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

[Anathema]

So you are sexist? Why should women not have any political power? You sound like a member of ISIS.

I’m a misogynist, a Bationslist and an Isolationist. Men and women have separate roles in life. Politics is not part of a woman’s role. ISIS has a lot more to offer than either American political party.

 

[Anathema]

You're part of the problem. Did you know that?

I’m glad you feel that way. If I can be even a small speed bump to the things you believe in, I’ll be very pleased.

 

[EL Rich]

Then how do you propose governments function if not through taxes?

I didn't say that. I said taxes should reflect the cost of services used. The rich don't use 90% of government services. In fact they probably use less than most people because they send their kids to private schools and hire private security.

All fair points, we simply disagree about what individuals owe (or don’t owe) their societies. In extension, does this mean all government aid to the public should be paid for by those who need the aid? Seems like an easy way to do away with those programs.

The rich don't owe a thing to society. Furthermore, taxes go to the government, not to society. You believe that rich people should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes simply because they are rich. There is no rational basis for that. If I make a fortune by developing a new piece of software, how is the government entitled to a stake in it? The government's contribution to enterprise is the cost of the services that I used. That is not proportional to how much I earned. If I used X amount of sewage and water, you have failed to explain why I should pay any more than X amount in taxes.

Yes, we should do away with income redistribution in any form. It's nothing more than organized plunder.

First, I am in no way saying your points here are invalid, because they are not. I do not agree that the individual owes nothing to the society that they have flourished in. Although, pay for what you use does seem fair. Does that mean when we fight wars to protect American prosperity those who proper the most should pay the most of the bill? Does that mean that companies that benefit from lower government regulations on employee compensation should pay some of those savings for the care those employees can no longer afford. Or are you simply saying Capitalism has winners and losers, so make sure you win?

No, it doesn't mean that. If you are rich do you believe you should pay more for security than someone who is less well off? I don't see why. Your belief that government is entitled to a percentage of their income simply because they have "flourished" is totally lacking any rational support. Simply existing doesn't entitle you to any part of what someone else earned, but you're claiming you are.

I have no idea what it means for a company to "benefit from lower government regulations on employee compensation." Why should there be any regulations on employee compensation? That's strictly a matter between you and your employer. Government has no business butting in.

Everyone wins under capitalism. It's not a zero sum game.

Ok, I think get where you’re coming from.
To your last point, I think anyone under the poverty line would argue that they are loosing.

 

[bripat9643]

I didn't say that. I said taxes should reflect the cost of services used. The rich don't use 90% of government services. In fact they probably use less than most people because they send their kids to private schools and hire private security.

All fair points, we simply disagree about what individuals owe (or don’t owe) their societies. In extension, does this mean all government aid to the public should be paid for by those who need the aid? Seems like an easy way to do away with those programs.

The rich don't owe a thing to society. Furthermore, taxes go to the government, not to society. You believe that rich people should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes simply because they are rich. There is no rational basis for that. If I make a fortune by developing a new piece of software, how is the government entitled to a stake in it? The government's contribution to enterprise is the cost of the services that I used. That is not proportional to how much I earned. If I used X amount of sewage and water, you have failed to explain why I should pay any more than X amount in taxes.

Yes, we should do away with income redistribution in any form. It's nothing more than organized plunder.

First, I am in no way saying your points here are invalid, because they are not. I do not agree that the individual owes nothing to the society that they have flourished in. Although, pay for what you use does seem fair. Does that mean when we fight wars to protect American prosperity those who proper the most should pay the most of the bill? Does that mean that companies that benefit from lower government regulations on employee compensation should pay some of those savings for the care those employees can no longer afford. Or are you simply saying Capitalism has winners and losers, so make sure you win?

No, it doesn't mean that. If you are rich do you believe you should pay more for security than someone who is less well off? I don't see why. Your belief that government is entitled to a percentage of their income simply because they have "flourished" is totally lacking any rational support. Simply existing doesn't entitle you to any part of what someone else earned, but you're claiming you are.

I have no idea what it means for a company to "benefit from lower government regulations on employee compensation." Why should there be any regulations on employee compensation? That's strictly a matter between you and your employer. Government has no business butting in.

Everyone wins under capitalism. It's not a zero sum game.

Ok, I think get where you’re coming from.
To your last point, I think anyone under the poverty line would argue that they are loosing.

Actually, they aren't. They are fall wealthier than even middle class people living in most of the countries of the world.

 

[Oddball]

Pretty sure that is not what I said and certain that it not what I was trying to say.

Well, you're a total dim bulb if you think all those costs aren't going to be passed along to the end consumer....There are all the duds that don't get approved...You don't think that's for free, do you?

In any event, the "free market" that you decry for driving up the costs of medical services is anything but free.

You are not representing my points accurately. I am by no means advocating companies exist for altruistic service to the individual. Nor am I saying companies should not attempt to make profit and set their prices in accordance to that goal. What I am saying is that their costs are not exclusively the result of FDA regulations, and that the drug prices in our country in comparison to the rest of the developed world are higher due to policies by our government and foreign governments.

The rest of the developed world piggybacks off of that the pharmaceutical companies do here....And most of them either knock off (i.e. steal) or heavily subsidize medications and devices....So of course they're going to be less costly for the end user.

No only are you not comparing apples to apples, but you're also ignoring basic economic sense.

 

[EL Rich]

Pretty sure that is not what I said and certain that it not what I was trying to say.

Well, you're a total dim bulb if you think all those costs aren't going to be passed along to the end consumer....There are all the duds that don't get approved...You don't think that's for free, do you?

In any event, the "free market" that you decry for driving up the costs of medical services is anything but free.

You are not representing my points accurately. I am by no means advocating companies exist for altruistic service to the individual. Nor am I saying companies should not attempt to make profit and set their prices in accordance to that goal. What I am saying is that their costs are not exclusively the result of FDA regulations, and that the drug prices in our country in comparison to the rest of the developed world are higher due to policies by our government and foreign governments.

The rest of the developed world piggybacks off of that the pharmaceutical companies do here....And most of them either knock off (i.e. steal) or heavily subsidize medications and devices....So of course they're going to be less costly for the end user.

No only are you not comparing apples to apples, but you're also ignoring basic economic sense.

I think that is what I just said. What exactly have I said that you disagree with?

 

[EL Rich]

All fair points, we simply disagree about what individuals owe (or don’t owe) their societies. In extension, does this mean all government aid to the public should be paid for by those who need the aid? Seems like an easy way to do away with those programs.

The rich don't owe a thing to society. Furthermore, taxes go to the government, not to society. You believe that rich people should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes simply because they are rich. There is no rational basis for that. If I make a fortune by developing a new piece of software, how is the government entitled to a stake in it? The government's contribution to enterprise is the cost of the services that I used. That is not proportional to how much I earned. If I used X amount of sewage and water, you have failed to explain why I should pay any more than X amount in taxes.

Yes, we should do away with income redistribution in any form. It's nothing more than organized plunder.

First, I am in no way saying your points here are invalid, because they are not. I do not agree that the individual owes nothing to the society that they have flourished in. Although, pay for what you use does seem fair. Does that mean when we fight wars to protect American prosperity those who proper the most should pay the most of the bill? Does that mean that companies that benefit from lower government regulations on employee compensation should pay some of those savings for the care those employees can no longer afford. Or are you simply saying Capitalism has winners and losers, so make sure you win?

No, it doesn't mean that. If you are rich do you believe you should pay more for security than someone who is less well off? I don't see why. Your belief that government is entitled to a percentage of their income simply because they have "flourished" is totally lacking any rational support. Simply existing doesn't entitle you to any part of what someone else earned, but you're claiming you are.

I have no idea what it means for a company to "benefit from lower government regulations on employee compensation." Why should there be any regulations on employee compensation? That's strictly a matter between you and your employer. Government has no business butting in.

Everyone wins under capitalism. It's not a zero sum game.

Ok, I think get where you’re coming from.
To your last point, I think anyone under the poverty line would argue that they are loosing.

Actually, they aren't. They are fall wealthier than even middle class people living in most of the countries of the world.

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. To be clear, I think your argument is logical and based on rational thought, I also believe that we can do better than living in the state you describe. I could be wrong.

 

[Oddball]

Pretty sure that is not what I said and certain that it not what I was trying to say.

Well, you're a total dim bulb if you think all those costs aren't going to be passed along to the end consumer....There are all the duds that don't get approved...You don't think that's for free, do you?

In any event, the "free market" that you decry for driving up the costs of medical services is anything but free.

You are not representing my points accurately. I am by no means advocating companies exist for altruistic service to the individual. Nor am I saying companies should not attempt to make profit and set their prices in accordance to that goal. What I am saying is that their costs are not exclusively the result of FDA regulations, and that the drug prices in our country in comparison to the rest of the developed world are higher due to policies by our government and foreign governments.

The rest of the developed world piggybacks off of that the pharmaceutical companies do here....And most of them either knock off (i.e. steal) or heavily subsidize medications and devices....So of course they're going to be less costly for the end user.

No only are you not comparing apples to apples, but you're also ignoring basic economic sense.

I think that is what I just said. What exactly have I said that you disagree with?

You original comment was that medical care can't be left to market forces, yet you've been confronted with numerous ways that market forces have been interfered with and usurped....These things are what's driving up the costs, not a truly free marketplace.

 

[EL Rich]

Pretty sure that is not what I said and certain that it not what I was trying to say.

Well, you're a total dim bulb if you think all those costs aren't going to be passed along to the end consumer....There are all the duds that don't get approved...You don't think that's for free, do you?

In any event, the "free market" that you decry for driving up the costs of medical services is anything but free.

You are not representing my points accurately. I am by no means advocating companies exist for altruistic service to the individual. Nor am I saying companies should not attempt to make profit and set their prices in accordance to that goal. What I am saying is that their costs are not exclusively the result of FDA regulations, and that the drug prices in our country in comparison to the rest of the developed world are higher due to policies by our government and foreign governments.

The rest of the developed world piggybacks off of that the pharmaceutical companies do here....And most of them either knock off (i.e. steal) or heavily subsidize medications and devices....So of course they're going to be less costly for the end user.

No only are you not comparing apples to apples, but you're also ignoring basic economic sense.

I think that is what I just said. What exactly have I said that you disagree with?

You original comment was that medical care can't be left to market forces, yet you've been confronted with numerous ways that market forces have been interfered with and usurped....These things are what's driving up the costs, not a truly free marketplace.

I have said that leaving health care purely to market forces does not seem to be the most effective way to provide the best quality care at the most affordable rate. I have also said that unchecked government interference is dangerous and a sure fire way to make health care inefficient and unaffordable. Finding a middle ground is all I am advocating.

 

[bripat9643]

The rich don't owe a thing to society. Furthermore, taxes go to the government, not to society. You believe that rich people should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes simply because they are rich. There is no rational basis for that. If I make a fortune by developing a new piece of software, how is the government entitled to a stake in it? The government's contribution to enterprise is the cost of the services that I used. That is not proportional to how much I earned. If I used X amount of sewage and water, you have failed to explain why I should pay any more than X amount in taxes.

Yes, we should do away with income redistribution in any form. It's nothing more than organized plunder.

First, I am in no way saying your points here are invalid, because they are not. I do not agree that the individual owes nothing to the society that they have flourished in. Although, pay for what you use does seem fair. Does that mean when we fight wars to protect American prosperity those who proper the most should pay the most of the bill? Does that mean that companies that benefit from lower government regulations on employee compensation should pay some of those savings for the care those employees can no longer afford. Or are you simply saying Capitalism has winners and losers, so make sure you win?

No, it doesn't mean that. If you are rich do you believe you should pay more for security than someone who is less well off? I don't see why. Your belief that government is entitled to a percentage of their income simply because they have "flourished" is totally lacking any rational support. Simply existing doesn't entitle you to any part of what someone else earned, but you're claiming you are.

I have no idea what it means for a company to "benefit from lower government regulations on employee compensation." Why should there be any regulations on employee compensation? That's strictly a matter between you and your employer. Government has no business butting in.

Everyone wins under capitalism. It's not a zero sum game.

Ok, I think get where you’re coming from.
To your last point, I think anyone under the poverty line would argue that they are loosing.

Actually, they aren't. They are fall wealthier than even middle class people living in most of the countries of the world.

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. To be clear, I think your argument is logical and based on rational thought, I also believe that we can do better than living in the state you describe. I could be wrong.

I don't find the system you support to be preferable. I don't support organized plunder. That isn't a free society. That's a kleptocracy.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, you're a total dim bulb if you think all those costs aren't going to be passed along to the end consumer....There are all the duds that don't get approved...You don't think that's for free, do you?

In any event, the "free market" that you decry for driving up the costs of medical services is anything but free.

You are not representing my points accurately. I am by no means advocating companies exist for altruistic service to the individual. Nor am I saying companies should not attempt to make profit and set their prices in accordance to that goal. What I am saying is that their costs are not exclusively the result of FDA regulations, and that the drug prices in our country in comparison to the rest of the developed world are higher due to policies by our government and foreign governments.

The rest of the developed world piggybacks off of that the pharmaceutical companies do here....And most of them either knock off (i.e. steal) or heavily subsidize medications and devices....So of course they're going to be less costly for the end user.

No only are you not comparing apples to apples, but you're also ignoring basic economic sense.

I think that is what I just said. What exactly have I said that you disagree with?

You original comment was that medical care can't be left to market forces, yet you've been confronted with numerous ways that market forces have been interfered with and usurped....These things are what's driving up the costs, not a truly free marketplace.

I have said that leaving health care purely to market forces does not seem to be the most effective way to provide the best quality care at the most affordable rate. I have also said that unchecked government interference is dangerous and a sure fire way to make health care inefficient and unaffordable. Finding a middle ground is all I am advocating.

There is no middle ground. Government interference always causes distortions and increases in cost.

 

[bripat9643]

Pretty sure that is not what I said and certain that it not what I was trying to say.

Well, you're a total dim bulb if you think all those costs aren't going to be passed along to the end consumer....There are all the duds that don't get approved...You don't think that's for free, do you?

In any event, the "free market" that you decry for driving up the costs of medical services is anything but free.

You are not representing my points accurately. I am by no means advocating companies exist for altruistic service to the individual. Nor am I saying companies should not attempt to make profit and set their prices in accordance to that goal. What I am saying is that their costs are not exclusively the result of FDA regulations, and that the drug prices in our country in comparison to the rest of the developed world are higher due to policies by our government and foreign governments.

The rest of the developed world piggybacks off of that the pharmaceutical companies do here....And most of them either knock off (i.e. steal) or heavily subsidize medications and devices....So of course they're going to be less costly for the end user.

No only are you not comparing apples to apples, but you're also ignoring basic economic sense.

I think that is what I just said. What exactly have I said that you disagree with?

You original comment was that medical care can't be left to market forces, yet you've been confronted with numerous ways that market forces have been interfered with and usurped....These things are what's driving up the costs, not a truly free marketplace.

El Rich believes insurance can still be cheap after government forces insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions.

 

[Oddball]

Well, you're a total dim bulb if you think all those costs aren't going to be passed along to the end consumer....There are all the duds that don't get approved...You don't think that's for free, do you?

In any event, the "free market" that you decry for driving up the costs of medical services is anything but free.

You are not representing my points accurately. I am by no means advocating companies exist for altruistic service to the individual. Nor am I saying companies should not attempt to make profit and set their prices in accordance to that goal. What I am saying is that their costs are not exclusively the result of FDA regulations, and that the drug prices in our country in comparison to the rest of the developed world are higher due to policies by our government and foreign governments.

The rest of the developed world piggybacks off of that the pharmaceutical companies do here....And most of them either knock off (i.e. steal) or heavily subsidize medications and devices....So of course they're going to be less costly for the end user.

No only are you not comparing apples to apples, but you're also ignoring basic economic sense.

I think that is what I just said. What exactly have I said that you disagree with?

You original comment was that medical care can't be left to market forces, yet you've been confronted with numerous ways that market forces have been interfered with and usurped....These things are what's driving up the costs, not a truly free marketplace.

I have said that leaving health care purely to market forces does not seem to be the most effective way to provide the best quality care at the most affordable rate. I have also said that unchecked government interference is dangerous and a sure fire way to make health care inefficient and unaffordable. Finding a middle ground is all I am advocating.

You can't say that since you have no frame of reference.

 

[EL Rich]

Well, you're a total dim bulb if you think all those costs aren't going to be passed along to the end consumer....There are all the duds that don't get approved...You don't think that's for free, do you?

In any event, the "free market" that you decry for driving up the costs of medical services is anything but free.

You are not representing my points accurately. I am by no means advocating companies exist for altruistic service to the individual. Nor am I saying companies should not attempt to make profit and set their prices in accordance to that goal. What I am saying is that their costs are not exclusively the result of FDA regulations, and that the drug prices in our country in comparison to the rest of the developed world are higher due to policies by our government and foreign governments.

The rest of the developed world piggybacks off of that the pharmaceutical companies do here....And most of them either knock off (i.e. steal) or heavily subsidize medications and devices....So of course they're going to be less costly for the end user.

No only are you not comparing apples to apples, but you're also ignoring basic economic sense.

I think that is what I just said. What exactly have I said that you disagree with?

You original comment was that medical care can't be left to market forces, yet you've been confronted with numerous ways that market forces have been interfered with and usurped....These things are what's driving up the costs, not a truly free marketplace.

El Rich believes insurance can still be cheap after government forces insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions.

Hey straw man, come on??! All I have said is that healthcare should be of high quality and affordable. I’m not claiming that any path forward is right or wrong. I do suspect if we are to assure that basic healthcare is affordable to all and that high quality healthcare is available to those who can afford it, we need rethink our current approach.

 

[Norman]

You are not representing my points accurately. I am by no means advocating companies exist for altruistic service to the individual. Nor am I saying companies should not attempt to make profit and set their prices in accordance to that goal. What I am saying is that their costs are not exclusively the result of FDA regulations, and that the drug prices in our country in comparison to the rest of the developed world are higher due to policies by our government and foreign governments.

The rest of the developed world piggybacks off of that the pharmaceutical companies do here....And most of them either knock off (i.e. steal) or heavily subsidize medications and devices....So of course they're going to be less costly for the end user.

No only are you not comparing apples to apples, but you're also ignoring basic economic sense.

I think that is what I just said. What exactly have I said that you disagree with?

You original comment was that medical care can't be left to market forces, yet you've been confronted with numerous ways that market forces have been interfered with and usurped....These things are what's driving up the costs, not a truly free marketplace.

El Rich believes insurance can still be cheap after government forces insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions.

Hey straw man, come on??! All I have said is that healthcare should be of high quality and affordable. I’m not claiming that any path forward is right or wrong. I do suspect if we are to assure that basic healthcare is affordable to all and that high quality healthcare is available to those who can afford it, we need rethink our current approach.

Will someone already tell this needy entitled ***** that he lives in a fantasy realm?

Fix the issues you actually can fix first - the part about being a *****.

 

[bripat9643]

You are not representing my points accurately. I am by no means advocating companies exist for altruistic service to the individual. Nor am I saying companies should not attempt to make profit and set their prices in accordance to that goal. What I am saying is that their costs are not exclusively the result of FDA regulations, and that the drug prices in our country in comparison to the rest of the developed world are higher due to policies by our government and foreign governments.

The rest of the developed world piggybacks off of that the pharmaceutical companies do here....And most of them either knock off (i.e. steal) or heavily subsidize medications and devices....So of course they're going to be less costly for the end user.

No only are you not comparing apples to apples, but you're also ignoring basic economic sense.

I think that is what I just said. What exactly have I said that you disagree with?

You original comment was that medical care can't be left to market forces, yet you've been confronted with numerous ways that market forces have been interfered with and usurped....These things are what's driving up the costs, not a truly free marketplace.

El Rich believes insurance can still be cheap after government forces insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions.

Hey straw man, come on??! All I have said is that healthcare should be of high quality and affordable. I’m not claiming that any path forward is right or wrong. I do suspect if we are to assure that basic healthcare is affordable to all and that high quality healthcare is available to those who can afford it, we need rethink our current approach.

You also claim that people who have no money should receive free healthcare.

The free market is the way to make healthcare the cheapest and the highest quality. The minute you start forcing companies to provide free healthcare or mandate any services, you toss out the free market.

 

[hunarcy]

Below are the 50 most developed countries in the world ranked according to the UN Human Development index which measures development and standard of living through estimates of GDP per capita, life expectancy, and education. There are a total of 197 countries in the world today. 193 of those countries are part of the United Nations. 45 out of the 50 most developed countries in the world below provide UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE for its citizens, essentially medicare for all. The following are the five countries from the list below that do not:

01. Cyprus
02. United Arab Emirates
03. Qatar
04. Bahrain
05. United States

Cyprus is currently In the process of moving to a Universal Healthcare system which will be completed in a few years. That will leave the United States alone with three Arab countries as being the only countries, of the 50 most developed in the world, that do not have Universal HealthCare.

Why does the United States, the wealthiest country in the world and the 3rd wealthiest per captia country, still not provide Universal Healthcare for its citizens? How could anyone say that Universal HealthCare is impossible or too expensive for the United States when nearly all of the 50 most developed countries in the world provide it for its citizens?


50 MOST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD RANKED:

01 - Norway
02 - Switzerland
03 - Australia
04 - Ireland
05 - Germany
06 - Iceland
07 - San Marino
08 - Sweden
09 - Singapore
10 - Netherlands
11 - Denmark
12 Canada
13 - United States
14 - United Kingdom
15 - Monaco
16 - Vatican City
17 - Finland
18 - New Zealand
19 - Belgium
20 - Liechtenstein
21 - Japan
22 - Austria
23 - Luxembourg
24 - Israel
25 - Taiwan
26 - South Korea
27 - France
28 - Slovenia
29 - Spain
30 - Czech Republic
31 - Italy
32 - Malta
33 - Estonia
34 - Greece
35 - Cyprus
36 - Poland
37 - United Arab Emirates
38 - Andorra
39 - Lithuania
40 - Qatar
41 - Slovakia
42 - Brunei
43 - Saudi Arabia
44 - Latvia
45 - Portugal
46 - Bahrain
47 - Chile
48 - Hungary
49 - Croatia
50 - Argentina

Because Americans know that, based on the VA and Obamacare, government will only screw things up.

 

[Oddball]

Because Americans know that, based on the VA and Obamacare, government will only screw things up.

According to the insane neocon OP, the Pentagon and VA are the best models on which to pattern his vision for Marxist medical care.

 

[EL Rich]

You are not representing my points accurately. I am by no means advocating companies exist for altruistic service to the individual. Nor am I saying companies should not attempt to make profit and set their prices in accordance to that goal. What I am saying is that their costs are not exclusively the result of FDA regulations, and that the drug prices in our country in comparison to the rest of the developed world are higher due to policies by our government and foreign governments.

The rest of the developed world piggybacks off of that the pharmaceutical companies do here....And most of them either knock off (i.e. steal) or heavily subsidize medications and devices....So of course they're going to be less costly for the end user.

No only are you not comparing apples to apples, but you're also ignoring basic economic sense.

I think that is what I just said. What exactly have I said that you disagree with?

You original comment was that medical care can't be left to market forces, yet you've been confronted with numerous ways that market forces have been interfered with and usurped....These things are what's driving up the costs, not a truly free marketplace.

I have said that leaving health care purely to market forces does not seem to be the most effective way to provide the best quality care at the most affordable rate. I have also said that unchecked government interference is dangerous and a sure fire way to make health care inefficient and unaffordable. Finding a middle ground is all I am advocating.

You can't say that since you have no frame of reference.

I think the root of our disagreement is that you see healthcare as a commodity and I see at as something citizenship could entitle one to. Not saying everybody gets the same, just saying basic healthcare for all seems like a luxury we can afford. In a purely free market there will be some that inevitably will be left on the outside looking in. I believe that we do not need to accept that.

 

[Taz]

Below are the 50 most developed countries in the world ranked according to the UN Human Development index which measures development and standard of living through estimates of GDP per capita, life expectancy, and education. There are a total of 197 countries in the world today. 193 of those countries are part of the United Nations. 45 out of the 50 most developed countries in the world below provide UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE for its citizens, essentially medicare for all. The following are the five countries from the list below that do not:

01. Cyprus
02. United Arab Emirates
03. Qatar
04. Bahrain
05. United States

Cyprus is currently In the process of moving to a Universal Healthcare system which will be completed in a few years. That will leave the United States alone with three Arab countries as being the only countries, of the 50 most developed in the world, that do not have Universal HealthCare.

Why does the United States, the wealthiest country in the world and the 3rd wealthiest per captia country, still not provide Universal Healthcare for its citizens? How could anyone say that Universal HealthCare is impossible or too expensive for the United States when nearly all of the 50 most developed countries in the world provide it for its citizens?


50 MOST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD RANKED:

01 - Norway
02 - Switzerland
03 - Australia
04 - Ireland
05 - Germany
06 - Iceland
07 - San Marino
08 - Sweden
09 - Singapore
10 - Netherlands
11 - Denmark
12 Canada
13 - United States
14 - United Kingdom
15 - Monaco
16 - Vatican City
17 - Finland
18 - New Zealand
19 - Belgium
20 - Liechtenstein
21 - Japan
22 - Austria
23 - Luxembourg
24 - Israel
25 - Taiwan
26 - South Korea
27 - France
28 - Slovenia
29 - Spain
30 - Czech Republic
31 - Italy
32 - Malta
33 - Estonia
34 - Greece
35 - Cyprus
36 - Poland
37 - United Arab Emirates
38 - Andorra
39 - Lithuania
40 - Qatar
41 - Slovakia
42 - Brunei
43 - Saudi Arabia
44 - Latvia
45 - Portugal
46 - Bahrain
47 - Chile
48 - Hungary
49 - Croatia
50 - Argentina

Because Americans know that, based on the VA and Obamacare, government will only screw things up.

The free market health care system isn't a model to follow either, as only people with money can get proper care.