Court Strikes down mandatory healthcare

Oh god the WHO...

Well for one, that data is from 2000, doesn't list how its compiled, includes non-government care countries beating the US...

edited 13th Aug '11 4:22:45 PM by deuxhero

Why should we. Deux has not given any citations. He's just yelling no and thinking that will somehow convince people. Including who personally deal with the NHS.

World Health Organisation. I couldn't think of a more reputable source.

Then don't resort to yelling yourself, keep sourcing things, and we'll be fine.

edited 13th Aug '11 4:22:28 PM by GameChainsaw

World Health Organization has a rough ranking system, as listed, though I'd like to see citations with the actual information about cost per capita.

"Deux has not given any citations"

When did I pull out a statistic that needs one?

edited 13th Aug '11 4:23:54 PM by deuxhero

Well, you keep talking in weird abstracts, like "the government is corrupt;" things that are impossible or at least difficult to affirmatively say yes/no on.

More then.

GDP spending comparisons. UK is 41st. US is 2nd.

Performance. UK is 24th. US is 72nd.

^^ Did I say corrupt? I said it was bureaucratic, ineffeict, running in a deficit, has 3 ponzis running, was preventing a few simple solutions ect. ^ Link number 2 cites the same link I said was BS at the first post this page. I have said alreddy low spending!=high quality

edited 13th Aug '11 4:27:36 PM by deuxhero

Health spending by PPP and of % of GDP

Question: How does healthcare work in Austria?

Re: dismissing the data: Okay, so, you don't know how it's compiled. If the data were/is compiled in such a way as to be trustworthy, would you accept it?

Incidentally, as listed, we get the same or worse quality of healthcare as countries with socialized medicine.

edited 13th Aug '11 4:27:54 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

OECD link this time.

FUNDING MEANS NOTHING TO DO WITH QUALITY OF CARE quit citing the fact that the US has higher funding.

edited 13th Aug '11 4:28:27 PM by deuxhero

You claimed this. You gave us nothing to prove that this is true, and it was contradicted a second later by people who actually live with a single payer system.

deux, do you have any real information to suggest that Americans receive higher level of care?

Quality of care also means nothing if nobody can afford your top notch care.

Most americans cannot.

edited 13th Aug '11 4:29:36 PM by Midgetsnowman

I've also cited that it has inferior results, so please don't snap at me.

edited 13th Aug '11 4:29:35 PM by GameChainsaw

Way to quote mine.

Government is by definition a monopoly (which I pointed out), and a monopoly by definition doesn't need to improve.

By a list that I pointed out was outdated, doesn't list its criteria, lists non-governmentcare countries ahead of us anyways...

edited 13th Aug '11 4:30:42 PM by deuxhero

Deux, our info proves that a UHC provides lower spending than the USA.

EDIT: [[Government is by definition a monopoly (which I pointed out), and a monopoly by definition doesn't need to improve. ]]

Are you fucking myopic or what? the NHS list of medical firsts is fucking longer than the USA list of Medical firsts.

edited 13th Aug '11 4:31:16 PM by whaleofyournightmare

That was your whole post Deux. How can it be a quotemine? You still didn't back it up.

edited 13th Aug '11 4:31:04 PM by Alichains

@deux

The crrent system has little incentive either to improve given its easier to simply pool their wagons and agree to equally gouge.

edited 13th Aug '11 4:30:43 PM by Midgetsnowman

Deux, until you start citing actual facts instead of random anarcho-libertarian talking points, we aren't having a conversation; we're just talking at a brick wall.

edited 13th Aug '11 4:34:32 PM by Fighteer

The government dependent on the quality of that system needs to improve the system if they want to keep their jobs. One way to get Britons really angry is to let the NHS and its quality slide.

That is not what being a monopoly means. A monopoly has absolute market power. That does not mean it has no incentive to improve. Hell, look at Microsoft-they keep releasing new versions of Windows every few years, and even released Microsoft Security Essentials. Seems like a monopoly (or at least something functioning under oligopoly circumstances) improving.

In any sense, your analogy doesn't prove anything, because the government's intentions are not to turn a profit. It's Insane Troll Logic at best.

^^You're gonna wanna edit your post for clarity Fighteer.

Saw THAT particular bit of snippyness coming.

edited 13th Aug '11 4:34:05 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

"Deux, our info proves that a UHC provides lower spending than the USA. "

What are you dense? Are you...

High Spending!=low care quality.

Why do I have to repeat myself? This has come up many times and not once was there any reason to give it a link to quality beyond the numbers I pointed out are dubious.

"Deux, until you stop citing actual facts instead of random anarcho-libertarian talking points, we aren't having a conversation; we're just talking at a brick wall. "

Huh, and here I thought I was the only one who realized that.

edited 13th Aug '11 4:32:54 PM by deuxhero

How is it lower quality? Care to explain Deux?