Is U.S health care system civil?

[Rickson]

Originally Posted by jas66Kent

Germany, Sweden, Finland, Norway.

ha ha ha ha ha wow.

Do you have my example of where the private market failed thus making gov't intervention necessary...

I'm waiting, PM'd you a reminder.

[Rickson]

Originally Posted by jas66Kent

So your entire point of view (libertarianism) is ONE GIANT BAG OF HOT AIR.

There's zero evidence that your POV works in the real world.

And yet, you defend it as gospel.

Do you not see the problem with that?

I see examples of where the free market is working like in teevee, cell phones, etc.

Now I'd like to expand that so we can all be made better off.

I also see more of what causes the problems being sold as the solution (gov't intervention) and I have done a great job of pointing out you can't fix a mistake by repeating it but on a grander scale.

DO YOU NOT SEE YOU CAN'T FIX A MISTAKE BY MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE?!?!

Your solutions simply cause the problems to become worse and prevent the correction.

[Extreme Extremist]

Originally Posted by Treat.E.Wording

Healthcare is in the same class as the military, fire department, police department, etc. It is for the public good to protect "assets" from careless destruction. That applies to buildings, people, etc.

There is an economic value to an adult which exceeds $1m for even an unskilled worker. It is in the public good to safeguard that asset.

I assume there would a PV calculation of the value of an adult. So if a rich man is 70 years old and ill (and no longer working) he should die, but a young man with zero assets should get whatever healthcare he needs since he'll earn it back. Do I have that correct?

What about the disabled? Should they just be killed, since they cost more than they produce?

[Extreme Extremist]

Originally Posted by Treat.E.Wording

I have lived in Canada, Britain and the US. The above quote is entirely untrue. Stop believing the propaganda.

Think of it this way - if the systems in Canada and Britain are less efficient, and endanger citizens by delaying necessary surgery, then why do those countries rate better than the US in almost every measureable health category? (life expectancy, infant mortality, etc)

Because those metrics do not measure the effectiveness of the healthcare system. For example, infant mortality is a subjectively reported statistic. In the US, a premie born three months early would be counted as a birth, but in Cuba and Britain he might not be. Maybe premies are aborted more in other countries due to the fact people know they will not be given care, but in America they are born because the child will get care. Are these abortions counted in the infant mortality rates? My guess is no.

Additionally, life expectancy is a misleading stat as well as it measures more than just the effectiveness of the healthcare system. What about factors like genetics, smoking, obesity, gun violence, etc.? These obviously can differ by nation and culture. Are the nation-specific life expectancy statistics adjusted to normalize for the effect of these factors? I doubt it.

[Guerilla poster]

Higher per capita income? What about median income?

[Extreme Extremist]

Originally Posted by Guerilla poster

When you are the only one doing something a certain way, you have to have strong faith that your way is best.

Sure. So what?

[Guerilla poster]

Originally Posted by Extreme Extremist

Sure. So what?

The point being you are less likely to look at alternatives ways to do something as you are heavily invested in your way of doing something.

[Extreme Extremist]

Originally Posted by jas66Kent

I love how you conveniently ignore the obvious.

Sure, we'll treat you.

4 weeks later; Here's the $500,000 bill. Enjoy!

How is that cost avoided in a nation with UHC?

1) Is it transferred to someone else?
2) Is it avoided by rationing?
3) Is it made up for by supposed efficiencies?
4) Some other way.

Please inform us.

[Extreme Extremist]

Originally Posted by Guerilla poster

So, we would be better off with UHC? At least compared to where we are now?

Define:
1) "we"
2) "Better"
3) the future period for which I make this determination. Immediately, one year out, five years out, 25 years out?

[Guerilla poster]

Originally Posted by Extreme Extremist

Define:
1) "we"
2) "Better"
3) the future period for which I make this determination. Immediately, one year out, five years out, 25 years out?

That question was directed at Form Letter and he already answered it. He knew what I meant without all these definitions.