I’m probably being nicer to you than you deserve, but I’m going to respond as though you had meant to say (and actually said) “The facts to not show that health care is better with UHC.”
I suppose an investment in believing that they do not can motivate one to insist on defining “better health care” in such a way (and viewing the facts in such a way) that the analysis fails to establish definitively that they do show health care to be better when costs are administrated by a UHC system.
If you’d like to articulate an argument that the facts show that UHC leads to worse health care, [del]go nuts[/del] [del]knock yourself out[/del] let 'er rip. Please provide real-world data (as opposed to anecdotes) in your analysis.
Unless your argument boils down to “You can’t prove that the quality of health care is related to the scheme by which it is paid for.” If that’s your point, save it. We’ve heard it before anyway.
Perhaps RR will trot out his standard “Americans are inherently and incurably fat and unhealthy, and that explains their poor health outcomes compared with countries with UHC” schtick.
Well, hey, what do I know? I’m only a Canadian resident in Canada who is covered by my province’s health insurance plan and who has been treated just fine by the same.
As I understand some of the arguments posted so far by Starving Artist, that makes me, and my fellow Canadians, much less qualified to discuss health care delivery in Canada than American commentators in such American publications as the National Review.
Same for New Zealand. Though the right wing is rearing it’s head now, it KNOWS it’s head would be shot clear off if it considered a US-like system.
Even if the most right-wing group think differently, they KNOW that New Zealander’s would not agree with anything less then free hospital care for EVERYONE as needed.
. . . Which is one of the down-sides of large government entitlement programs. They breed dependence on the government, which breeds more programs and increased funding for existing programs. Eventually you end up with a country like Denark or France with high permanent unemploynent, a stagnant economy, an capable people leaving the country in droves, further exacerbating the lackluster economy. But hey, as long as you get free health care, none of this stuff seems to bother you. Which shows that you are blindly ideological and do not care about the facts.
It’s not a schtick. It’s an illustration of the principle that a healthier population in a country with UC does not automatically mean that UHC provides better health care. The reason for this is that more factors go into how healthy a population is than the quality or availability of health care. But you are blindly ideological, so you grasp whatever facts you think support your position, even when they don’t.
I’m at least glad to see that you’ve stopped including Canada in your list of countries with all these economic ills. Perhaps you do listen to cites after all!
OK then.
It’s grasping at straws to try to come up with an exceptionalism argument for why the US spends significantly more per capita on health care while having significantly poorer health outcomes in several areas (longevity, infant mortality)
I guess having millions of people with no health coverage could NEVER have a negative impact on the health of your population, eh?
Same for the UK. We appreciate the added freedoms we have over the USA. Freedom from the fear that the random chance of illness will bankrupt us. Freedom to change our jobs without worrying about health coverage.
Any party proposing even what the Dems have just passed would be committing electoral suicide.
That same source does indeed suggest France has one of the highest unemloyment rates in western Europe, a whopping 7.4%, which is a whole 0.2% higher than the US.
Do you want to compare healthcare coverage, amount paid for healthcare per capita, satisfaction with healthcare, or average standard of care next?
Really from the outside looking in this seems like a no brainer. Most of the world pays for healthcare, the US citizen pays for both healthcare plus a massively profitable insurance infrastructure.
<Libertarian Retard>Yes but you have to adjust for the fact that Americans are uniquely idle and shiftless. Factoring that in the US unemployment rate is actually 3.
Yep, we Germans have been overrun with hordes of fleeing Danes. We have seriously started thinking about rebuilding the Wall and putting it here: <Nice picture of the German Danish border>.
The truth is that the Danish economy is actually doing very well (if not booming) and there are more people moving in the opposite direction (Germans looking for work in Denmark). Where the heck do you get your “facts” from anyway?
Not saying where RR gets his facts. I just strongly suggest you don’t pick them up without your rubber gloves on and you probably don’t want to get them too close to your nose either.
I just noticed that he actually said “Denark”, not “Denmark”. It’s certainly true that the good people of Denark have been saddled with historically high unemployment, especially with the downturn in the construction industry.
