Is single payer healthcare really what you want?

We went from being one of the longest-lived wealthy nations, to having only the 49th-best life expectancy in the world: https://web.archive.org/web/2010031...ns/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html Then, with Obamacare, the trend reversed. Not only did we stop our long fall down the rankings, but we actually improved -- passing by some other wealthy nations like Denmark and Portugal: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

According to surveys?
 
Name these "conservative DEMOCRATS" who supposedly objected to Obamacare.

You misread what I wrote very badly. I didn't say conservative Democrats objected to Obamacare. I said a market-based solution (Obamacare) was probably the best that could be done, politically, with the conservative Democrats objecting to something more liberal (e.g., Medicare for All, or a public option). You really need to try harder.
 
See the links I provided above, in terms of the US going from moving down the life expectancy rankings to moving back up them.

I see the links. What I don't see is any independent, unbiased validation of the data.
 
I don't recall thanking you.

No, I don't recall you thanking me either. But, I don't mind your poor manners. I can simply act as if you were the kind of decent human being who would thank a girl for relieving him of his ignorance.

You're welcome.

Is this data representative of reality?

Yes.
 
I see the links. What I don't see is any independent, unbiased validation of the data.

No, and you'll never see that, since the only data you'd consider independent and unbiased is any data that validates your prejudices. But the best available data is in line with what I said, and you can check it out yourself. That includes the Federal Reserve data I provided, the CIA World Factbook data I provided, or, if you want something independent of our government, the WHO, World Bank, or OECD data that I'd be happy to provide, all of which shows the same thing. But let's be honest: there's really no point in me linking to that, is there? Unless it tells you what you want to believe, you'll dismiss it as not being independent and unbiased, because you're not a curious person looking to understand a subject, you're a partisan looking to defend a position you've been handed by your apparatchiks.
 
Do folks with private insurance jump to the head of the line?

The left-wing Guardian doesn't seem to think so, lol.

There has been a clear rise in interest in private healthcare recently as more and more people are dissatisfied with higher waiting on the NHS and increased restrictions on NHS treatment.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/16/private-medical-insurance-sales-surge-health-nhs
 
No, and here's an example. A couple of centuries ago, before the state started meddling in firefighting, there were private firefighting companies which people paid into. If the house next door to yours caught fire and the owner wasn't covered, they wouldn't tackle that. Why should they? They waited until your house caught fire. That's a reductio ad absurdum of your "I'm alright Jack" doctrine, but it actually happened.

The question is not whether the state should be involved in policing, firefighting, or healthcare, it's HOW MUCH. We can disagree about that. But don't confuse the issue by calling it Socialism. To anyone whose wits haven't been addled by exposure to the American doctrinaire Right, it's common sense.

Stop desperately flailing and attempting to equate Public safety with healthcare.....NOT THE SAME thing. TY
 
Back
Top