Quote:
Originally Posted by [Phill]
You dont get to use the Mexico comparison. Mexico is an awesome example for how America spends 9 times as much to live less than 2 years longer on average, but its a completely invalid example when you talk about "no system in the world".
The post I was responding to said "any country with universal health care", so Mexico qualifies. Perhaps you hoped I was responding to the point in your head instead of what someone actually wrote.
I only used Mexico as an example because it was used in this thread. I'm pretty sure that my statement is axiomatically true. No system covers everyone for everything.
As far as the second part, I disagree with your statement that in rich UHC countries patients can get virtually everything they get in the US. A thorough discussion of this is going to require more effort than I want to expend. Here's the way that discussion would have to go:
1. I find example of rich UHC country that doesn't provide X treatment, that Medicare and most insurance plans cover.
2. I then show that this treatment does provide significant benefits in longevity and/or quality of life. (This is the most time consuming part).
3. Once I've accomplished step 2, you'll say that's just one isolated example, and ask me to provide another.
We'll repeat steps 1-3 until one of us gets tired or bored.
So, let me save you some trouble. I do think that in some rich UHC countries, patients can get very good health care. However, I think that there are a certain number of conditions (X) for which you will receive much better care
in the US.
Our difference of opinion is that I think X is a low number but significant. You think X is a low number and is insignificant. We're never going to resolve that here.