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

[Cecilie1200]

1111

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.

FACT: Starting your post with "fact" still does not make it true.

And I'll dispute any damned thing I want, whether you "know" it or not. I don't give a rat's ass what you get when you perform some lame, meaningless average and shout, "Aha!" because you think you've confirmed your bias.

And while we're on the subject, you say, "They're in the top 50 most developed countries because they have long life expectancies, and their expectancies are much bigger than the US's", but you haven't used any actual logic to ask, "If the US's life expectancy is so shitty compared to theirs, and life expectancy is the reason for being on that list . . . why is the US one of the most developed countries in the world?"

You have the cart before the horse there, Mensa Boy. Long life expectancy doesn't create a developed country; a developed country creates a longer life expectancy. Uh duuuuhhhh.

Look up "correlation does not equal causation", and then stop blithering at me that your half-assed childish parallels are "facts". You're really just making the case for people to have to take IQ tests and get a license to use the word "fact".

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Wow, that was really arrogant.

My post was exactly as polite as I wanted it to be . . . and at no point in time did I ask you for your approval, or in any way indicate that I thought you worthy of approving or disapproving of me.

In future, you would do well to wait until people actually respect you - or at least stop viewing you with disdain and contempt - before presuming to tell them what to do.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

English is really not your strong point, is it?

You made three points and called them each "wins". I responded to each point with "no". This does not give you license to stick YOUR words in my mouth and declare that I'm saying what YOU want to believe I'm saying.

No, healthcare systems do not have a significant impact on life expectancy rates. No, "universal healthcare" does not have a lower cost, and no, everyone is not provided healthcare. Health COVERAGE, perhaps, but that's not the same thing.

FACT: Average Life Expectancy in countries with Universal Healthcare is HIGHER than in countries without Universal Healthcare.

FACT: Every country with a Universal Healthcare system pays less on healthcare per year as a percentage of GDP than the United States does.

FACT: Every country with Universal Healthcare provides healthcare for all its citizens. People in Germany don't go bankrupt paying healthcare cost like they do in the United States.

 

[Crixus]

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


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



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

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.

SOME PEOPLE come to the United States for healthcare. Some. Its a tiny percentage and not proof that the United States healthcare system is better.

Healthcare cost in Europe are about 1/2 to 2/3s of what they are in the United States. The Quality is better because the people there live longer. Everyone there is provided for. Its the three BIG WINS!

The United States can get the taxes it needs for Universal Healthcare from the top 20% of income earners who have 80% of the wealth in the country. Capital Gains, Property, Estate and other things besides just income will need to see increased tax rates. The Middle Class will only be lightly effected if at all by the increased tax rates. The lower class and the poor won't have to pay anything.

The lower class and the poor already don’t have to pay anything for healthcare.

 

[U2Edge]

1111

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.

FACT: Starting your post with "fact" still does not make it true.

And I'll dispute any damned thing I want, whether you "know" it or not. I don't give a rat's ass what you get when you perform some lame, meaningless average and shout, "Aha!" because you think you've confirmed your bias.

And while we're on the subject, you say, "They're in the top 50 most developed countries because they have long life expectancies, and their expectancies are much bigger than the US's", but you haven't used any actual logic to ask, "If the US's life expectancy is so shitty compared to theirs, and life expectancy is the reason for being on that list . . . why is the US one of the most developed countries in the world?"

You have the cart before the horse there, Mensa Boy. Long life expectancy doesn't create a developed country; a developed country creates a longer life expectancy. Uh duuuuhhhh.

Look up "correlation does not equal causation", and then stop blithering at me that your half-assed childish parallels are "facts". You're really just making the case for people to have to take IQ tests and get a license to use the word "fact".

The United States ranks so highly on the list of most developed nations because it is the wealthiest. It is the third wealthiest per capita. The second thing is the education system, especially the University Education system. The reason the United States fails to top the list and comes in at #13 is because it it is #34 when it comes to healthcare. #1 on wealth, top 15 in education, but #34 in Healthcare. IF the United States was in the top 10 in healthcare rather than being at #34, we would top the list of the most developed countries in the world instead of being #13!

 

[U2Edge]

-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.

Wow, that was really arrogant.

My post was exactly as polite as I wanted it to be . . . and at no point in time did I ask you for your approval, or in any way indicate that I thought you worthy of approving or disapproving of me.

In future, you would do well to wait until people actually respect you - or at least stop viewing you with disdain and contempt - before presuming to tell them what to do.

Its a message board, I don't need your approval to comment and make posts.

 

[Crixus]

1111
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

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.

FACT: Starting your post with "fact" still does not make it true.

And I'll dispute any damned thing I want, whether you "know" it or not. I don't give a rat's ass what you get when you perform some lame, meaningless average and shout, "Aha!" because you think you've confirmed your bias.

And while we're on the subject, you say, "They're in the top 50 most developed countries because they have long life expectancies, and their expectancies are much bigger than the US's", but you haven't used any actual logic to ask, "If the US's life expectancy is so shitty compared to theirs, and life expectancy is the reason for being on that list . . . why is the US one of the most developed countries in the world?"

You have the cart before the horse there, Mensa Boy. Long life expectancy doesn't create a developed country; a developed country creates a longer life expectancy. Uh duuuuhhhh.

Look up "correlation does not equal causation", and then stop blithering at me that your half-assed childish parallels are "facts". You're really just making the case for people to have to take IQ tests and get a license to use the word "fact".

The United States ranks so highly on the list of most developed nations because it is the wealthiest. It is the third wealthiest per capita. The second thing is the education system, especially the University Education system. The reason the United States fails to top the list and comes in at #13 is because it it is #34 when it comes to healthcare. #1 on wealth, top 15 in education, but #34 in Healthcare. IF the United States was in the top 10 in healthcare rather than being at #34, we would top the list of the most developed countries in the world instead of being #13!

But topping a world list means shot to Americans. That’s why we live here, and not some place out in the world.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

What? I don’t need links I know the truth. I dont Need a link to know Berlin is the capital of Germany. So Germany does NOT have universal healthcare

Germany does have Universal Healthcare as does Italy, France, United Kingdom and many other countries. They don't leave anyone behind like the United States does. People don't go bankrupt in Germany from medical bills. People live longer in Germany, everyone is provided for, and they spend less on healthcare per person than the United States does. Those are the FACTS!

Incorrect

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

Unrealistic. Sorry you live in a fantasy world.

Nope, that is more the environment in Europe. Its better for healthcare where the system is geared toward caring for people rather than profits.

Its rather obvious all the terrible things that can happen when you allow people to make PROFITS on people being sick. Don't worry though, Universal Healthcare is coming to the U.S.A. and when it does the country will be better off.

It’s a dual system. Convo over

 

[bripat9643]

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.

If you tell them their taxes will double to pay for it, then most of those people no longer support it.

 

[bripat9643]

Some people come here, the vast majority do not.

Because they can't afford to, because they are paying taxes for an expensive system that lets them die on a waiting list.

No, that’s all a myth. Wonder if Bono uses the exchange or if he has private health care? I notice none of the rich movie stars, rock stars and polititions use their countries university health care systems. They all come here.

Sorry, but that is false. The vast majority of people in Europe stay in Europe for their health care and on average they live longer than Americans.

Yeah, lower homicides and lower auto fatalities, result in higher life expectancy.

By any objective measure, survival rates in Europe are lower, and much lower, than in the US.

No their not which is why Europe has just as many people reaching age 100 as the United States does. Healthcare does seriously impact life expectancy and many Americans don't receive enough of it which is a serious drag on the countries average life expectancy.

Actually, once a country has a certain basic amount, then the quality of healthcare has very little impact on life expectancy.

 

[danielpalos]

Task this Corps to find capital solutions:

The mission of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is to protect, promote, and advance the health and safety of our Nation.

Social-ism, at its finest!

 

[bripat9643]

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

So making America great again means letting poor people die in the streets?

Lol
It’s called getting off your ass and make a living...

Minimum wage earners, those with disabilities... often can't afford health care. Stop being so selfish and obtuse.

Wasn't it YOUR President that set us a system where Minimum wage earners and those with disabilities were FORCED to buy health insurance for health care? Who is being selfish and obtuse?

I’m a Libertarian and didn’t vote for Obummer.

You're a libertarian, but you support socialized medicine?

Here's a clue for you: no libertarian supports socialized medicine. None.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

Why do so many people go to India or Thailand to get treatment?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Fine, take France, Italy, Spain, Germany and the United Kingdom. That's 315 million people. On average they live longer than Americans. They have Universal Health care. They only spend about 1/2 to 2/3 of what the United States does on health care. Everyone is provided for, they live longer, then spend less on healthcare. WIN, WIN, AND WIN!

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

They are almost entirely white. Should we ship all the black people off to Africa to improve out life expectancy?

 

[danielpalos]

in right wing fantasy, health care is not a Government function with a Uniformed Corps.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You are confused Moon Bat.

I earned money because I fucking worked for a living. It is morally wrong for the oppressive government to steal that money from me and give it to some filthy ass welfare queen or illegal. You know, a ghetto Democrat voter.

Moon Bats like you have a hard time understanding things like that, don't you?

Instead of me going to Somalia to get lesser government how about you getting your fat commie ass down to Venezuela to how that socialism is working out? Send us a card.

How about this Moon Bat. I'll pay my bills and you pay yours. Isn't that fair or are you some greedy asshole who thinks that you have the right to demand that I pay your bills simply because you are alive?

Fuck socialism. Fuck universal health care. Fuck greedy worthless Moon Bats that are too sorry to pay for their own health care.

If you worked In the United States, then you were either employed by someone or if you had your own business it was dependent on people buying your services or products. Either way, your earnings came from THE MARKET. A market you were born into. A market that you exploited and profited from. Which is fine, as long as you pay the government back in taxes at a rate based on your earnings in order to protect the market and keep it going for future generations.

The market is not the government. Why is the latter entitled to anything because you worked your tail off and made a good living? The government is entitled only to what it costs to provide police protection, national defense and the courts. That's about 10% of what it now receives in taxes.

 

[sakinago]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you ever deal with a medical condition requiring specialized care?

And ask yourself why is it that someone preferred their own doctor with a socialized system?

 

[Taz]

So making America great again means letting poor people die in the streets?

Lol
It’s called getting off your ass and make a living...

Minimum wage earners, those with disabilities... often can't afford health care. Stop being so selfish and obtuse.

Wasn't it YOUR President that set us a system where Minimum wage earners and those with disabilities were FORCED to buy health insurance for health care? Who is being selfish and obtuse?

I’m a Libertarian and didn’t vote for Obummer.

You're a libertarian, but you support socialized medicine?

Here's a clue for you: no libertarian supports socialized medicine. None.

Yes, I do. Too bad for you.

 

[Taz]

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

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

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

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

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

Did you ever deal with a medical condition requiring specialized care?

And ask yourself why is it that someone preferred their own doctor with a socialized system?

Yes, and got great care. Rich people like to see their own doctor, not some random doctor in emergency or wherever.