That is undoubtedly a problem. So here’s a suggestion:
Since the Obama plan, if enacted, will inevitably lead to the end of private health insurance, why not skip a step, and simply ban health insurance? If you break a leg or catch a disease, you write a check to the doctor. In order for this to have a chance of working, we will also have to enact tort reform. I like the British “loser pays” system, but I’d add a twist: “losing *lawyer* pays.” Take the profit motive out of filign frivolous lawsuits, and they’ll pretty much dry up. Once that happens, malpractice insurance dries up, as does the drive to do innumerable expensive and pointless tests in the hopes of avoiding a lawsuit.

>do you really think that having more driving, and therefor more car accidents, makes the US the more dangerous place?

To a certin limit of the definition of “dangerous.” I’ll take American danger over time-averaged European danger. The statistical risk of car accidents and crime in the US weighed agaisn the statistical risk of car accidents, crime and genocide in Europe looks pretty good.

> The emergency room as primary care physician. Hardly an economical or healthy approach

OK. So why are ER’s so expensive? Rather than coming up witha massive government bureaucracry to pay for somethign that’s needlessly expensive, why not reduce the cost to a practical level, and eliminate the need for the massive government bureaucracy?

> If you don’t have insurance, just wait until your minor condition becomes serious, then you can see a doctor. Other industrialized countries don’t do it that way.

They also don’t live as long as we do.

We’re being robbed.

Ah, yes. The emergency room as primary care physician. Hardly an economical or healthy approach.

You’re completely overlooking the many people who, lacking health insurance, avoid going to the hospital until things are more dire – bad if what you’re striving for is a healthy citizenry. They put it off because, lacking insurance, they (and not the local property owners) are the ones on the hook for the massive expense.

They can’t pay (and potentially end up bankrupt) which does then up moving the cost to others, including the less quantifiable cost of adding them to the dole – bad economically.

That’s great. If you don’t have insurance, just wait until your minor condition becomes serious, then you can see a doctor. Other industrialized countries don’t do it that way.

Are you saying this is the best we can and should do?

So it will be cheaper and we’ll have a healthier populace with the public option. And we’re going to get it.

And yet… we do. No matter how penniless you may be, there will be a county hospital that will treat your serious ills. It generally boils down to being at the local property taxpayers expense.

The reason the WHO findings matter at all is because defenders of the current system keep boasting that we enjoy “the greatest health care in the world!!” We don’t. Compared with many nations, we’re fortunate. Compared with industrialized democracies, we fare less well. We’re the only country in this latter group that doesn’t systematically cover all citizens.

However, what’s hardest to explain about our current medical system is why we spend so much more per person than other countries without getting better results. We spend in the neighborhood of $7,200 per person per year on health care. That’s twice as much as countries like France and Canada and three times as much as Japan.

In short, we’re getting robbed.

And, yet, he does.

Wow. So a typo can keep you mired in ignorance. Good to know.

Too many. This argues not for “universal health care,” but for lowering the cost of health care. Get rid of the bulk of the lawyers and the lawsuit lottos, for starters. Allow insurance plans to cross state lines. Encourage competition between doctors and hospitals. Don’t use state of the art expensive equipment for every problem. All kinds of things can be done here.

> the idiot you linked to tries to argue that the incredibly high infant mortality rate in the US has nothing to do with mothers not getting pre-natal treatment, but because so many of them are skinny teen-agers giving birth to underweight babies

And is he wrong?

Additionally: a stillborn baby in the US is counted as a Dead Baby, thus addign to the infant mortality rate. Is this true for all other nations? Nope:
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3848
“Switzerland, for instance, doesn’t count the deaths of babies shorter than 30 cm, because they are not counted as live births…”

If two nations do not share the same statistical methodology, then their statistics cannot be directly compared with any accuracy.

I couldn’t get past all the typos.

Frank, why are you such a Communist? A real American would refuse socialized health-care.

Oh, but I forgot — you’re a chickenshit and a hypocrite.

If you could be bothered to read the data, that was factored in. The thing is, the US has a high rate of both murder and auto accidents, which drives down the life expectancy. This is incorrectly attributed to the health care industry.

Yeah, thought so.

I was out getting that good ol’ free healthcare that costs $298 a month, plus co-pays for prescriptions.

It is based on the unadulterated , indisputable history of the Democratic Party’s ability to engage in any endeavor at a greater cost , and greater waste, and more superfluous employees, than any institution since the Pharoahs used Hebrews to build the pyramids.

And you say that based on….?

Yeah, thought so.