Public-option to Single-payer?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Why would you oppose it so much? I fail to see how single-payer is bad- every advanced country in the world has it besides us, and every advanced country spends less on health care than us, with better results.

If every 'advanced' country legalised throwing children into pits of acid, would you support that too?

You missed the second part of my argument, where I pointed out it was better elsewhere as compared to America.

But I bet the thrown child would be taken care of better than they would be if that situation existed in America.

America also spends the most on healthcare, yet it has the lowest life expectancy out of the G8.

We have the highest cancer survival rate.

We've been over this, you fool.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yeah, I don't know why politicaladdict finds this so hard to understand.

Also he's incredibly uninformed if he thinks a public option is the same as medicaid or medicare.

I'm uninformed? Why do we need a public health option for the poor and elderly if we already have medicare and medicaid?

YOU DOPE!

We don't, dope, and that's why the public option is for people who don't have either. The public option is NOT an entitlement program. It's a government-owned/run corporation that would sell health insurance to consumers.

What difference is it gonna make to have a so-called option  if medicare, gov program, ain't covering certain people?

Are you saying medicaid ain't enough and instead we need to add more gov programs and increase the bankruptcy like medicare and medicaid and social-security are?

Oops, I think you're literally retarded!

I bet you are!

This doesn't answer the question about the highest cancer-survival-rate liberals generally don't want to talk about.

Single payer health insurance is a common-sense, centrist policy throughout the rest of the industrialized world.

And the cancer rate is 5 times higher to boot.

Source?

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

First of all, the cancer rate certainly isn't five times higher, universally or with specific cancers, so it's disingenuous to say it's five times higher and then present a source without directly citing something backing that up. Aside from that, however, I suspect your more general point was that the cancer rate is still very high in other areas of the world that have single payer of government healthcare plans. But this still has a few caveats. (And by caveats I mean important things you leave out or dismiss that totally discredit this notion.)

Cancer survival rates are totally random, and are, in fact, not always lower than the United States. I was doing some random googling and wiki'ing while I was waiting for my headache to (never) subside, and I came across an article from 2007 that was addressing a study done about the exact same thing you're talking about, cancer survival rates and the like.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.slate.com/id/2174722/pagenum/2

And it makes perfect sense. People come to the United States and our survival rates are higher because we're a wealthy country. The survival rates for certain cancers seem random, and there's nothing here that specifically makes the connection between universal and/or government healthcare itself, and the survival rates of the cancers. The NHS is poorly managed, but aside from that anomaly, there's nothing to suggest that the introduction of a government healthcare plan would do anything to lower the survival rates of cancer.

While I'm on this "Caveat" I'd like to take just a few sentences for one of the points in your source. "Fact" 10 in your article talks about how America is the center of innovation, research, and development. This again has nothing to do with the healthcare system itself. There is, again, nothing to suggest that universal healthcare leads to less innovation, and in fact, this again has more to do with the wealth of the United States than our private healthcare system. We've been the world's only superpower for almost six decades! We're the richest nation in the world, and the center of influence and power (economically and militarily) of the world. It makes sense that we would also be the research and development capital of the world when it comes to medical innovations. This has nothing to do with the healthcare itself.