Public-option to Single-payer?

[k-onmmunist]

You also have the highest infant mortality rate.

This covers some truth on the infant-mortality and life-expectancy rate.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html

Those are the best measures we have, and they're certainly more extensive than cancer survival rates. I'm no fan of UHC, politicaladdict, but I think you're glossing over the facts.

It looks like you from Britain, you probably like single-payer, right?

Not really. I support a system whereby the NHS would be privatised except for pregnant women, children and pensioners. I believe the free market could better allocate resources than the government. But I think you're ignoring some concrete facts.

My point was that higher health spending isn't neccesarily correlated with good healthcare systems.

[k-onmmunist]

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.

Wait, so you think there should be some kind of government run health care too?

Though now that I look at it, my wording was a little odd. I'm saying elsewhere, where they have single-payer or some other kind of government-run system, would be better than America, which has nothing public whatsoever. Therefore, it would be better to be hurt outside America if you want better care.

Only under the conditions I mentioned above. UHC would be a colossal black hole for government funds.

[Deldem]

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.

Wait, so you think there should be some kind of government run health care too?

Though now that I look at it, my wording was a little odd. I'm saying elsewhere, where they have single-payer or some other kind of government-run system, would be better than America, which has nothing public whatsoever. Therefore, it would be better to be hurt outside America if you want better care.

Only under the conditions I mentioned above. UHC would be a colossal black hole for government funds.

Though I disagree, I understand your point.

However, I would be willing to pay for it if it could potentially lower private insurance rates, or indeed provide excellent coverage.

[k-onmmunist]

If you are going to have a UHC option, it'd be well advised for you to avoid the bureaucracy that clogs the British system. Out of the billions we spend on healthcare, it's been found that much of it goes to organisations which simply write reports, while the same money could be spent on new hospital beds or staff training. Then of course you have to avoid hospital overcrowding or you end up with rampant MRSA and C diff. infections (which is still on the rise here, though Labour trumpet every slight decline as being a major improvement)

[k-onmmunist]

I would also support somewhat laxing medical licencing laws.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bureaucracy on a massive scale is unavoidable in any large organisation... and as anything to do with mass healthcare (as true of the private sector as in state-run healthcare systems) will always involve a large organisation, bureaucracy on a massive scale is unavoidable in any mass healthcare system.

[Franzl]

I support universal healthcare, of course, but I'd just like to mention that living healthily would raise the life expectancy in America a lot more than more efficient healthcare would.

[politicaladdict]

You also have the highest infant mortality rate.

This covers some truth on the infant-mortality and life-expectancy rate.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html

Those are the best measures we have, and they're certainly more extensive than cancer survival rates. I'm no fan of UHC, politicaladdict, but I think you're glossing over the facts.

It looks like you from Britain, you probably like single-payer, right?

Not really. I support a system whereby the NHS would be privatised except for pregnant women, children and pensioners. I believe the free market could better allocate resources than the government. But I think you're ignoring some concrete facts.

My point was that higher health spending isn't neccesarily correlated with good healthcare systems.

So you believe in gov oversight rather than regulation, right.

Why can't they just provide free health care, for those really really needy, to those specifics who they say are needy.

[k-onmmunist]

You also have the highest infant mortality rate.

This covers some truth on the infant-mortality and life-expectancy rate.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html

Those are the best measures we have, and they're certainly more extensive than cancer survival rates. I'm no fan of UHC, politicaladdict, but I think you're glossing over the facts.

It looks like you from Britain, you probably like single-payer, right?

Not really. I support a system whereby the NHS would be privatised except for pregnant women, children and pensioners. I believe the free market could better allocate resources than the government. But I think you're ignoring some concrete facts.

My point was that higher health spending isn't neccesarily correlated with good healthcare systems.

So you believe in gov oversight rather than regulation, right.

Why can't they just provide free health care, for those really really needy, to those specifics who they say are needy.

pretty much this.