rbpls

In France, spending way less money than we do, they have twice as many doctors, nurses and hospital space/beds per capita as we do. The money we waste with the admin part of our system could buy a lot of actual care.

It is surprising that Scott isn't in prison instead of the Governor's mansion. There is nothing conservative about most Republicans. The fake conservatism of the Republicans gave us exploded deficits and crumbling infrastructure. Reagan's Budget Director has admitted in hindsight that Reagonomics damaged us economically. That ain't conservative. Voting for national Republicans and saying you are conservative is not telling the truth. The so-called liberals are more conservative than the "conservatives" have been for 30 years. Also, you are right that our litigious nature here hur

One of the worst cases is Rick Scott's company by itself stealing billions from Medicare. At least 11 of the 14 major parts of the theft occurred while he was still involved in actually running the company. Somehow, he skated. So Republicans made him governor of Florida.

Actually, other advanced countries have better health insurance and health care. That is the beauty of not wasting so much money on the vast army we employ in the health/insurance/care that contribute zero to actual care. Their contribution is taking money away form care though our system is at fault not those workers. Other countries do a better job at preventive care, regular care and their emergency rooms are actually used for emergencies. Our system is comparatively a terribly wasteful convoluted mess even thought we are the best at some procedures. Our system just kills too many peop

You must not have read the list.

People in the US often wait forever because they do without medical procedures and just die... Shouldn't that matter more than waiting sometimes for non-emergency procedures? They live longer than we do. Who really waits or just does without healthcare more? People who die younger or people who live longer?

Conservatives wish to do things in a fiscally efficient and more effective way. You apparently oppose that. Ergo... If you say "conservative" or (conservative) to signify fake conservative, it means the same. There will be millions getting healthcare earlier in their illnesses because of Obamacare that likely would only have gotten it later after becoming more sick before Obamacare. It is just a "conservative" plan designed by a Republican "conservative" think tank and is very inferior to single-payer. It will be better than what we have been doing but we lose ground every day w

Any actual conservative who really knows about this subject wants a single-payer system. Why would any real conservative NOT want to save money and lives with the proven fiscally more efficient single-payer way of paying for health care? Can you picture how much more fire protection would cost us if we did it the same way we do healthcare?

Get on the right side of facts. That would help a lot. I read a lot. The difference is, I understand what I read.

I seriously doubt you can teach me much about algebra. It would be a very good example of stupid to say any country is broke because they do something in a way that works better and costs half as much as the way we do it. You are literally saying it wouldn't bankrupt a country to spend twice as much but it WOULD bankrupt a country to do a better job spending half as much. Act bored... maybe you are covering by squirming away from admitting the truth. You are ignoring the overall and real truth here. On purpose apparently. Truth. You should try it. So the other part

Preventative medicine is better in those countries. They live longer. Deal with this: all those countries have longer lifespans for their citizens than we do. NONE of them have citizens being financially ruined because they got sick or had an accident. Read about Ann Leary and her experience with the UK system. The care she and her baby got there cost about $15,000 and would have been hundreds of thousands here. And there, her baby never had to be on a ventilator but would definitely would have required it here. Some might construe that the UK system couldn't put her baby on a ventila

$958.90 - 609.98 = $348.92 Here's a hint: your family coverage costs more than $348.92 right now. Your employer is cutting benefits. Employers were doing that before Obama was in high school.

We are an advanced country. So are Sweden, UK, France, Belgium, Canada, Finland, Netherlands,etc etc etc. But they all have health care systems that cause their citizens to live longer and spend about half what we do for our comparatively inferior healthcare results. If you don't already fell silly, you should soon. Your assertions are baseless. Mine are well supported facts. If either of us is slurring or addled, here's a hint: it ain't me.

Just get a list of European countries. Add several Asian countries. Just actually want to know and you can get your own list.

Uh, you might want to check your definition. Republic is representative democracy as opposed to pure democracy where every citizen votes on every measure. You could say we are a social republic or you could say we are a social representative democracy but saying we are a Representative Republic is redundant. You apparently don't know what conservative means either.

Oh, here is the ridiculous argument that something that cost half as much as the way we do it is bankrupting anyone else or would bankrupt us. It's that "conservative" math at work again. Explain to me how something that costs the United States more than $8,000 per capita per year and doesn't cover everyone is less expensive than spending $4,000 per capita per year and covering everyone. I can't wait. Per your math, a country that spends $4,000 has higher costs (to the point they are bankrupted) than spending $8,000 would cost. That is the Republican math of the type that caused G.H.

BS. I am as socialist as you are. We live in a social representative democracy. Our fire protection, roads, military, etc are socialist. In that way, we are both socialist. Can you get that socialized medicine is conservative in that it saves money and lives? Or does "conservative" mean being anti-change to the point of dumb even when the change would be much more intelligent than the status quo? Opposing socialized medicine or some other flavor of single-payer can only be justified by being very unconservative or being very ignorant of how much more conservative and humanitarian the

I'm a socialist the same you are...oh and the same way Winston Churchill was. At the same time, I am conservative. I am not a fake conservative the way most Republicans are for a long while now. I'm also Progressive the way the best Republicans (Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt for instance) have been...while also being conservative on many fronts. Progressive and conservative often reach the same ends. Sometimes, being smart and informed will lead a real conservative and a progressive to the same goals and conclusions. Fake conservatives don't understand this. That is one reason that there are act

I asked a Brit who works with Doctors Without Borders and is familiar with how healthcare works on 3 continents what she thought of healthcare in Great Britain. She said it is wonderful. She said they review their issues periodically and adjust to make things better. They've been doing it that way since 1948. They spend much less than half what we spend per capita. If they increased their spending to half what ours is, it would be a 22% increase in their healthcare budget. Their system would be awash in money if they spent HALF what we do. Then I asked her what she thinks of trading the Br

Name any other advanced nation on earth and if you'd been living there you would not have any reason to not have the treatment you needed. You could have been treated with no financial stress. How is it possible that that wouldn't be better? Their different flavors of single-payer are all more humane, efficient and effective ways of paying for healthcare... with much less money to get uniformly better healthcare results.

How can EVERY civilized advanced nation on earth spend so much less than we do per capita, cover everyone while we leave millions without coverage even while we are spending twice what most of them do if another payment system isn't the answer? How in hell could it possibly be true that another payment system is not the answer when there is undeniable empirical proof in many countries for decades in a row that it definitely is the answer for larger and smaller populations than ours? How is saving lives and trillions of dollars not a good idea? Why do they live longer than we do?

ALL of the things you roll your eyes about are worse in private insurance companies than in Medicare or single-payer systems. It's kind of obvious isn't it? Those are some of the reasons that private insurance companies have MUCH HIGHER admin costs than Medicare. Were you trying to prove my point? It's kind of odd that you admit the truh about Medicare having lower admin costs but then say it is much less efficient than organizations that have built in huge extra costs on purpose. HUH? The massive increases in Medicare costs are all the private (you say more efficient?) portions of M

Funny how when people stop doing without medical care spending for their care rises. AAAmazing.

Thank you 2003 President and Congress (CONservative Republicans) for the explosion in Medicare costs and charges. You know, the "private is always better" crowd. Not coincidentally, the bulk of Medicare costs increase is from (surprise) private insurance companies and "made it illegal for Medicare to negotiate drug costs" "conservative" Republicans. Gee thanks. Lower admin costs does free up money so it can be used for MEDICAL CARE though. I think it is a better use and DOES make better care possible nearly everywhere in the civilized world except... well, here.