MaxEntropy_Man wrote:here are some government agencies that have worked very well and done great things to improve the lives of americans:

the TVA (look it up) -- brought electricity to some of the poorest regions of the country. NASA -- in addition to doing great science and engineering, they also invented very innovative project management techniques that are used by the private sector.  the many national labs which are all government run did exceptional work during WWII and beyond. i'd argue that the social security administration is also very well run despite the politicians constantly making a villain out of it. it is idiotic to accept and parrot the standard GOP line that something is bad just because it is a government agency or something is great just because it is privatized. the health insurance industry stands out like a sore thumb as an example of a group of private entities that are swollen with bloat and do a piss poor job for all their stakeholders.

silvermani wrote:Sure there are a few outliers but on an average how many governmental agencies operate efficiently? It is idiotic to accept and parrot the standard Dem party line that the government getting involved in something will make it better.

Idéfix wrote:

silvermani wrote:Sure there are a few outliers but on an average how many governmental agencies operate efficiently? It is idiotic to accept and parrot the standard Dem party line that the government getting involved in something will make it better.

In the healthcare space, the American private insurance system is the outlier, and a rather inefficient and ineffective one at that. We should learn from the examples of Europe, Canada and Japan.

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

silvermani wrote:Sure there are a few outliers but on an average how many governmental agencies operate efficiently? It is idiotic to accept and parrot the standard Dem party line that the government getting involved in something will make it better.

In the healthcare space, the American private insurance system is the outlier, and a rather inefficient and ineffective one at that. We should learn from the examples of Europe, Canada and Japan.

You have no clue about the NHS, do you? Or is that an outlier as well? And you think healthcare is great in Canada? It is a function of population.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

silvermani wrote:Sure there are a few outliers but on an average how many governmental agencies operate efficiently? It is idiotic to accept and parrot the standard Dem party line that the government getting involved in something will make it better.

In the healthcare space, the American private insurance system is the outlier, and a rather inefficient and ineffective one at that. We should learn from the examples of Europe, Canada and Japan.

You have no clue about the NHS, do you? Or is that an outlier as well? And you think healthcare is great in Canada? It is a function of population.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/nhs-even-more-cherished-monarchy-and-army

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

silvermani wrote:Sure there are a few outliers but on an average how many governmental agencies operate efficiently? It is idiotic to accept and parrot the standard Dem party line that the government getting involved in something will make it better.

In the healthcare space, the American private insurance system is the outlier, and a rather inefficient and ineffective one at that. We should learn from the examples of Europe, Canada and Japan.

You have no clue about the NHS, do you? Or is that an outlier as well? And you think healthcare is great in Canada? It is a function of population.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/nhs-even-more-cherished-monarchy-and-army

You know anyone who has worked with and for the NHS for a long period of time?

I see your link and counter it with any number of links with the opposing point of view, Il Professore. So ultimately you are saying you want socialized medicine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3755438.stm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:
In the healthcare space, the American private insurance system is the outlier, and a rather inefficient and ineffective one at that. We should learn from the examples of Europe, Canada and Japan.

You have no clue about the NHS, do you? Or is that an outlier as well? And you think healthcare is great in Canada? It is a function of population.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/nhs-even-more-cherished-monarchy-and-army

You know anyone who has worked with and for the NHS for a long period of time?

I see your link and counter it with any number of links with the opposing point of view, Il Professore. So ultimately you are saying you want socialized medicine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3755438.stm

why ultimately? i have always been saying it and will continue to say it. no compromises on health care as a fundamental human right, just like the right to clean air and water.

on NHS -- yes i do know a close friend who is a doctor in the UK.  they may carp about it, but still think it is aces better than what we have got over here. no system is perfect. the idea is to strive to be better, much better than pre-obamacare days. that's the reference point, not utopia.

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:
You have no clue about the NHS, do you? Or is that an outlier as well? And you think healthcare is great in Canada? It is a function of population.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/nhs-even-more-cherished-monarchy-and-army

You know anyone who has worked with and for the NHS for a long period of time?

I see your link and counter it with any number of links with the opposing point of view, Il Professore. So ultimately you are saying you want socialized medicine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3755438.stm

why ultimately? i have always been saying it and will continue to say it. no compromises on health care as a fundamental human right, just like the right to clean air and water.

on NHS -- yes i do know a close friend who is a doctor in the UK.  they may carp about it, but still think it is aces better than what we have got over here. no system is perfect. the idea is to strive to be better, much better than pre-obamacare days. that's the reference point, not utopia.

The NHS is horrible, wasteful and people generally hate it. That is what happens when you try to implement socialized medicine on 60 million people. Now try it on 300 million people.

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/nhs-even-more-cherished-monarchy-and-army

You know anyone who has worked with and for the NHS for a long period of time?

I see your link and counter it with any number of links with the opposing point of view, Il Professore. So ultimately you are saying you want socialized medicine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3755438.stm

why ultimately? i have always been saying it and will continue to say it. no compromises on health care as a fundamental human right, just like the right to clean air and water.

on NHS -- yes i do know a close friend who is a doctor in the UK.  they may carp about it, but still think it is aces better than what we have got over here. no system is perfect. the idea is to strive to be better, much better than pre-obamacare days. that's the reference point, not utopia.

The NHS is horrible, wasteful and people generally hate it. That is what happens when you try to implement socialized medicine on 60 million people. Now try it on 300 million people.

That's just your reflexive hatred for government programs. Here is a detailed comparison of the healthcare systems of 11 rich countries. Of these rich countries, the United States with its wonderful free, unsocialized, capitalist system ranks last, as it did in previous studies going back to 2004. The UK with its horrible, wasteful, socialized NHS ranks first.

Socialized medicine is just as acceptable -- and desirable -- as a socialized justice system, a socialized air traffic control system, or a socialized army.

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:The NHS is horrible, wasteful and people generally hate it. That is what happens when you try to implement socialized medicine on 60 million people. Now try it on 300 million people.

That's just your reflexive hatred for government programs. Here is a detailed comparison of the healthcare systems of 11 rich countries. Of these rich countries, the United States with its wonderful free, unsocialized, capitalist system ranks last, as it did in previous studies going back to 2004. The UK with its horrible, wasteful, socialized NHS ranks first.

Socialized medicine is just as acceptable -- and desirable -- as a socialized justice system, a socialized air traffic control system, or a socialized army.

Funny how healthcare rankings are subjective:

http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

why ultimately? i have always been saying it and will continue to say it. no compromises on health care as a fundamental human right, just like the right to clean air and water.

on NHS -- yes i do know a close friend who is a doctor in the UK.  they may carp about it, but still think it is aces better than what we have got over here. no system is perfect. the idea is to strive to be better, much better than pre-obamacare days. that's the reference point, not utopia.

The NHS is horrible, wasteful and people generally hate it. That is what happens when you try to implement socialized medicine on 60 million people. Now try it on 300 million people.

That's just your reflexive hatred for government programs. Here is a detailed comparison of the healthcare systems of 11 rich countries. Of these rich countries, the United States with its wonderful free, unsocialized, capitalist system ranks last, as it did in previous studies going back to 2004. The UK with its horrible, wasteful, socialized NHS ranks first.

Socialized medicine is just as acceptable -- and desirable -- as a socialized justice system, a socialized air traffic control system, or a socialized army.

Funny how healthcare rankings are subjective:

http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

Thank you for posting this. For your convenience, let me summarize the relevant ranks (of the 11 countries from the other study)...

1. France
11. Norway
17. Netherlands
18. United Kingdom (horrible, wasteful, socialized)
20. Switzerland
23. Sweden
25. Germany
30. Canada
32. Australia
37. USA (wonderful, unsocialized, capitalistic)
41. New Zealand

So now to the point again... of the top 10 countries in the WHO ranking you posted, how many have a socialized system? Hint: it is a number greater 9. So why is socialized medicine all that bad, then?

Hellsangel wrote:When you're trying to push an agenda for socialized medicine, you will of course rank it better than private medicine.  This is a website that talks about Canadian Healthcare so it will try to push a national health system agenda. The point is the higher the population, the harder it gets to 'do socialized medicine' and your ranking of UK as the top has no basis, when someone else ranks France as the top and UK as #18.

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:When you're trying to push an agenda for socialized medicine, you will of course rank it better than private medicine.  This is a website that talks about Canadian Healthcare so it will try to push a national health system agenda. The point is the higher the population, the harder it gets to 'do socialized medicine' and your ranking of UK as the top has no basis, when someone else ranks France as the top and UK as #18.

The ranking you posted is sourced from the World Health Organization. So the notion that they are trying to make Canadian healthcare or a nationalized system of healthcare look better is ridiculous.

I showed you a study ranking the UK highly because of your wild and unsupported (i.e. Trumpian) claim that the UK system is horrible, wasteful, etc. Using your own link, I showed you that the socialized UK system ranks way better than the private, unsocialized US system.

Every single country in the top 20 rankings published by WHO has a socialized system. So, why is socialized medicine a bad idea, again?

For its part, the British government denies there's a crisis and notes the U.K. consistently tops world rankings in emergency care. It also says it's currently reviewing how to adapt the NHS to best serve Britain's aging population.

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:When you're trying to push an agenda for socialized medicine, you will of course rank it better than private medicine.  This is a website that talks about Canadian Healthcare so it will try to push a national health system agenda. The point is the higher the population, the harder it gets to 'do socialized medicine' and your ranking of UK as the top has no basis, when someone else ranks France as the top and UK as #18.

The ranking you posted is sourced from the World Health Organization. So the notion that they are trying to make Canadian healthcare or a nationalized system of healthcare look better is ridiculous.

I showed you a study ranking the UK highly because of your wild and unsupported (i.e. Trumpian) claim that the UK system is horrible, wasteful, etc. Using your own link, I showed you that the socialized UK system ranks way better than the private, unsocialized US system.

Every single country in the top 20 rankings published by WHO has a socialized system. So, why is socialized medicine a bad idea, again?

Hope you get to live the UK for an extended period of time. And hope you really have to depend on the NHS then. Lets talk after that. Must be nice to make pronouncements about nationalized medicine while you enjoy the best private healthcare.

http://www.npr.org/2015/01/11/376384632/overcrowded-hospitals-overwhelm-uks-national-health-service

For its part, the British government denies there's a crisis and notes the U.K. consistently tops world rankings in emergency care. It also says it's currently reviewing how to adapt the NHS to best serve Britain's aging population.

silvermani wrote:Opposition to government funded health care is not an endorsement of private health care. Private, for profit health care sucks big time. But exchanging it with public health care won't solve the problem, it will only change the players who deliver the pain. 
Given how disastrous Obummer-care has been, what are the chances a single payer system will turn out to be a success? It is your choice to keep believing that the government knows best and will deliver the best results. But don't expect everyone else to believe the same.

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:
You know anyone who has worked with and for the NHS for a long period of time?

I see your link and counter it with any number of links with the opposing point of view, Il Professore. So ultimately you are saying you want socialized medicine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3755438.stm

why ultimately? i have always been saying it and will continue to say it. no compromises on health care as a fundamental human right, just like the right to clean air and water.

on NHS -- yes i do know a close friend who is a doctor in the UK.  they may carp about it, but still think it is aces better than what we have got over here. no system is perfect. the idea is to strive to be better, much better than pre-obamacare days. that's the reference point, not utopia.

The NHS is horrible, wasteful and people generally hate it. That is what happens when you try to implement socialized medicine on 60 million people. Now try it on 300 million people.

That's just your reflexive hatred for government programs. Here is a detailed comparison of the healthcare systems of 11 rich countries. Of these rich countries, the United States with its wonderful free, unsocialized, capitalist system ranks last, as it did in previous studies going back to 2004. The UK with its horrible, wasteful, socialized NHS ranks first.

Socialized medicine is just as acceptable -- and desirable -- as a socialized justice system, a socialized air traffic control system, or a socialized army.

Funny how healthcare rankings are subjective:

http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

why ultimately? i have always been saying it and will continue to say it. no compromises on health care as a fundamental human right, just like the right to clean air and water.

on NHS -- yes i do know a close friend who is a doctor in the UK.  they may carp about it, but still think it is aces better than what we have got over here. no system is perfect. the idea is to strive to be better, much better than pre-obamacare days. that's the reference point, not utopia.

The NHS is horrible, wasteful and people generally hate it. That is what happens when you try to implement socialized medicine on 60 million people. Now try it on 300 million people.

That's just your reflexive hatred for government programs. Here is a detailed comparison of the healthcare systems of 11 rich countries. Of these rich countries, the United States with its wonderful free, unsocialized, capitalist system ranks last, as it did in previous studies going back to 2004. The UK with its horrible, wasteful, socialized NHS ranks first.

Socialized medicine is just as acceptable -- and desirable -- as a socialized justice system, a socialized air traffic control system, or a socialized army.

Funny how healthcare rankings are subjective:

http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

Why did you post this? The rankings shown here make the point that the U.S. healthcare system is worse than the UK's even more emphatically. The difference in rankings are even larger than Idefix's table.

Idéfix wrote:

silvermani wrote:Opposition to government funded health care is not an endorsement of private health care. Private, for profit health care sucks big time. But exchanging it with public health care won't solve the problem, it will only change the players who deliver the pain. 
Given how disastrous Obummer-care has been, what are the chances a single payer system will turn out to be a success? It is your choice to keep believing that the government knows best and will deliver the best results. But don't expect everyone else to believe the same.

Obamacare has been better than the status quo ante. Millions of people who were uninsured, including those with preexisting conditions, are now insured. 

If private healthcare sucks big time, what is your alternative to it?