance. Suffice to say that not a lot of people who haven't got insurance will pay that amount. Colon cancer causes about 50000 deaths annually in the US.
-Here everybody is insured and no costs are charged for doing these sorts of screenings. You don't think not having universal healthcare costs lives?

You logic like a little kid. "If medical care was just given away free, EVERYONE would have it and no one would die!"

Adult logic tells you that if medical care wasn't profitable to the people providing it, no one would provide it. Which is essentially where "universal healthcare" countries end up heading.

Here's a question for you: how lifesaving is a "free" colonoscopy if you have to wait so long to get it that the colon cancer is inoperable by the time you do?

So no, "A colonoscopy costs $3000 without insurance, so that means that people without insurance don't get them, and all colon cancer deaths in the US are because people couldn't get colonoscopies!" does not follow in any mind but the most puerile.

Once again, I have proof and you have blank assertions with lots of stuff left out.

Colorectal Cancer - Cancer Stat Facts
Bowel cancer statistics

Estimated deaths from colorectal cancer in the US in 2018: 50,630 - 8.1% of all cancer deaths.
Estimated deaths from colorectal cancer in the UK in 2016: 16,000 - 10% of all cancer deaths.

Survival rate in the US: 64.5%
Survival rate in the UK: 57%

Even granting that the two websites - and the two countries - measure and report their stats in different ways, it really doesn't look to me like your splendiferous "everybody is insured" is actually giving you any better results.

-Medical care isn't given away for free anywhere. The difference being that in Belgium as in most other countries it is funded to a larger extent out of public funds as opposed to America which has a larger percentage of cost payed out of personal funds. It is a straw man. It's this disconnect so many people have about what taxes are. For some reason once a person pays taxes for a service, a lot of people no longer perceive that service as something they payed for but something that is given. Another part of that is that the government if they take a more active role in healthcare they are better able to regulate the costs. Something they are simply in a better position to do since they do not have to generate profit.
As to the UK. As I pointed out I don't speak for other countries.

That’s where you misunderstand. You read that somewhere or saw it on TV. And on paper it’s true. No Americans have to go without medical treatment. That’s just a lie.

And many go bankrupt trying to pay for it.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Yeah, like 6 months longer.

When it comes to average life expectancy, that is significant. Plus they do it at a lower cost and everyone is provided healthcare. Win, win, and win.

No, no, and no.

So you say no to providing everyone healthcare. You say no to lower cost healthcare. You say no to increased life expectancy. You say no to a lot of good things.

 

[danielpalos]

Market forces don’t exist in healthcare, how can you introduce them? People never refuse emergency care because of cost...

Isn't emergency care what your insurance would be for?

And it is very expensive.

Yet, the right wing believes we can waste money on a useless drug war.

 

[U2Edge]

1111

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: Starting an assertion of your opinion with the word "fact" doesn't make it one.

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

Its an indisputable fact. If you take the average life expectancy of countries with Universal Healthcare, it is higher than the countries without Universal Healthcare. Just look at the countries on the the list. One of the reasons their all in the top 50 most developed countries in the world is because they have the highest life expectancy averages in the world. Guess what region of the world has the lowest average life expectancies in the world? Sub-Saharan Africa. Guess which region of the world has the most countries without Universal Healthcare? Sub-Saharan Africa.

 

[U2Edge]

https://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/3BackgroundPaperMedBankruptcy.pdf
"Health care costs pose a significant problem in the United States, and a 2007 survey found that 70 million Americans owe medical debt or experience difficulty in paying for treatment.4 Another found that 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000"
Here you go.

Which amazingly doesn't prove that people die because they can't get medical care. Proof of your statement should involve your actual statement.

I should also point out that I don't consider WHO to be much of a reliable source when it comes to healthcare systems. Any group who ranks the quality of a healthcare system on how socialized it is has a little too big an axe to grind in my book.

-You don't think, that not being able to pay for medical care makes receiving medical care impossible? Or is it that you don't think that not getting medical care can make people die?
-As to you not liking my sourcing. I at least provided a source. You did no such thing. You just went with a general, "oh I don't trust the WHO". Since you want me to provide sourcing for my claims, I invite you to source an actual example of the WHO fudging data.

No, I don't think that. I don't know what country YOU think this is, but I can assure you that the US provides lots of ways to get life-saving care.

What I actually think is that you're making a whole lot of ASSumptions based on your own personal and simplistic version of "logic". I have very little patience with people who say, "I just KNOW this is true, because it's just so OBVIOUS to me that it MUST be, therefore it IS true and you must treat it that way."

As to me not "providing a source", what assertions exactly did I make that I was supposed to source and didn't? Please cite them.

And I did NOT "go with a general" anything. I told you precisely why I don't trust the WHO, and I didn't say "fudging data", so please do not attempt to hold ME responsible for what YOU assumed I said because you're too damned illiterate and sloppy to bother reading and understanding the words.

Here's what I said. Take another run at it, and maybe those weird things we call "letters" will make some sense to you this time:

"I should also point out that I don't consider WHO to be much of a reliable source when it comes to healthcare systems. Any group who ranks the quality of a healthcare system on how socialized it is has a little too big an axe to grind in my book."

And yes, I can and will source that, since you've obviously been too busy gulping down anything they say that fits your worldview to bother researching.

From their original report ranking the US 37th in the world:

"The world health report 2000 also breaks new ground in presenting for the first time an
index of national health systems’ performance in trying to achieve three overall goals: good
health, responsiveness to the expectations of the population, and fairness of financial contribution."

From "MEASURING OVERALL HEALTH SYSTEM PERFORMANCE FOR 191 COUNTRIES" on the WHO website:

"The first is improvement in the health of the population (both in terms of levels attained
and distribution). The second is enhanced responsiveness of the health system to the
legitimate expectations of the population. Responsiveness in this context explicitly refers
to the non-health improving dimensions of the interactions of the populace with the
health system, and reflects respect of persons and client orientation in the delivery of
health services, among other factors.1 As with health outcomes, both the level of
responsiveness and its distribution are important. The third intrinsic goal is fairness in
financing and financial risk protection. The aim is to ensure that poor households should
not pay a higher share of their discretionary expenditure on health than richer households,
and all households should be protected against catastrophic financial losses related to ill
health."

From the Cato Institute's analysis of WHO's ranking report:

"WHO’s index is based on
five factors, weighted as follows:

1. Health Level: 25 percent
2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent
5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent"

"Financial Fairness. A health system’s financial fairness (FF) is measured by determining a household’s contribution to health expenditure as a percentage of household income (beyond subsistence), then looking at the dispersion of this percentage over all households. The wider the dispersion in the percentage of household income spent on health care, the worse a nation will perform on the FF factor and the overall index (other things being equal).

The FF factor is not an objective measure of health attainment, but rather reflects a value judgment that rich people should pay more for health care, even if they consume the same amount. This is a value judgment not applied to most other goods, even those regarded as necessities such as food and housing.Most people understand and accept that the poor will tend to spend a larger percentage of their income on these items.

More importantly, the FF factor, which accounts for one-fourth of each nation’s OA score, necessarily makes countries that rely on market incentives look inferior. The FF measure rewards nations that finance health care according to ability to pay, rather than according to actual consumption or willingness to pay."

Unfortunately, I cannot just give you a link to any of these reports, because they all have to be downloaded as pdfs from their host website. I have done so, which is why I can quote them. You're welcome to do so as well and fact-check me if you think I'm making up what they said.

No, I don't think that. I don't know what country YOU think this is

You made this statement not me.

Which amazingly doesn't prove that people die because they can't get medical care.

What I actually think is that you're making a whole lot of ASSumptions

I didn't assume anything, unless you find it an assumption on my end that making healthcare prohibitively expensive for poor people would make healthcare less available for poor people.

what assertions exactly did I make that I was supposed to source and didn't?

This one.

I should also point out that I don't consider WHO to be much of a reliable source

The FF factor is not an objective measure of health attainment, but rather reflects a value judgment that rich people should pay more for health care, even if they consume the same amount.

This is not true. It rather reflects the necessity of taking financial cost of healthcare as a factor in the availability of healthcare. It's the disconnect I see a lot. For some reason, the people who are against universal healthcare seem to say. As long as you can get healthcare, it is available. Regardless of the fact that you can actual afford the treatment. It's kind of like claiming that everybody can get a yacht simply because you can buy one for x amount of dollars.

Would you like to know what I think of people who slice-and-dice a long post into a handful of partial sentences and then respond to just those? Even less than I do of people who assume that I'm just dying to know all about their excruciatingly boring family of nobodies and to assume the entire world is like them.

Possibly the nicest thing I can say about you is that you're an ignorant, lying, cowardly piece of shit who stands as proof that any system he champions is the worst possible choice the US could make. Not only does it require blatant, unabashed LYING on its behalf, but it clearly makes the people under it dumber than dirt.

Come back when your IQ gains a third digit and your testicles drop, so that you will be both intelligent enough and man enough to respond to my posts. MAYBE I will be feeling gracious and allow you a second chance to prove you're not an ass monkey. If you're fortunate.

Until then, FLUSH!

Wow, that was really polite.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Universal health care is coming to the US. It's just a matter of time.

You know why?

Because the GOP has never offered a comprehensive solution to skyrocketing health care costs.

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.

That's wrong. Over 50% of Americans will give approval when you say, "Should healthcare be a right?" When you switch from warm, fuzzy, vague emotions to facts and tell them that it would require higher taxes, or that they personally might not be able to choose to stay with their private insurance, suddenly the approval rates plummet.

Which begs the question: If it's so wonderful, and so many people want it, how come you have to lie to them to get them to agree?

No one is being untruthful. Universal Healthcare is one the way to the U.S.A.. Support is rising. The people who will be paying the most taxes for it are in the top 20% of income earners, Not the majority where 80% of America lives. Universal Healthcare is the trend for the most developed countries in the world. 45 of the 50 most developed countries have Universal Healthcare. The United States is the oddball in that group along with Cyprus, U.A.E., Bahrain, and Qatar that does not provide Universal Healthcare.

I can't tell you how valuable your responses are when they utterly ignore the entire post they're responding to, except for one sentence. I can't tell you how valuable they are, because they aren't.

As for "no one is being untruthful", the pollsters are with their carefully-pruned, leading questions. And you are right now. Do NOT give me that "You should like universal healthcare because YOU won't have to pay for it. We're going to stick it to those eeeeeevil rich people, who owe you for some unspecified, unknowable reason." Save it for ignorant losers like yourself. I don't want anyone else's money, and I sure as shit do not want to become a ward of the state to get it.

Also, there is no number of times you are going to spout that peer pressure "Other countries are doing it, and so that makes it GOOD" bullshit that's going to mean anything to me. Unlike you, I'm not a teenager, and I don't think like one. In fact, I wasn't susceptible to peer pressure when I WAS a teenager, and I certainly am not now.

I like that the United States is an "oddball" and stands out as different from other countries. That's why WE'RE the leader and not the followers.

 

[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.

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.

Fact: Ignoring a post and restating your opinion as a fact doesn't make it a fact, but it DOES make you look like a lying partisan who has been treated with far more respect and courtesy than he deserves.

Fact: You don't determine what's best for other people, and you sure as shit don't determine morality for them.

Fact: If I said the law should be changed based on MY personal view of immorality, your panties would be bunched so far up your ass that you'd be tasting cotton.

Fact: Nothing that has spewed from your piehole is anything but your opinion.

I never said my views on morality were fact. But the fact that people on average live longer in the countries with Universal Healthcare as opposed to the countries that don't have Universal Healthcare, is a FACT!

 

[U2Edge]

Universal health care is coming to the US. It's just a matter of time.

You know why?

Because the GOP has never offered a comprehensive solution to skyrocketing health care costs.

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.

That's wrong.

Actually, 70 percent of Americans support Medicare for all.

Awesome. Were closer to getting this done than I thought.

 

[U2Edge]

Its the assumption that the wealthiest country in the world has the best healthcare. The same assumption that drives people to go the hospital as best in the country. The reality though is much different.

Were not talking about the few with money who choose to travel because they believe something is better. Were talking about average life expectancy in each country and which countries are providing their citizens with Universal Healthcare. Most Europeans do not go to America to get healthcare. They stay in their countries and on average live longer than Americans. That last fact is by FAR the most relevant.

Let me ask you this:

Timely Medical | Timely Surgery at Affordable Prices

This is a company. It's a company operating out of Canada. The entire purpose of this company, is to setup patient, primarily in Canada, with doctors and hospitals in the US.

They charge money, obviously to provide this service.
This is an additional charge to the cost of getting whatever treatment or surgery they get in the US.

The company was started by a Canadian doctor, who was fed up watching patients die while waiting.

So my question to you is this.....

Canada has universal care, that is "free". Please explain to me how Timely medical can find enough consistent flow of customers, willing to pay thousands of dollars for surgery in the US, and to pay them to set them up for that surgery.... if those same customers can all get surgery for 'free'?

If government run health care is so great in Canada, how can this company started by a Canadian doctor, end up with thousands of customers every year willing to pay for health care? How can they find enough people willing to spend thousands of dollar for health care, to escape their Canadian system if it is so great?

Can you explain that to me?

Don't have to. These little individual examples, whether they are true or not, are irrelevant. What matters is the overall averages on life expectancy and the countries that provide Universal Healthcare. Look FRANCE, GERMANY, SWEDEN, NORWAY, ITALY etc. Most people in the top 50 most developed countries in the world stay in their own countries when it comes to healthcare. At least 34 of those countries citizens live longer than Americans on average. One's personal experience, or some off hand example will not change that reality.

You are right. Those little examples true or not are irrelevent to you because you haven’t had to address them yet, or you have enough money that it’s just not an issue to you. Same for all the rich people in Europe, Canada or wherever you want. When the crap hits the fan they come here to the US for major treatments. If this is so awesome, who don’t American polititions enter the program with the rest of us? And why don’t rich people in Europe go into their government health care systems?

The vast majority of people, rich or poor, in Europe, use their own countries healthcare. On average they live longer than Americans. Were talking about National policy here. What is best for the most people. We can't bend a national policy for 300 million people because it might be better for this particular individual or that particular individual. We have to do what is best for the country as a whole.

You're lying, and you know you're lying.

Know how I can tell? Because you make statements without proof, and when you're asked to prove them, you just stuff your fingers in your ears and say them again.

If your bullshit was worth anything, you wouldn't have to lie about it.

I didn't lie about anything. I know the truth can be surprising sometimes, but that does not mean you should lash out at other people. Remain polite and civil when posting.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

I want Americans to live longer, better, healthier lives. The patriotic thing to do then, is to fight for Universal Healthcare in the United States since that will improve the country's standard of living, life expectancy, etc.

Liar. Everything you say is a lie, coming from someone who deludes himself that his standards are something other people give a fuck about meeting.

Ask me if I give a shit about being "patriotic" according to the definitions of a lying propaganda tool. Ask me if I want anything that would be defined as an "improvement" by the likes of you.

Ask me if I respect and trust a single lying word out of your mouth.

I see, so when you don't agree with an individual or a piece of information, you automatically brand them as being untruthful.