Democrats have been fighting with Americans for years to socialize our healthcare system. Against all evidence, Democrats have insisted that we'd somehow be better off if it weren't for the pesky market. They've insisted that every one of the 40 million uninsured should be forced, by their government, to buy insurance even if half that number doesn't want, and doesn't need, health insurance (even though they could afford it if they wanted it).

We know about the waiting lists for all sorts of treatment in the socialist medical world. We know, of course, about the billions in waste in the portions of our medical system the government already controls. Add to the mountain of evidence that we don't need, and shouldn't want, socialized health care the fact that Americans cancer patients outlive Europeans.

Want to die earlier? Vote Obama.

"HE'LL KILL US ALL!!!!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!"

Dems aren't doing ENOUGH in that regard, but right-wing obstructionism and foot-dragging makes it hard.

We need national, single-payer health care and we need it YESTERDAY. THe current "market-driven" system is an utter failure.

Europeans have a much better health-care system, as do Canadians. Time we caught up with the rest of the civilized world.

Notice how how Horus demands every one else "proove it", yet his counter arguments (if you could call them that) always seem to never need a shred of proof.....

You can't prove something that isn't true. Which is why I never bother to ask for proof when people claim that social medicine is better. All we really need to do is point to the mountain of evidence that it is, in fact, worse.

In the end, people like Horus can't be blamed. He's scared. He's worried about people, and he's been told that people would be better off with social medicine, and he trusts the people that told him that. Now he's entrenched, and he's sure that any evidence to the contrary of his position is some sort of conspiracy of the wealthy to continue exploiting and hurting the poor. You'll never convince someone like Horus, who is mad with fear and paranoia, you can only hope to offset his conjecture with fact and stop others from going down the path he has.

<link>

Independent rankings consistently put the quality of our healthcare system as dead last among industrialized nations, middle of the road for third world shitholes.

<link>

And we don't even make the top ten in terms of life expectancy. In both cases, we trail all of Western Europe and Japan, who have universal healthcare.

And people die waiting for treatment in this country all the time. Usually because they can't afford it.

FMB is clueless or brainwashed or both.

Does not know what the fuck he is talking about.

Just repeat the word "socialism" a few times and sesame's door may open

We pay, by far, the most per capita for our subpar healthcare system:

<link>

In exactly what regard is our for-profit system superior to the UHC systems in the civilized world?

As I've explained, on every measure that makes sense our for-profit system is worse than any current universal healthcare system.

Again, you seem too stupid or dishonest even to be able to EVALUATE an argument properly...

...to "prove" that a market-driven system like the current one is better, given the fact that it's proven itself a complete turkey over a period of decades, eh?

Your evaluation of me is part and parcel of most of your evaluations here, that is, a pile of manure masquerading as thoughtful opinion.

Boring, really...

Really say anything about our health care system. The first one was just a ranked list -- what was the criteria? It said nothing.

The second list showed that Americans don't live as long. But where's your evidence that's due to our health care system and not due to our murder rate, our out-of-control drug use...etc? I gave specific evidence that our health care system is better at keeping cancer patients alive; that's an apples-to-apples comparison. You take a result (Americans don't live as long) and use that to jump to a conclusion (the American health care system is to blame), which is illogical.

I could just as easily say that the European unemployment rate is 12% and that's because they are spending so much money on health care that they can't attract any jobs due to the high tax rate. One may have nothing to do with the other -- but it maks my point, right?

You asked for proof, you've been given proof, and the best you can come up with is admitting you can't use an internet browser (links to the criteria are on the website provided) and "it must be our murder rate."

And you gave incredibly narrow evidence, you cherrypicked the one fact that supports your claim. The WHO rankings took all of that information into account when ranking us 37th. Many other factors (again, click on the links in the links, that's how the internet-tubes work) are hugely negative, counteracting the impact of this one tiny positive you've found.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

Sorry, I'm used to people citing actual sources rather than information based on sources. But, going in to read the basis of the rankings we see (in real time):

I'm through half of the document and as yet, there's been no real evidence or basis for the ranking. I do see, "It is especially beneficial to make sure that as large a percentage as possible of the poorest people in each country can get insurance," says Dr Frenk. "Insurance protects people against the catastrophic effects of poor health. What we are seeing is that in many countries, the poor pay a higher percentage of their income on health care than the rich." This tells me that the WHO is making a moral observation, rather than any observation based on the quality of care. The poor pay a greater portion of their income on anything that they buy than the rich do, that's not a valid critique of a health care system.

This is interesting, and telling: "In designing the framework for health system performance, WHO broke new methodological ground, employing a technique not previously used for health systems. It compares each country’s system to what the experts estimate to be the upper limit of what can be done with the level of resources available in that country." So, the WHO isn't making a judgement based on how efficient the health care systems are, how well they treat people, how well they keep the sick alive; it's how well the WHO opines that they could do based on their GDP. That would explain why so many poor countries rank higher than the U. S..

The the qualitative measures: 1) "The nations with the most responsive health systems are the United States, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Canada, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden." Great, so we're responsive.

2) The DALE measure (life expectancy) puts the U. S. in the top rung with other developed nations.

The other measures used in the study you cite are not actually measures of health system effectiveness. They are measures of what the WHO considers a fair and just health care system. Among the first things explained in the study is that the WHO believes that health systems should be supported by tax dollars (the WHO fundementally believes in socialized medicine). In areas that the WHO measures actually quality of care, the U. S. does well.

So, you found a biased study that supports your view. Good job. But remember, it only supports your view by having a 2:1 ratio of nominal measures to quantitative measures.

Yes, they want to make sure that access to healthcare isn't restricted to the wealthy.

Why is that a negative?