"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs..."

[P4man]

Well, I never said no one in the US got good healthcare or free/subsidized/insured healthcare. I guess much depends what state you live in, but the fact remains you have over 50 million people with no insurance and over 25 million with inadequate insurance. Thats 42% of your population under 65. Forty two %!

The other facts are just as glaring. Child mortality is among the highest of industrialized countries, life expectancy among the lowest. Cost is at least twice that of other countries. Or to quote this study:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/23/us-usa-healthcare-last-idUSTRE65M0SU20100623

"U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study".

Look, Im all for free markets and market competition, but for some things it just doesnt work, and it shouldnt surprise health insurance is one those things. Keeping people alive just isnt economical and the incentives are perverse and constantly conflict with morality.

[Red]

Well, I never said no one in the US got good healthcare or free/subsidized/insured healthcare. I guess much depends what state you live in, but the fact remains you have over 50 million people with no insurance and over 25 million with inadequate insurance. Thats 42% of your population under 65. Forty two %!

It is really an interesting statistic depending on how you spin it. That means 50 million people tend to get healthcare without paying anything. Sometimes it comes from government run health facilities. Often times they get care and just decide not to pay the bills. We have no debtor's prisons for such things. (Nor am I suggesting that we should)

So if you are suggesting that more people in the use should be responsible for paying for their healthcare costs, I couldn't agree more. It would bring the overhead down substantially for those now paying the bills. However, nothing proposed so far aims to make this imbalance better. That is the really sad thing.

The other facts are just as glaring. Child mortality is among the highest of industrialized countries, life expectancy among the lowest. Cost is at least twice that of other countries. Or to quote this study:

"U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study".

Out of 191 countries on the planet. "The United States ranked last when compared to six other countries -- Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, the Commonwealth Fund report found."

Come on New Zealand had 4 million people. The Netherlands has 16 million. California and the US are pushing those respective numbers in illegal immigrants alone.


But the study is clear about one thing, we are fat and nobody likes to go to the doctor. We are fat because we are very efficient and productive in feeding ourselves. Even our poor are fat. Our food tends to be good, cheep, and restaurant service is fast. Even Europeans get fat when they come here. Should we take better care of ourselves? Yes we should.

Look, Im all for free markets and market competition, but for some things it just doesnt work, and it shouldnt surprise health insurance is one those things. Keeping people alive just isnt economical and the incentives are perverse and constantly conflict with morality.

I'm pretty much all over these forums saying health insurance is the cause of our problems not the solution. Employer based health insurance is the stupidest concept of them all. I'm quite convinced that nobody should have health insurance. I am however in favor of people receiving proper health CARE. (Feel free to review my other posts on this subject)

[JA37]

I'm in the first category. I think the system works wonderfully, although I don't feel I get "better" care by paying extra. I get "speedier" care. I can bypass some queues. This is something my company pays for me to have me back on the job quicker. I guess it pays off for them.

The comfort in having a baseline service in healthcare is wonderful. And I think the maximum fee for healthcare is about €500/year here, that includes both treatment and medication.

I don't know where "here" is but €500/year seems pretty in inexpensive. I imagine that is on top of your normal taxes.

Without making an specific accusations, I do want to point out something that you can only learn through experiences. There is a dramatic difference between "good" care and between "great" care. All doctors are not alike.

Yes, €500 is on top of taxes. You pay a token amount for your visits and medication. Once you hit the ceiling the rest is free (subsidized, stolen by force by honest hard working non leeching people who really shouldn't be forced to pay for anyone but themselves) or whatever you'd like to call it.

I'm happy for your anecdotal evidence and I too have similar stories. I have friends with cancer who have undergone major surgery and are currently on drugs which would make a rather large hole in anyone's wallet. One pill he takes daily costs around $15 and that's just one. $450/month and no income since he can't work while undergoing treatment. Oh, the chemotherapy isn't billed to him. Just the drugs he takes at home. He's quite happy that his only concern is to get well, not how expensive it will be to get there.

I've been hospitalized about 5 times. Great care every time. Same with my wife. My mother in law more times than I can count. Transporting her 500km by ambulance to a hospital closer to her home from where she was hurt, cost €0.

A friend got sick while pregnant. Airlifted to specialist care in the city next to us. Free of charge. Specialist? Free.

Another friend have a chronic disease that should have killed him years ago. He goes to a specialist in another town for treatment. Treatment he could not possibly afford by himself.

I've never heard the term "medical bankruptcy" until I visited the US. I wish the term didn't exist.

[MoonShadow]

Yes, €500 is on top of taxes. You pay a token amount for your visits and medication. Once you hit the ceiling the rest is free (subsidized, stolen by force by honest hard working non leeching people who really shouldn't be forced to pay for anyone but themselves) or whatever you'd like to call it.
 

That's kinda funny.  You have basicly an annual deductable, like so many Americans.  Yours is just a tad higher than my family deductable.  A notable fact that I find incrediblely amusing.  What country is this, anyway?

[MoonShadow]

Well, I never said no one in the US got good healthcare or free/subsidized/insured healthcare. I guess much depends what state you live in, but the fact remains you have over 50 million people with no insurance and over 25 million with inadequate insurance. Thats 42% of your population under 65. Forty two %!

Where did you find that bs?  We have roughly 3 million adult citizens that are uninsured, half of which still have access to subsidized health insurance.  That's about 1% of the population.  There is not a single child citizen that doesn't have access to subsidized health care, including those not born in the states themselves, such as Puerto Rico.  For that matter, all US citizens have access to subsidized health care, regardless of age, including felons; for anything immediately threatening.  Illegal immigrants don't, but you weren't counting them, were you?  After all, I wouldn't have a right to your taxpayer funded health care simply by traveling there, would I?  Are you saying that all those funds that I pay for international health coverage while out of country is a waste of my money?  Great!  If I get brain cancer, a plane ticket is far cheaper than health insurance anyway!  I can drop my coverage altogether!  Hey, can I stay with you?

[Red]

I'm happy for your anecdotal evidence and I too have similar stories.

You seem to take things a little more defensively than I intended. I'm not calling your system bad. Indeed, I don't even know what system you use. I'm saying the US system doesn't operate as it is perceived to operate from afar.

However, no matter what system you use, no one should ever *be required* to give up the right to decide exactly what level of care they want to receive. Sometimes, it really matters. Sometimes those decisions are life and death.

Some countries with universal health care do require people to relinquish these rights. Canada prefers one tier for everyone. The UK is reputed to make it difficult to switch counties for care. (I am not an expert on foreign care) Most countries, however, do not require one size fits all healthcare. Most countries allow people to buy "supplemental" insurance or to pay for extra services beyond those automatically afforded to others. However, being responsible for your own additional medical services doesn't make you evil.

The US fits into this second category. We call this optional supplemental insurance, "medical insurance" because the initial tier requires no insurance at all. Indeed the US does have a level of care afforded to everyone without cost. We don't call it "insurance" though. It is called mandatory care. Many people want the bar for mandatory care to be set higher but indeed there is a bar.

Outside of emergencies, often times to receive this free level of care, you are required to stand in lines with people you wouldn't normally associate with. People often find this demeaning. They argue the bar should be set higher so they don't have to associate themselves with such people. To avoid having to be associated with mandatory care, or to avoid having to pay for their own care or to avoid purchasing insurance, many people choose to go to regular for-profit medical providers then just don't pay their bills. This drives for-profit cost up for those that do want to pay.

[P4man]

Where did you find that bs?  We have roughly 3 million adult citizens that are uninsured, half of which still have access to subsidized health insurance.  That's about 1% of the population.

Approximately 42 percent of adults aged 19 to 64 years old -- 75 million people -- were either underinsured or didn't have health insurance in 2007

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/articles/2008/06/10/25-million-americans-are-underinsured

After all, I wouldn't have a right to your taxpayer funded health care simply by traveling there, would I? 

Traveling, no. Living here, yes.

[P4man]

It is really an interesting statistic depending on how you spin it. That means 50 million people tend to get healthcare without paying anything. Sometimes it comes from government run health facilities. Often times they get care and just decide not to pay the bills. We have no debtor's prisons for such things. (Nor am I suggesting that we should)

Someone pays. Thats the funny thing, you pay 2 or 3x more per capita than other countries while only covering part of your population. The cost per insured person is therefore closer to 4x what other industrial nations pay, yet you get worse healthcare for that. You have to be some ideologue with blinders on to defend the US system when all the numbers show so clearly its not just bad, its horribly inefficient.

So if you are suggesting that more people in the use should be responsible for paying for their healthcare costs, I couldn't agree more. It would bring the overhead down substantially for those now paying the bills. However, nothing proposed so far aims to make this imbalance better. That is the really sad thing.

No matter how you slice it,  or how you spread the cost, the US system is ridiculously expensive while offering worse quality.

Out of 191 countries on the planet. "The United States ranked last when compared to six other countries -- Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, the Commonwealth Fund report found."

Okay, so you probably do better than Zimbabwe. Is that your benchmark? Try Cuba.

Come on New Zealand had 4 million people. The Netherlands has 16 million. California and the US are pushing those respective numbers in illegal immigrants alone.

So what, the bigger the scale, the more efficient you could make it. Its harder to get costs down on small scale, a country like the Netherlands has no leverage over pharmaceutical companies compared to the US.  If you can do it on a scale as small as that, surely you could do it on a state level in the US?

But the study is clear about one thing, we are fat and nobody likes to go to the doctor. We are fat because we are very efficient and productive in feeding ourselves. Even our poor are fat. Our food tends to be good, cheep, and restaurant service is fast. Even Europeans get fat when they come here. Should we take better care of ourselves? Yes we should.

Yeah those cliches again. While they may have some truth, they dont explain the results. Read the article. US smokes a whole lot less than europeans, and you are younger.  I also dont think your babies are born fat, so how do you explain child mortality?

Anyway, its your health and your tax dollars. If you are happy spending 3x more for worse quality just so you dont have to call something "socialist", then thats your choice. Im sure happy with my healthcare system and I dont care what you call it.

[MoonShadow]

Where did you find that bs?  We have roughly 3 million adult citizens that are uninsured, half of which still have access to subsidized health insurance.  That's about 1% of the population.

Approximately 42 percent of adults aged 19 to 64 years old -- 75 million people -- were either underinsured or didn't have health insurance in 2007

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/articles/2008/06/10/25-million-americans-are-underinsured

"Underinsured" is not remotely uninsured.  It's also a vague term.  In the case of this report, it means that 25 million Americans "had inadequate health insurance to cover their medical expenses".  In other words, 25 million Americans no longer have insurance that pays for all their medical costs.  I have no doubt that I will soon be added to this metric, since I will be switching to a health savings account soon.  By my own will, BTW.  My prior health insurance falls under the 'cadillac plan' tax in Obama's health care law, so the company can't afford the costs anymore.  This past year, the average plan value was just under $16K per employee.  Thanks for that promise that I wouldn't have to change plans if I liked mine, Obama!

[MoonShadow]

It is really an interesting statistic depending on how you spin it. That means 50 million people tend to get healthcare without paying anything. Sometimes it comes from government run health facilities. Often times they get care and just decide not to pay the bills. We have no debtor's prisons for such things. (Nor am I suggesting that we should)

Someone pays. Thats the funny thing, you pay 2 or 3x more per capita than other countries while only covering part of your population. The cost per insured person is therefore closer to 4x what other industrial nations pay, yet you get worse healthcare for that. You have to be some ideologue with blinders on to defend the US system when all the numbers show so clearly its not just bad, its horribly inefficient.

No contest there, the question then is why is it so inefficient?  I may be too close to see the big picture, but from where I stand it's because of government regulations into the medical industries, not despite them.

So if you are suggesting that more people in the use should be responsible for paying for their healthcare costs, I couldn't agree more. It would bring the overhead down substantially for those now paying the bills. However, nothing proposed so far aims to make this imbalance better. That is the really sad thing.

No matter how you slice it,  or how you spread the cost, the US system is ridiculously expensive while offering worse quality.

The "worse quality" meme is provablely false.  The vast majority of medical advancements over the past 50 years or so came from American doctors and scientists working for companies with a profit motive, whether the doctors themselves were motivated by money or not.  There is literally nothing that you can get medically that I don't have access to, even if you can get it cheaper.  Your high quality care is a direct result of our highly inefficient system.

Out of 191 countries on the planet. "The United States ranked last when compared to six other countries -- Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, the Commonwealth Fund report found."

Okay, so you probably do better than Zimbabwe. Is that your benchmark? Try Cuba.

We do way better than Cuba, too; on average.  Even Casto's health has benefited from American capitalistic medicine.  Which is, itself, and irony; considering that our federal representatives have repeatedly tried to kill him.

Come on New Zealand had 4 million people. The Netherlands has 16 million. California and the US are pushing those respective numbers in illegal immigrants alone.

So what, the bigger the scale, the more efficient you could make it. Its harder to get costs down on small scale, a country like the Netherlands has no leverage over pharmaceutical companies compared to the US.  If you can do it on a scale as small as that, surely you could do it on a state level in the US?

But the study is clear about one thing, we are fat and nobody likes to go to the doctor. We are fat because we are very efficient and productive in feeding ourselves. Even our poor are fat. Our food tends to be good, cheep, and restaurant service is fast. Even Europeans get fat when they come here. Should we take better care of ourselves? Yes we should.

Yeah those cliches again. While they may have some truth, they dont explain the results. Read the article. US smokes a whole lot less than europeans, and you are younger.  I also dont think your babies are born fat, so how do you explain child mortality?

Have you bothered to follow this thread?  I addressed this already.  The methods of record keeping is different.  For example, if an infant is born dead, but there was no evidence that the fetus was dead before labor began, that baby is counted as a infant in the US, but not in many other nations until it survives for several minutes outside the womb.  Many other stats are skewed in similar ways, because the standard methods of record keeping is different between countries.  In the US, if a pregant mother is murdered, it's recorded as a double homicide.

Anyway, its your health and your tax dollars. If you are happy spending 3x more for worse quality just so you dont have to call something "socialist", then thats your choice. Im sure happy with my healthcare system and I dont care what you call it.

You're happy with it because you're ignorant of what the costs are, and I'm not talking about monetary costs.  Pray you never have to find out.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

[cruikshank]

Come on New Zealand had 4 million people. The Netherlands has 16 million. California and the US are pushing those respective numbers in illegal immigrants alone.

So what, the bigger the scale, the more efficient you could make it. Its harder to get costs down on small scale, a country like the Netherlands has no leverage over pharmaceutical companies compared to the US.  If you can do it on a scale as small as that, surely you could do it on a state level in the US?

Not only that, the US is far wealthier than New Zealand and the Netherlands combined:

United States GDP - $ 14,660,000,000,000

New Zealand GDP - $ 117,800,000,000

Netherlands GDP - $ 676,900,000,000

And to boot: Monaco, highest listed life expectancy, had a substantially lower GDP compared to the US: $ 976,300,000 (2006 est.)

Have you bothered to follow this thread?  I addressed this already.  The methods of record keeping is different.  For example, if an infant is born dead, but there was no evidence that the fetus was dead before labor began, that baby is counted as a infant in the US, but not in many other nations until it survives for several minutes outside the womb.  Many other stats are skewed in similar ways, because the standard methods of record keeping is different between countries.  In the US, if a pregant mother is murdered, it's recorded as a double homicide.

They have a higher life expectancy because they have a lower infant mortality rate.  They have a lower infant mortality rate because they record infant deaths differently.  In the US, if a fetus is delivered naturally, and was not known to already be dead before labor began, it's counted as an infant death instead of a late term miscarriage.  Thus skewing the life expectancy stats compared to nations that don't include infants that die during or shortly following birth. I'm not sure how Canada does it, but it's still apples to oranges.

No, you didn't address it. You need to show how they are different in Canada from the US, rather than assuming it is. Do the needful and back up this so far unsubstantiated claim.

[MoonShadow]

They have a higher life expectancy because they have a lower infant mortality rate.  They have a lower infant mortality rate because they record infant deaths differently.  In the US, if a fetus is delivered naturally, and was not known to already be dead before labor began, it's counted as an infant death instead of a late term miscarriage.  Thus skewing the life expectancy stats compared to nations that don't include infants that die during or shortly following birth. I'm not sure how Canada does it, but it's still apples to oranges.

No, you didn't address it. You need to show how they are different in Canada from the US, rather than assuming it is. Do the needful and back up this so far unsubstantiated claim.

No matter how you slice it,  or how you spread the cost, the US system is ridiculously expensive while offering worse quality.

but the fact remains you have over 50 million people with no insurance and over 25 million with inadequate insurance. Thats 42% of your population under 65. Forty two %!

THirdly, about the right to access; it exists here just as well. Its not mutually exclusive with the right to provision, its a  false dilemma. You are free to go to see any specialist you want. Depending on which type of specialist and the urgency of the condition, you might need to see a general doctor first. Actually, you dont even have to, but if you dont get a letter of referral, insurance wont pay the cost. If you pick a private hospital or a specialist that works outside the public system, the insurance may not pay or may pay only a small amount of the bill. Sounds imminently reasonable to me. You do have choice here as well. Its just that the public system is pretty darn good that hardly anyone feels a need to go outside of it.

So I have to support my claims while others do not?

[Red]

Someone pays. Thats the funny thing, you pay 2 or 3x more per capita than other countries while only covering part of your population.

I'm pretty sure I already acknowledged the payment system was horribly inefficient. However, we pay that 2 or 3x you refer to for health care, not for insurance coverage. People get care, whether they are covered or not.

Okay, so you probably do better than Zimbabwe. Is that your benchmark? Try Cuba.

I can only presume you live in one of those six countries. Otherwise your argument about quality of care would be moot. Which one?

So what, the bigger the scale, the more efficient you could make it.

The point wasn't of scale. The point was our "costs" you keep referring to include paying for free healthcare for illegal immigrant populations the size of the countries you are referring to. But you knew that. We are obviously such bastards that way.

If you can do it on a scale as small as that, surely you could do it on a state level in the US?

We have universal care in Massachusetts. The other 49 haven't expressed interest. But if it works out there others may take notice. Interestingly the folks in Massachusetts were pretty strongly against the latest federal plan.

Yeah those cliches again. While they may have some truth, they dont explain the results. Read the article. US smokes a whole lot less than europeans, and you are younger.  I also dont think your babies are born fat, so how do you explain child mortality?

We eat more then you smoke. And curiously, smoking seems to kill people less expensively than obesity. (tongue in cheek)

But curiously, have you looked at our birthrates by demographic group? Unlike Europeans that simply don't breed at all. In the US the poor out breed the rich by quite some margin. And if you saw the kids you would see that many are indeed born fat or at least get that way remarkably quickly.

But even so you may find that is not such a scandal as you are led to believe. Cool Graph The lines are actually all pretty close together. If you figure that many of our births come from recent Mexican immigrants, the numbers start to make a little more sense.

By the way, I'm quite certain you will find we die in more car crashes (because we drive 10 fold more than Europeans). We also have many different types of "death by misadventure". Sometimes crazy people drown their kids in cars. Other times teenagers shoot each other. Mostly this excess mortality isn't a result of a poor medical care. It's because lots of us are a bit less "civilized" then in other countries.

Anyway, its your health and your tax dollars. If you are happy spending 3x more for worse quality just so you dont have to call something "socialist", then thats your choice. Im sure happy with my healthcare system and I dont care what you call it.

I'm also pretty happy with my healthcare system, my costs, and the results I receive. I wouldn't switch places with anyone. However, I don't remember calling anything socialist.

[P4man]

No contest there, the question then is why is it so inefficient?  I may be too close to see the big picture, but from where I stand it's because of government regulations into the medical industries, not despite them.

Im sure thats what the insurance and pharmaceutical companies want you to believe. Yet somehow European and other nations have government controlled health insurance yet are 3x as efficient. So, follow the money. Who pockets all that money? Maybe your doctors make a better income than ours, but thats not going to explain it.  So who wins? If not you the taxpayer, if not the government, if most likely not or not in a meaningful way the medical professionals. AFAICS, that leaves insurance and pharma companies. Let check that theory and google on it:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/prof-f19.shtml

$12.2 billion in profits for the 5 biggest US insurers. Not bad. That buys you a few senators no doubt.  And if you give everyone the same insurance, whats the point of these companies, what value do they add? None, they just make your life hard trying their damnest not to have to pay or get sick customers.

Then the other suspect; big pharma:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry

Top 20 companies, $110 billion net profits. Granted, globally, but there you have it nonetheless.
Mind you, big pharma is an actual industry that does provide very obvious added value, its not like Im oppososed to them being commercial and making profits, but those kinds of number tell you you are paying WAY too much.
And they are paying way too much to your politicians.

The "worse quality" meme is provablely false.  The vast majority of medical advancements over the past 50 years or so came from American doctors and scientists working for companies with a profit motive, whether the doctors themselves were motivated by money or not.  There is literally nothing that you can get medically that I don't have access to, even if you can get it cheaper.  Your high quality care is a direct result of our highly inefficient system.

What a nonsensical argument. Are you measuring the quality of your health care by "invented in the US" advertisements of pharma industry on tv or what? Gimme a break.

We do way better than Cuba, too; on average.  

Actually, you dont on a lot of important metrics, like child mortality:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/05/us-lagging-behind-much-of-europe-cuba-chile-and-united-arab-emirates-in-child-mortality.html
Despite comparing the worlds richest country to one of the poorest third wold countries thats under half a century embargo.

Have you bothered to follow this thread?  I addressed this already.  The methods of record keeping is different.  For example, if an infant is born dead, but there was no evidence that the fetus was dead before labor began, that baby is counted as a infant in the US, but not in many other nations until it survives for several minutes outside the womb.  Many other stats are skewed in similar ways, because the standard methods of record keeping is different between countries.  In the US, if a pregant mother is murdered, it's recorded as a double homicide.

As if that would explain the stats, common get real. From the above link:

The U.S., which is projected to have 6.7 deaths per 1,000 children this year, saw a 42% decline in child mortality, a pace that is on par with Kazakhstan, Sierra Leone and Angola.
"There are an awful lot of people who think we have the best medical system in the world," said Dr. Christopher Murray, who directs the institute and is an author of the study. "The data is so contrary to that."
Even many countries that already had low child mortality rates, such as Sweden and France, were able to cut their rates more rapidly than the U.S. over the last two decades.
[..]
Although the U.S. spends nearly twice as much per capita on healthcare as most other industrialized countries, researchers are finding substantially higher levels of preventable deaths from diseases such as diabetes and pneumonia.
[..]
Another recent study by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation found that the rate of deaths among women giving birth has actually increased in the U.S. over the last two decades

You're happy with it because you're ignorant of what the costs are, and I'm not talking about monetary costs.  Pray you never have to find out.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

Always useful to check the source. From the about page:
The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. Our goal is to develop and promote private, free-market alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial
private sector.

That sounds like an objective source.Lets see what medical scientists have to say on that:

http://www.otohns.net/default.asp?id=8832

Looks like you dont live any longer than europeans (in fact, your life expectancy is substantially shorter) you just know sooner you will die. I guess thats something.

[MoonShadow]

Come on New Zealand had 4 million people. The Netherlands has 16 million. California and the US are pushing those respective numbers in illegal immigrants alone.

So what, the bigger the scale, the more efficient you could make it. Its harder to get costs down on small scale, a country like the Netherlands has no leverage over pharmaceutical companies compared to the US.  If you can do it on a scale as small as that, surely you could do it on a state level in the US?

Not only that, the US is far wealthier than New Zealand and the Netherlands combined:

United States GDP - $ 14,660,000,000,000

New Zealand GDP - $ 117,800,000,000

Netherlands GDP - $ 676,900,000,000

And to boot: Monaco, highest listed life expectancy, had a substantially lower GDP compared to the US: $ 976,300,000 (2006 est.)

You do realize that noting the fact that Americans are, on average, much wealthier than other nations tempers some of the differences in actual monetary costs, right?  For example, if I make the American median income (around $31K per year, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income) even a rate of 3 times the cost of care means that, as a realtive percentage of my income, my health care costs less of my income than literally half or more of the planet, even if I had no insurance at all and paid every dime from my own pocket.  New Zealand rings in at about $20K per year, while the Netherlands rings in at about $24K.

The median income of the entire planet is only about $7K per year (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/10/07/average_earnings_worldwide/) and that includes Americans.  That means that Americans near the poverty level (In 2009, in the United States of America, the poverty threshold for a single person under 65 was US$11,161; -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold) earn almost twice as much as half the population on Earth, while also being with public transit distance of some of the best hospitals on Earth.  As has already been noted, they get 'mandatory' treatment whether they can pay for it or not.  You can't honestly expect that the lower half of the rest of the world could have access to nearly the same care, even if they could tax their own citizenship to pay for it at a third the cost that the US pays for.

[MoonShadow]

No contest there, the question then is why is it so inefficient?  I may be too close to see the big picture, but from where I stand it's because of government regulations into the medical industries, not despite them.

Im sure thats what the insurance and pharmaceutical companies want you to believe. Yet somehow European and other nations have government controlled health insurance yet are 3x as efficient. So, follow the money. Who pockets all that money? Maybe your doctors make a better income than ours, but thats not going to explain it.  So who wins? If not you the taxpayer, if not the government, if most likely not or not in a meaningful way the medical professionals. AFAICS, that leaves insurance and pharma companies. Let check that theory and google on it:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/prof-f19.shtml

$12.2 billion in profits for the 5 biggest US insurers. Not bad. That buys you a few senators no doubt.  And if you give everyone the same insurance, whats the point of these companies, what value do they add? None, they just make your life hard trying their damnest not to have to pay or get sick customers.

Then the other suspect; big pharma:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry

Top 20 companies, $110 billion net profits. Granted, globally, but there you have it nonetheless.
Mind you, big pharma is an actual industry that does provide very obvious added value, its not like Im oppososed to them being commercial and making profits, but those kinds of number tell you you are paying WAY too much.
And they are paying way too much to your politicians.

Again, not contest.  But so what?  They are amoral corporations seeking profits.  They still have to 'innovate' continuously in order to do so.  Pharma patents die in the US after 15 years, after which the company loses it's profit advantage to generics manufacturers.  They cost too much, yes.  But they have produced the largest volume of advancements in the history of the world in pursuit of that gob of cash.  Your own society has benefitted unmeasurablely from the inefficiency of the American medical system.

The "worse quality" meme is provablely false.  The vast majority of medical advancements over the past 50 years or so came from American doctors and scientists working for companies with a profit motive, whether the doctors themselves were motivated by money or not.  There is literally nothing that you can get medically that I don't have access to, even if you can get it cheaper.  Your high quality care is a direct result of our highly inefficient system.

What a nonsensical argument. Are you measuring the quality of your health care by "invented in the US" advertisements of pharma industry on tv or what? Gimme a break.

I challenge you to remove every medical advancement that your own nation pays for, but that was created by a for-profit corporation in the United States, and then try to judge how high the quality of your care is then.  You are more dependent upon the US than you care to acknowledge.

We do way better than Cuba, too; on average.  

Actually, you dont on a lot of important metrics, like child mortality:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/05/us-lagging-behind-much-of-europe-cuba-chile-and-united-arab-emirates-in-child-mortality.html
Despite comparing the worlds richest country to one of the poorest third wold countries thats under half a century embargo.

And Cuba isn't known for skewing the stats for PR reasons, either; right?  You choose to trust the CUban government that they are better than the US on this?  IS that credible?  Chile is more trustworthy, but how many babies are born without records in either nation?  IF a baby is born in Chile in the slum andit dies, is it recorded?  I doubt it, but it sure will be here.

You're happy with it because you're ignorant of what the costs are, and I'm not talking about monetary costs.  Pray you never have to find out.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

Always useful to check the source. From the about page:
The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. Our goal is to develop and promote private, free-market alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial
private sector.

That sounds like an objective source.Lets see what medical scientists have to say on that:

You quote articles that depend upon government stats from Cuba, but complain that the link that I provide has been produced by a gropup with an obvious bias?  Really?  Why am I even talking to you?  Because they admit to bias, they are falsifying the stats, is that what you believe?

http://www.otohns.net/default.asp?id=8832

Looks like you dont live any longer than europeans (in fact, your life expectancy is substantially shorter) you just know sooner you will die. I guess thats something.

I didn't make the claim that Americans live longer.  There are many other factors that contribute to that, including cultural and racial influences.  Is the gun crime that kills young black men in Chicago a sign of a dysfunctional health care system?

"The primary cause of the disparities between racial and geographic groups is early death from chronic disease and injuries, an analysis of data from the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics showed."

http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/0002418/42/

And then there is the dramatic range in life expecancies between racially identified sub-cultures...

"Asian-American women living in Bergen County, NJ, enjoy the greatest life expectancy in the US, at 91 years. American Indians in South Dakota have the worst, at 58 years"

And then, what about locale?  The states with the highest life expecancy also happen to be those with the greatest population concentrations, implying that proximity to urban medical centers plays a significant role in life expecancy as well.  Europe is much more densely populated than the US, is it not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_expectancy

[rainingbitcoins]

Where did you find that bs?  We have roughly 3 million adult citizens that are uninsured, half of which still have access to subsidized health insurance. 

What the hell? Do you just make this stuff up off the top of your head? How do you not know that there are 50 million people without insurance in the U.S.?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121820/one-six-adults-without-health-insurance.aspx
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-16/americans-without-health-insurance-rose-to-52-million-on-job-loss-expense.html
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insurance/index.htm

Every one of your posts seems to contain at least one, if not several, bald-faced lies. I don't really feel like you're arguing in good faith.

[MoonShadow]

Where did you find that bs?  We have roughly 3 million adult citizens that are uninsured, half of which still have access to subsidized health insurance. 

What the hell? Do you just make this stuff up off the top of your head? How do you not know that there are 50 million people without insurance in the U.S.?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121820/one-six-adults-without-health-insurance.aspx

While I will concede that it's very likely higher than 3 million since the economy crashed, this poll hides some very important details.  First, I said adults & citizens.  This poll includes children of uncovered adults as being uncovered as well.  Being uncovered by your own choice or the lack of action by your parents doesn't really count, because there isn't a single child of a US citizen that isn't eligible for state subsidized coverage.  Not one.  The poll states that they only consider 18+, but by extending their population percentages to the entire population they assume children as well.  A deeper look at the source will also support this position.  Nor does the poll exclude non-citizens from the polled pool, for there is no credible way to do so.  Something that is bound to skew those numbers.  I wouldn't be shocked at all to learn that there were more than 3 million uninsured illegal aliens alone in the US who also happened to have a cell or landline, but not insurance.  If they are citizens, then they also likely have access to subsidized insurance coverage; depending upon the state and the particulars of their situation and/or medical conditions.  Lack of knowledge of such programs isn't anyone else's fault either.  Perhaps I should have been clear that I was talking about adult citizens who were either not eligible period or have explicitly chosen to not pursue such subsidies.  This is akin to the crap about Americans on food assistance (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/02/food-stamp-use-reaches-record-45-8-million/), sure the rising trend is evidence of rising need, but it also indicates rising eligibility.  For example, my household is eligible for WIC (woman and infant children) and several of my kids are eligible for state sponsored health insurance, and my household income now pushes six figures.  Why are we eligible?  Because we are also agents of the state, because we are state certified foster parents, and wards of the state live within my household.  Which is also why I know a great deal about those kinds of state subsidized programs.  I literally cannot refuse those programs for these kids, because they are not my kids.  The state is their legal guardian, and I'm the employee.  I can't reject the WIC or Passport (the child health insurance plan) for those kids any more than I can refuse their scheduled vaccines, whether I have a religious objection or not.  I'm bound by contract to abide by the state's policies, and one of them is that the state supports foster children through such programs.

Further, this poll also includes a great many working adults who have access to an employer's plan, but choose not to participate for whatever reason, which skews the low income and younger than 30 brackets.  As well as including those over 65 who don't consider themselves insured, despite the fact that anyone over 65 that isn't eligible for Medicare didn't pay at least 10 years of (payroll) taxes nor a spouse that paid such taxes. (https://questions.medicare.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/10/~/who-is-eligible-for-medicare%3F)  The only people that such is true are those who are wealthy enough to not need to work at all or those who were not productive citizens long enough to count.  There are so many things wrong with this for me to pick at, I'll stop there for brevity.

[rainingbitcoins]

Yes, clearly you know more about polling than Gallup does and they never thought of a single one of your concerns. You've busted the case wide open.

Oh, and good job ignoring the link that cites very similar numbers from the Census Bureau.

Fuck it. I'm wasting my breath here. Believe whatever batshit crazy you want as long as it supports your extremist views. 45,000 Americans died last year and another 45,000 will die this year because of apologists like you. That's really all that needs to be said, unless you plan to correct Harvard Medical on their methodology in that study.

Someday you might understand that there's a difference between being a critical thinker and trying to bend reality to fit your worldview. It won't be today, though.

[MoonShadow]

Fuck it. I'm wasting my breath here. Believe whatever batshit crazy you want as long as it supports your extremist views. 45,000 Americans died last year and another 45,000 will die this year because of apologists like you. That's really all that needs to be said, unless you plan to correct Harvard Medical on their methodology in that study.

Someday you might understand that there's a difference between being a critical thinker and trying to bend reality to fit your worldview. It won't be today, though.

Same to you.