You Must Be A Liberal If...

[Larkinn]

It's very relevant. For how few people do you sacrafice the good of the whole?

This, by itself, is a meaningless question. It is meaningless without looking at how much is the loss and gain as well.

Tell it to the citizens of countries living under a dictatorship.

We are talking about socialized medicine in the United States, not Burma or China, correct? Then this point was asinine.

If it doesn't fulfill your goal, what's the point?

Oh gee, I dunno. Maybe I'd rather save some people than save none? If the only thing you are satisfied with in your goals is complete perfection, expect a lot of disappointment in your life.

Under any system of healthcare administration there will alway be people who won't have access. There will always be some percentage that is worse off then everybody else.

Of course.

If you define success monetarily I suppose, yes. Not all people do. I beleive you have even claimed to be one of those people.

Success is different than how well off you are.

No I'm not. I'm saying your system is a poor solution to the problem of healthcare access for all. Again I want everyone to have healthcare as much as the next person.

I really don't think you give a shit actually. Since you continually keep repeating that bullshit argument that "omg the majority (read the wealthy) will now have the same level of care as the minority (read the poor)...thats so unfair!!!".

At the same time I don't beleive it is right to make 85% of the population worse off for the sake of only possibly helping less than 15% You are sacraficing 85% of the population on the chance that it might save 18,000 people. And you want to argue that that's moral?

You are conveniently ignoring the other aspect of the equation, which I've already pointed out. You are NOT sacraficing 85% of the population, you are giving them less than they had before. And according to the study it wasnt a chance of saving 18,000 people, it was 18,000 people who would still be alive if they had healthcare.

An ideal solution is one that maintains or improves upon the acces for all such that anyone who needs it can receive prompt attention. The only way that can happen is that supply of free time must increase. The only way for that to happen is for the supply of doctors to increase (which we are already short of). If you really want socialized medicine that is the first obstacle to tackle. Personally I don't beleive government run health care is going to be able to provide more doctors.

Yes that is an ideal solution. One I don't see coming. So I'll start by advocating small steps first.

You won't allow for any other solution based purely on unproven assumptions. the first best option in my opinion is for government to deregulate the industry. is it any wonder why healthcare is so expensive when malpractice insureance is $100,000 a year. Or why insureance premiums are so expensive when it costs so much money to show government compliance? Not haveing that would allow physicians and insurance companies to reduce prices.

De-regulating it is possibly the stupidest thing we can do. See what happened when electric companies got deregulated.

Those they don't because they are trying gouge people or whatever will be called on it by the consumers in which case they will either have to follow suit and lower prices or go out of business.

How incredibly naive.

Again there is no improvement in heatlhcare for them if they don't receive it when they need it, and by your own admittance there is no garuntee that they will.

No guarantee that they will is a LOT better than a guarantee that they won't.

Note to self: Larkin is the only person who is allowed to claim his opinion is right.

My comment was a hint to you that you should re-read what I said before because you misintrepreted me. My opinion was correct ONLY in the sense that you wanted me provide evidence for an opinion. Hence, as an opinion, the only evidence I could give was that I believed it as an opinon. I never claimed it was actually true, merely that to me it was true.

 

[Bern80]

We are talking about socialized medicine in the United States, not Burma or China, correct? Then this point was asinine.

Wrong, you are the one who originally brought up the tyranny in third world countires by private industry. You then said you at least have some control over governmet. Seeing as how many third world countries have governments that do little to help their citizenry I would say that makes your statement false.

If people didn't have control over the markets there be no such thing as the laws of supply and demand.

Oh gee, I dunno. Maybe I'd rather save some people than save none? If the only thing you are satisfied with in your goals is complete perfection, expect a lot of disappointment in your life.

No you want to make sure those that didn't have access now have the illussion of it. If you want to save some rather than none, you should also want to save more rather than a few. If more people will be wating for healthcare under socialized medicine it stands to reason even more peopel than currently will die, accomplishing the opposite of your goal.

Success is different than how well off you are.

No, because not everyone defines be well-off the same.

I really don't think you give a shit actually. Since you continually keep repeating that bullshit argument that "omg the majority (read the wealthy) will now have the same level of care as the minority (read the poor)...thats so unfair!!!".

Think whatever you want about my opinion. You would be wrong. How many times do I have to say it. Your system will mean worse healthcare for almost everybody. Most likely more deaths. Very likley a degradation in quality. The introduction of government red tape, and government haveing more control over my life.

It is a horribly overreactive solution to a problem when there are plenty of other viable options. Here's a crazy one. How about working on getting those 40 million people jobs so they can pay for healthcare?

Is it honeslty one of your beleifs that we shoudl make sure everyone suffers equally in a society? How about improving things for everyone. Wouldn't that be somethign better to shoot for?

You are conveniently ignoring the other aspect of the equation, which I've already pointed out. You are NOT sacraficing 85% of the population, you are giving them less than they had before. And according to the study it wasnt a chance of saving 18,000 people, it was 18,000 people who would still be alive if they had healthcare.

Anything less than the standard they are at now is a sacrafice. You said as much when you used your slave argument. You stated slave owners were worse off without slaves. Thus that woudl require you to believe 85% of the population is sacraficing something for socoalized medicine.

Yes that is an ideal solution. One I don't see coming. So I'll start by advocating small steps first.

Your step is not a small one. A small step would be tweaking the medical malpractice policies. So it didn't cost doctors an arm and a leg to pay for. You really beleive if it was lowered doctors are going to start doing poor jobs?

De-regulating it is possibly the stupidest thing we can do. See what happened when electric companies got deregulated.

and i maintain you are using exceptions to the rule for you examples. You need to show that it is likley to happen. One deregulated industry does not constitute a likleyhood.

How incredibly naive.

How incredibly cynical

No guarantee that they will is a LOT better than a guarantee that they won't.

If you are dieing how good does a chance of being treated compared to not be treated really sound to you? I'm sure that would bery comforting right?

My comment was a hint to you that you should re-read what I said before because you misintrepreted me. My opinion was correct ONLY in the sense that you wanted me provide evidence for an opinion. Hence, as an opinion, the only evidence I could give was that I believed it as an opinon. I never claimed it was actually true, merely that to me it was true.

wow, is your name Bill O'Reilly?

 

[Larkinn]

Wrong, you are the one who originall brought up the tyranny in third world countires by private industry. You then said you least of some control over governmet. Seeing as how many third world countries have governments that do little to help their citizenry I would say that makes your statement false

Ok...let me explain this really simply to you.

We are debating what will happen if government regulation diminishes. To point out how bad that is, I am showing you examples of other countries where regulation is decreased, and the effects of that decreased regulation.

Now, the US is a democracy, of sorts, and is not going to change in the near future. So bringing up that if we didnt live in a democracy we would feel differently is irrelevant, since that is not the issue, nor are we thinking of changing it.

No you want to make sure those that didn't have access now have the illussion of it.

You are assuming that decreased access means no access. This is incorrect.

If you want to save some rather than none, you should also want to save more rather than a few.

Got a theory on how to do that? Go for it.

If more people will be wating for healthcare under socialized medicine it stands to reason even more peopel than currently will die, accomplishing the opposite of your goal.

Dude...I've disproved this about 100X times by now. Overall access will improve which means this is NOT the case.

No, because not everyone defines be well-off the same.

Well off generally is describing income. Besides the fact that we are talking about healthcare which, in terms of being well off, is directly related to income. Even though I don't care about money I still realize that money is an important part of life and there are some things I deeply care about money so that I/my family will have. Healthcare is one of them. Greater chance of survival in any crazy disaster is another. Buying a Lexus SUV is not.

How many times do I have to say it. Your system will mean worse healthcare for almost everybody. Most likely more deaths. Very liekley a degradation in quality. The introduction of government red tape and government haveing more control over my life.

Ok, this is really simple. Some healthcare is better than no healthcare.

It is a horribly overreactive solution to a problem when there are plenty of other viable options. Here's a crazy one. How about working on getting those 40 million people jobs so they can pay for healthcare?

Most of them have jobs. Having a job doesn't mean you can always afford healthcare.

Is it honeslty one of your beleifs that everyone must suffer equially in a society?

Nope, and I never said that. However it is my belief that life should not be prioritized determined on income.

Anything less than the standard they are at now is a sacrafice. You said as much when you used your slave argument.

The population is sacraficing some small percentage of their health, you are NOT sacrificing the population.

Your step is not a small one. A small step would be tweaking the medical malpractice policies. So it didn't cost doctors an arm and a leg to pay for. You really beleive if it was lowered doctors are going to start doing poor jobs?

Yes, the standard of care will decrease.

and i maintain you are using exceptions to the rule for you examples. You need to show that it is likley to happen. One deregulated industry does not constitute a likleyhood.

How bout you provide some evidence that it won't happen.

How incredibly cynical

Life is rough. Cry me a river.

If you are dieing how good does a chance of being treated compared to not be treated really sound to you? I'm sure that would bery comforting right?

Why not ask these people: http://www.reason.com/news/show/120763.html

 

[Bern80]

You are assuming that decreased access means no access. This is incorrect.

No, I have stated that it could mean that and you agreed

Dude...I've disproved this about 100X times by now. Overall access will improve which means this is NOT the case.

No you haven't. For overall access to improve overall wait time to see a physician will have to improve. You in fact agreed that the 85% will most likely be waiting longer.

Also for overall access to improve a doctors overall free time must increase,also something that won't happen since you have agreed consumption will go up (which is not access).

Ok, this is really simple. Some healthcare is better than no healthcare.

Yes a labotomy is better than nothing in my book any day.

Nope, and I never said that. However it is my belief that life should not be prioritized determined on income.

The population is sacraficing some small percentage of their health, you are NOT sacrificing the population.

You don't have a clue as to how big the percentage would be one way or the other.

Yes, the standard of care will decrease.

And you are sure there is no other solution that can get 40 million peole healthcare and improve standard of care. I think that's somehting I would at least want to try before I reconciled myself to your solution.

How bout you provide some evidence that it won't happen.

Like you my evidence is my opinion. It is cynical and inaccurate to think the all wise government is what is keeping doctors from slacking on the job. I can see the water cooler talk now. "I would have only used 10 stitches instead of 20 if it werent' for the government regs." You need to start getting real and have a little faith in people. Beleive it or not the vast majority of people do take pride in their work.

Life is rough. Cry me a river.

So lets make it rougher, huh?

Why not ask these people: http://www.reason.com/news/show/120763.html

non of which have anything to do with health insurence. Whether they were treated had to do with their medical condition not their financial situation.

 

[Larkinn]

No, I have stated that it could mean that and you agreed

Illusion means does not exist, not "could" exist.

No you haven't. For overall access to improve overall wait time to see a physician will have to improve.

No...this is patently false. Think about it for a second before making me explain it to you for the upteenth time.

Also for overall access to improve a doctors overall free time must increase,also something that won't happen since you have agreed consumption will go up (which is not access).

Again, only true if they are currently at max.

Yes a labotomy is better than nothing in my book any day.

Decreased healthcare means they do a shittier job, or see you later, not revert to practices of 60 years ago.

You don't have a clue as to how big the percentage would be one way or the other.

And neither do you, so don't assume its large.

And you are sure there is no other solution that can get 40 million peole healthcare and improve standard of care. I think that's somehting I would at least want to try before I reconciled myself to your solution.

As I said before, throw out ideas.

Like you my evidence is my opinion. It is cynical and inaccurate to think the all wise government is what is keeping doctors from slacking on the job.

Nobody is talking about slacking, we are talking about profit motive.

I can see the water cooler talk now. "I would have only used 10 stitches instead of 20 if it werent' for the government regs." You need to start getting real and have a little faith in people. Beleive it or not the vast majority of people do take pride in their work.

And the vast majority of people will cut corners if it means increased profit for them.

So lets make it rougher, huh?

Obviously I am trying to make it easier.

non of which have anything to do with health insurence. Whether they were treated had to do with their medical condition not their financial situation.

It DOES however have everything to do with the quote it was in response too. I suggest you read that again and then read the article again.

 

[Bern80]

No...this is patently false. Think about it for a second before making me explain it to you for the upteenth time.

Only if there time is maxed out. Which you don't know. So no it isn't patently false.

Wait time is not component of access? Someone requiring treatment would most likely disagree. You have already admitted wait time will increase for people. If wait time is increasing, symptoms are progressing further than they would under the current system.

What will go up is consumption. Again only if you are right that available time is not maxed out. If it is maxed out consumption remains the same and your just adding to the shortage.

Again, only true if they are currently at max.

And how do you know it isn't. Everything you should have experienced in realtion to a doctor visit should tell you they have little free time most days.
When you go see the doctor, do they do you check in and take you right back to the waiting doctor? Of course not.

This coupled with the fact that most people don't go to the doctor for the hell of it. They go to a doctor because they need prompt treatment for something. Under your system treatment will be less prompt because the doctor now has more people trying to fill about the same amount of available time.

Decreased healthcare means they do a shittier job, or see you later, not revert to practices of 60 years ago.

Which you have admitted will happen for 85% of percent of the population. Meanwhile even though they now can get treated to some extent, the poor aren't receiveing the best care they could. You keep assuming, incorrectly, that w/o your savior the government to regulate the industry standard of care will decrease, while at the same time admitting that under socialized medicine, standard of care will decrease also.

As I said before, throw out ideas.

I have, but your cynicism about people in general is preventing you from even examining it.

Nobody is talking about slacking, we are talking about profit motive.

Which you beleive will cause what? If we aren't talking about slacking what is it you beleive will cause standard of care to go down?

And the vast majority of people will cut corners if it means increased profit for them.

Otherwise known as slacking. Make up your mind.

Obviously I am trying to make it easier.

Inaccurate. You are trying to make it easier for less than 15% of the population, knowing full well it will get worse for the 85%.

 

[Bullypulpit]

It's not even funny. It is devoid of wit. It dribbles.

Like a dose of clap...

 

[Ruby]

Its untrue that socialized medicine means there is a reduction in quality of care. We see numerous first world nations that have socialized medicine and give equal (and in some areas, better) quality of health care as can be found in the US. If it were true that socialized medicine meant an inevitable reduction in quality then we would see a lower quality health care throughout the rest of the first world nations...and thats not what we see at all.

 

[Diuretic]

Like a dose of clap...

Praise the Lord and pass me the penicillin

 

[Bern80]

Its untrue that socialized medicine means there is a reduction in quality of care. We see numerous first world nations that have socialized medicine and give equal (and in some areas, better) quality of health care as can be found in the US. If it were true that socialized medicine meant an inevitable reduction in quality then we would see a lower quality health care throughout the rest of the first world nations...and thats not what we see at all.

According to Larkin's WHO report he posted sometime ago. The U.S. ranked first in responsiveness, which they define as how well the system meets people's needs. I would (and did) call that quality of care.

Here's the link:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

 

[Ruby]

According to Larkin's WHO report he posted sometime ago. The U.S. ranked first in responsiveness, which they define as how well the system meets people's needs. I would (and did) call that quality of care.

Here's the link:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Here is the paragraph to which you refer

Responsiveness: The nations with the most responsive health systems are the United States, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Canada, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden. The reason these are all advanced industrial nations is that a number of the elements of responsiveness depend strongly on the availability of resources. In addition, many of these countries were the first to begin addressing the responsiveness of their health systems to people’s needs.

The US was named with other numerous nations as the "most responsive" it does not rank the US number 1 above all others.

You will also notice that ALL the other nations that are also ranked as the "most responsive" ARE ALL SOCIALIZED medical systems! Those other nations not only are also most responsive but they outperform the US in other areas AS well as making that good health care available to ALL its citizens.

If socialized medicine is going to mean an inevitable reduction in quality of care, then why so many nations that are included as "most responsive" socialized care (and you said that is the clear indicator of "best quality care")? In fact all the nations in that list were socialized, only one isnt.

It seems to me that your theory of socializing medicine means a reduction in quality of care is completely debunked.

BTW, taking into account other markers as well (because there are other markers that are indeed important) the US ranks 37 with a slew of socialized systems ranking better. Yet the US spends more per capita than those nations, what does THAT tell ya?

 

[Bern80]

Here is the paragraph to which you refer



The US was named with other numerous nations as the "most responsive" it does not rank the US number 1 above all others.

You will also notice that ALL the other nations that are also ranked as the "most responsive" ARE ALL SOCIALIZED medical systems! Those other nations not only are also most responsive but they outperform the US in other areas AS well as making that good health care available to ALL its citizens.

If socialized medicine is going to mean an inevitable reduction in quality of care, then why so many nations that are included as "most responsive" socialized care (and you said that is the clear indicator of "best quality care")? In fact all the nations in that list were socialized, only one isnt.

It seems to me that your theory of socializing medicine means a reduction in quality of care is completely debunked.

BTW, taking into account other markers as well (because there are other markers that are indeed important) the US ranks 37 with a slew of socialized systems ranking better. Yet the US spends more per capita than those nations, what does THAT tell ya?

Believe me Larkin and I have debated that report until we were both blue in the face. I know the U.S. ranked 37th and I know why the U.S. ranked 37th. The report uses four our five main factors to get the overall rank. One was how well the cost of healthcare is distributed amongst people, which based on our insureance system is not going to be good, that however is not a measure of actual quality of care. Another was the overall wellness of our population, which surprise we also ranked below 37th in. Again, though the health of our population can not be directly attributed to the quality of our care.

The other factors were responsiveness and attainment of goals. Which I beleive the US was ranked 1st and within the top ten or twenty respectively.

My theory most certainly is not debunked. Every other country in the world has lower quality of care than the U.S. Of course all the other countries behind us will be socialized. We're in the minority, duh. There should be a gazillion other counties with socialized healthcare right up there with us. They aren't there because their care is almost as good as ours. They're there because there is simply more of them. We are one of the few industrialized countries, that you can count on two hands, maybe one, that use privitized healthcare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WORLDHEALTH2.png

that is a map of the world with countries hilighted by universal or non-universal countries. You will notice that almost all of the non-unviversal countries are third world countries. Almost the entire industrialized world has universal healthcare of some type, yet in quality of care we outperform all of them. That is what should tell you something

The other countries rank higher than us for two reasons. Payment for service is distributed more evenly and is less expensive and many European countries have healthier populations than we do. None of those factors were shown to be correllary however.

 

[Ruby]

Ridiculous, you cant measure quality of care with only one indicator, but I can see why you wish to try.

Secondly, you just dont want to deal with the fact that many countries are in the top on responsiveness and this proves that socalized medicine can achieve that indicator you place so much emphasis on.

I moved from american health care system where I did have decent insurance into the Swedish socialized system. My quality of care AND choices improved in the Swedish system.

Of course my ancedotal experience isnt a valid marker, but neither is your arbitrary determination that only one indicator should count (especially since you also try to ignore how socialized medicine is also showing up as a top performer in that category). The studies quanitified indicators ARE a valid marker though and no matter how hard you twist, you arent going to be able to twist out of it.

 

[Bern80]

Ridiculous, you cant measure quality of care with only one indicator, but I can see why you wish to try.

Secondly, you just dont want to deal with the fact that many countries are in the top on responsiveness and this proves that socalized medicine can achieve that indicator you place so much emphasis on.

I moved from american health care system where I did have decent insurance into the Swedish socialized system. My quality of care AND choices improved in the Swedish system.

Of course my ancedotal experience isnt a valid marker, but neither is your arbitrary determination that only one indicator should count (especially since you also try to ignore how socialized medicine is also showing up as a top performer in that category). The studies quanitified indicators ARE a valid marker though and no matter how hard you twist, you arent going to be able to twist out of it.

I assume you have access to the table listing how countries rank among the various factors. Tell me then, how any of the other factors listed could remotely be translated into quality of care.

The universal healthcare countries are where they are in responsiveness because there aren't any other non-universal, industrialized countries to put there. You got China, Belarus and a couple others that are even remotely comparible to the U.S. in terms of industrialization. The entire rest of the list is suppossed to be universal healthcare countries. As I said the U.S. is one of the very few industrialized nations that has private healthcare.

Comeing in second to the U.S. should in no way imply that it was almost as good as the U.S. The table doesn't say what the extent of the differences is between the two countries. Somebody has to be second. Second can also mean you finished a couple laps behind.

 

[Ruby]

I assume you have access to the table listing how countries rank among the various factors. Tell me then, how any of the other factors listed could remotely be translated into quality of care.

The universal healthcare countries are where they are in responsiveness because there aren't any other non-universal, industrialized countries to put there. You got China, Belarus and a couple others that are even remotely comparible to the U.S. in terms of industrialization. The entire rest of the list is suppossed to be universal healthcare countries. As I said the U.S. is one of the very few industrialized nations that has private healthcare.

Comeing in second to the U.S. should in no way imply that it was almost as good as the U.S. The table doesn't say what the extent of the differences is between the two countries. Somebody has to be second. Second can also mean you finished a couple laps behind.

All of the other factors do factor into quality and I dont feel a need to repeat what they already put in the link. Read it.

Now you are tying to say since all others are socialized that this makes the measurements unfair? Thats pretty silly and dosent make sense. Its an assessment of how well the system and the people running it are doing. Obviously socialized systems can and do run quite well which is a point you resist. The US is not doing that well, especially when you consider its spending the most money.

Now you want to assume the gaps between number 1 and number 2 are wide, yet I dont see any proof of this.

Its pretty easy to see that you cherry pick what you think you can spin, discard anything that wont fit into your beliefs and then go onto make assumptions without any actual evidence to support the assumptions. If your point was so valid, you wouldnt have to twist this much to make it!

 

[dilloduck]

All of the other factors do factor into quality and I dont feel a need to repeat what they already put in the link. Read it.

Now you are tying to say since all others are socialized that this makes the measurements unfair? Thats pretty silly and dosent make sense. Its an assessment of how well the system and the people running it are doing. Obviously socialized systems can and do run quite well which is a point you resist. The US is not doing that well, especially when you consider its spending the most money.

Now you want to assume the gaps between number 1 and number 2 are wide, yet I dont see any proof of this.

Its pretty easy to see that you cherry pick what you think you can spin, discard anything that wont fit into your beliefs and then go onto make assumptions without any actual evidence to support the assumptions. If your point was so valid, you wouldnt have to twist this much to make it!

LOL---priceless---you're point can't be valid because you can't convince me.

 

[Vintij]

I assume you have access to the table listing how countries rank among the various factors. Tell me then, how any of the other factors listed could remotely be translated into quality of care.

The universal healthcare countries are where they are in responsiveness because there aren't any other non-universal, industrialized countries to put there. You got China, Belarus and a couple others that are even remotely comparible to the U.S. in terms of industrialization. The entire rest of the list is suppossed to be universal healthcare countries. As I said the U.S. is one of the very few industrialized nations that has private healthcare.

Comeing in second to the U.S. should in no way imply that it was almost as good as the U.S. The table doesn't say what the extent of the differences is between the two countries. Somebody has to be second. Second can also mean you finished a couple laps behind.

Us healthcare quality is not that great, unless your paying for premium coverage. Most Americans are not able to.

 

[Bern80]

Us healthcare quality is not that great, unless your paying for premium coverage. Most Americans are not able to.

Do you not see how that doesn't really support UHC?

If you're right, then basically there should be three groups. People that have premium coverage. People that have fed/state coverage and those with no coverage.

So you say only the people with premium coverage are getting good heatlhcare? Let's see, you want the state to run healthcare (which provides some form of inexpensive coverage all ready) and at the same time imply, by stateing that only premium coverage yields good healthcare, that a system you advocate for supplying healthcare, provides poor healthcare. Absolutely brilliant.

 

[Bern80]

All of the other factors do factor into quality and I dont feel a need to repeat what they already put in the link. Read it.

Quality of what? You told me I was wrong when I said UHC will lead to lower quality of care. Now you what to change the subject to quality of something else because your dead ass wrong? Look at the headings on the table and tell me which ones even remotely figure into to quality of care. The other factors link into quality of the system. The WHO chose to include the aspects of financial burden and health of the population into our system. Those are significantly different than quality of care hence why they used responsiveness to measure that factor.

Now you are tying to say since all others are socialized that this makes the measurements unfair? Thats pretty silly and dosent make sense. Its an assessment of how well the system and the people running it are doing. Obviously socialized systems can and do run quite well which is a point you resist. The US is not doing that well, especially when you consider its spending the most money.

I never said it was unfair. By chance alone the second ranked country in responsiveness is going to be a UHC country. Why? well for one you can't really compare third world countries to us or UHC countries because there isn't anything to compare from a healthcare administration standpoint. So that leaves just industrialized countries. Almost every single one has UHC, while you shouldn't need more than two hands at the most to count teh non-UHC countries. That almost every country in the top tier of the list is a UHC country can not be held up as ringing edorsement of UHC becaue frankly there aren't any other non-UHC countries to put in the list.

Now you want to assume the gaps between number 1 and number 2 are wide, yet I dont see any proof of this.

I assumed no such thing. You are the one, in fact, who originally tried to make the argument that because so many UHC countries were in the top tier thy must be close in quality of care to the U.S.

Its pretty easy to see that you cherry pick what you think you can spin, discard anything that wont fit into your beliefs and then go onto make assumptions without any actual evidence to support the assumptions. If your point was so valid, you wouldnt have to twist this much to make it!

I haven't cherry picked a thing. There isn't anything you can point to in that report that supports the notion that UHC can attain uqual or better quality of care than the U.S. does right now.

 

[Ruby]

Its pretty evident that people took time to study the markers and get a full picture of health care performances in various nations. Each is explained in detail and trying to toss out so much information to bolster your debunked point of "quality will go down" is outright dishonest and anyone with any handle on logic and the dance of spin can see that.

Life expectancy, health of the population etc DO factor into QUALITY of care, even if you want to pretend they dont.

I am quite glad to live where we have socialized health care. I certainly wouldnt advocate somthing that I experienced and found to be lacking.

I think the REAL problem is that many dont trust the US to be able to accomplish it while other nations can and do. I guess fixing the govt to do a good job is just impossible?