Thats nice.
Irrelevant to the point, but what else is new. You can only support your point by pointing to a comparison between the US and other countries, not by stating facts only about the US.
I think the point is that in order for your argument to work (socialized medicine will lead to a healthier nation overall) some assumptions have to be made about our nations poor and uninsures. I addressed this somewhat in my last post to you (feel free to get to that when you'd like). the question is are the assumptions accurate. Many people like myself and RSR are simply poiting out the realities of what constitute the poor and uninsured for our country.
And I still don't buy the argument that we have to compare ourselves to other countries. We can't really do that as far as I can tell. As I alluded to before if the breakdown was like 50-50 insured to uninsured then sure you could make a very legitamate case that socialized medicine would help. But you can't assume that because that happened in Europe its' going to happen here too, because you have to compare similar variables. For instance did France have 15% uninsured like we do? I have no idea.