Let's make some more appropriate comparisons.

Multistate confederations with Universal Health Care:



Multistate confederations without Universal Health Care:

United States
European Union

Trying to compare the U.S. to Norway is comparing apples to oranges. 313 million people vs. 5 million. The entire reason that our system's as bad as it is is that when you concentrate the power of 313 million into a handful of politicians, those politicians will be bought and paid for by the corporations every time. Keep the decision making at the 5 million level if you want to fix our health care system, whether you're for or against UHC.

Optionally, return the House of Representatives to the original 1 for every 30,000 (which would give us 10,433 representatives, a much more reasonable number than 435 for this level of population) and return the Senate to appointment by the states. Those two changes from the original Constitution are what allowed the corporations to truly take control of this country.

Doubt that it is easy to verify anyone's stats. Countries don't agree on who counts as a person. The U.S. counts a still birth as death at birth. Japan doesn't counts these against their life expectancy numbers. My father who passed 14 years ago still gets mail.

I don't see where this is an argument against UHC? Do you think doctors don't make as much as they can here?

Here you have to choose your favorite generic doctor to which you go to when you need something non emergency related ( if you go him it's always free whatever you ened to do ). That doctor get's 50€ a year for every patient he has on his list. The maximum is 1500 patients, which most doctors get to. That's 75000 a year as base salary. Then they get an added bonus for every eldery patient they have, which is probably the majority of patients. And this is only the base salary, to which you have to add money he get's from pharmaceutical advisors, money he get's from private appointments, he get's even more from signing certificates ( like a certificate you are healthy and can do sport, which is not covered by the gov and goes directly to the doctor, another 40€ ).

All in all, generic doctors here make over 150000 a year just from gov work, and they have time to do private too! My doctor does 5 hours a day for UHC, the rest is private work.

And this is just for the generic doctor you go to the start a diagnosis! A friend of mine does mostly public hospital work, and he recently bought a house worth 1.000.000 euro. I think he does make more than enough to survive, don't you?

I think he does make more than enough to survive, don't you?

^^^^^^ ok thats a typical liberal statement. i think he makes more than enough? why should he be limited? he should be able to make as much as he can.

Are you saying that "the military medicine" is "a lower quality of care" because of military doctor salaries?

I mean, that seems to indicate you think that the reason military care sucks is because the doctors suck and they suck because there's no profit motive. Is this correct?

Lol, this is great. This one factor is enough in your mind to ignore all of the evidence about UHC. We're talking some pretty different demographic conditions across the UHC countries and yet their efficiencies are all clustered pretty close together compared to the vast difference of the US.

Again with the Norway. Always with the Norway.

Ummm No yourself. The figures used are not actual but adapted from a source and minipulated to buttress an agenda. If you use the actual figures they will look different. Also, your argument fails to account for the extra benefits that the MA plans offer to beneficiaries such as dental, RX, benefits outside the Uas and coverage of deductibles and co-insurance that Medicare does not provide.

Stop using the talking points of the left and talk someone who is actually in the business and can tell you how it actually works.

yes my personal experience was less quality. i determined that if i had something life threatening that i would have sought the care of a private doctor and just would have had to deal with the cost.
yes i think the lack of profit motive might have influenced this. people who are the best in the world at what they do tend to make the most money.
do you think any of the top poker players would have worked as hard and grinded as much if they would be artificially limited by the sites?

This is ridiculous. Look at those charts again. Do you really believe the vast difference between the US and everyone else is just a matter of statistical error and differing methodologies? Can you provide any source (even horribly biased ones) that dispute those numbers?

I haven't seen any organization take this tact. Earlier in this thread we even had links from Conservative think tanks that accept these general numbers.

Have you even taken advanced courses in statistics? The population standard deviation is probably greater than plus or minus five years. And that assumes all the life spans were accurately recorded.

Jogs, please answer this or provide sources on how life expectancy has a standard deviation of 5 years.

And of course even if this was true it's still unlikely that the US would fall where it does.

And even if that were true and the US life expectancy is actually way under-reported (continuously) the US spends so much more than everyone else that it would still be significantly less efficient.

Are you aware that there is currently no draft in the US and that military doctors are not indentured servants? They are free to ply their trade in the civilian world where (at least theoretically) they would make gozillions more money and magically become better doctors and provide better healthcare in the process.

Or maybe the security that comes with immunity from malpractice lawsuits makes ****ty military doctors more apt to stay in the military, leading to a lower quality of military health care overall....and perhaps "profit motive" has nothing whatsoever to do with it?

If true, the bold is a market force.

Not saying it's true. I'm saying it could be true and is every bit as plausible as leo's assertion. Perhaps even moreso, though it is at best indirectly related to "profit motive." That certainly isn't the way op meant it. It appears obvious he thinks that because military doctors' pay is fixed that the quality of health care they provide suffers.

Against, because I don't like the government

I'm actually torn between thinking my english is ******ed or you just plain suck at reading.

You were implying UHC sucks because there is no profit, i showed you that there is profit. You said your doctors don't make more than a mess hall captain, so they suck, I showed you doctors here make way more than a mess hall captian, even with UHC. I didn't say there was any limit to how much they can make. I didn't say I'm a liberal. I didn't say he shouldn't be making more than enough.

So my question is, WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Are you just throwing random sentences in the middle? And most of all, why the hell should there be a limit to profit in UHC? Why did you even bring up the military in the first place?

Ok it's like talking to a brick wall. Who the hell would limit them? Why would anyone limit profit?

Just ran my own family stats. The standard deviation was over 21 years. And all these deaths occurred after the age of forty. One country's life expectancy at 78.3 and another's at 78.1 just doesn't mean much. Some will still be dying under the age of 20 and others over 90.

Holy mother of god...

This is standard for anyone arguing against a single payer system. "Look at how bad military healthcare sucks! Is that what we really want?" As if military health care is the nut only other option.

What always makes me laugh is how many people bitch about the VA (US health care system for veterans) and yet they still use the VA and refuse to get private health insurance because they claim it's "too expensive."

This is happenning all around the world. Your 90-year old grandmother has dementia. She does not recognize any family members. She needs a $200,000 operation which may(or may not) extend her life 3 to 6 months. If you decide to pay for the operation, that's your business. If you decide the insurance should pay, it is their business. This is no longer a moral decision. It is a financial one. The insurance company will refuse. If they approved all these claims, the insurance company would go under.
If this is pulling the plug on grandma, so be it, pull away.

So, if I read this correctly...it isn't the "death panels" you object to. It's the part about providing a basic level of health insurance coverage to everyone which you find so offensive?

The insurance company is legally required to pay for the operation since they have a contract with the claimant. There is no decision to be made. The fact that companies are denying claims based on their financials despite legal obligations is proof of fraud in the industry.