Trump tastes failure as U.S. House healthcare bill collapses

[ajarngreg]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Everyone in the US has health worth protecting.

 

    Some even have their own bridge. Both photos were taken in the US from the net. The shop watcher is in Dallas, the happy campers in DC. 

[mogandave]

Read and understand I would be my recommendation to you.
 
Out.

You would be your recommendation to me?

Gross!!!

[mogandave]

 
    Some even have their own bridge. Both photos were taken in the US from the net. The shop watcher is in Dallas, the happy campers in DC. 

This must have been taken before the ACA...

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Grubster said:

I have gone to Canada at least thirty times fishing and hunting, I made it a point to ask at every gas station, store, lodge,etc. how they like the health care plan there. I never had one say they didn't like it, maybe some Canadians can refute that here I don't know.

 

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

How could someone refute something you claim to had done?

You mean like one of gas station attendants you spoke to might remember speaking to negatively about Canadian healthcare?

Indeed.

 

 

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

My question was in regard to the US regulation of health care, not insurance.

My insurance paid out better before the ACA, what about yours?

I have BCBS of I, what do you have?

I'm from So Cal, you?


 

 

On the one hand, you rightly contest Grubster's use of personal and unverifiable experience to support his arguments.

On the other, you invoke your own to justify your arguments.

Double standards much?

In fact, while most people on the exchanges get subsidies,  for a small percentage of individual insurance buyers, the actual rates they pay will be higher than they would have been under the old system.  Generally this applies in the case of someone who is younger, healthier,  wealthier  or some combination of these factors.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Everyone in the US has health worth protecting.

 

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

So people in poor health should try to protect it?

I would think the would want to improve it.

You lied about what I said, why not just admit it?

 

Mogandave's response here is clearly a puerile attempt at misreading. No one with on honorable intent would maintain that stevenl was saying that ill people want to use the medical system to stay ill. 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

This must have been taken before the ACA...

 

Insofar as the ACA has reduced bankruptcy from medical expenses which is one of the leading causes of homelessness, it has lessened the number of people in such a predicament.

And if you'll recall, the ACHA was going to make it legal to offer scam plans that wouldn't protect people from this fate.  All in the name of "equal access".Which brings to mind this famous quote from Anatole France: 

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."

[mogandave]

On the one hand, you rightly contest Grubster's use of personal and unverifiable experience to support his arguments.

On the other, you invoke your own to justify your arguments.

Double standards much?

In fact, while most people on the exchanges get subsidies,  for a small percentage of individual insurance buyers, the actual rates they pay will be higher than they would have been under the old system.  Generally this applies in the case of someone who is younger, healthier,  wealthier  or some combination of these factors.

 

You apparently like to play fast and loose with the "facts". I did not contest Grubster's use of personal unverifiable experience, I just pointed out that it was unverifiable.

 

 

[Traveler19491]

5 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Sounds like hate to me.

Be that as it may, you're lying when you say I want to deny health care, I do not.

Was one of those "studies" sited when my President promised my healthcare cost would be reduced by $2,500 a year?

 

 

Your preference for using non-sequiturs to avoid answering a question is a useful but invalid tactic, employed by those unable to answer the challenge ("Was one of those 'studies' sited [sic] when my President promised my healthcare cost would be reduced by $2,500 a year?". No, primarily because, as you well know but didn't want to deal with, none of those studies were dealing with the ACA.)

Actually, you're the one lying when you say that you don't want to deny healthcare. Allow me to quote you: "I think this is great news. I'm for repeal without replace. 
If I wanted government healthcare I would vote for it."

You stated that you are for repeal without replace. Repealing without replacing requires eliminating all of the protections of the ACA, eliminating subsidies, and eliminating the Medicaid expansion, thus, as the CBO has noted, causing up to 14 million to lose their health insurance immediately, and a total of 24 million to lose their insurance by 2026. By stating that you don't want to "replace" you are, by default, in favor of denying these people any form of affordable insurance, because replacing is the ONLY way those people could afford insurance. You lied earlier when you stated that "the idea that people were dying in the street for lack health insurance is ridiculous". There is more than ample evidence that this was, in fact, the case. A study done by Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance points out that, prior to the ACA, up to 45,000 were dying annually due to lack of health insurance (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/) and stood a 40% higher risk of death than their insured counterparts, up from 25% in 1993. The fact that you object to the idea of single-payer is noted, as is your objection to people having a replacement should the ACA be repealed. And THAT is wanting to deny health care.

 

You failed to respond to any of the information in the studies I cited, which is not surprising for someone who apparently opposes the use of facts. You refused to respond to the fact that single-payer would, according to the majority of reputable studies, drastically lower costs, thus enabling people to actually afford health care. You fail to take into consideration the fact that a lack of affordable health insurance drastically reduces the number of start-up businesses (http://www.kauffman.org/what-we-do/resources/entrepreneurship-policy-digest/can-social-insurance-unlock-entrepreneurial-opportunities), thus hurting the economy and job growth. Your arguments are fact-free, devoid of logic, and self-serving. You prefer to set up straw men as a means of dodging legitimate refutation of your position, enjoy using mocking "answers" to sidestep questions or answers you don't want to deal with, and have never, at any point, cited reputable supporting evidence. Your ability to debate is weak, as is your position.

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

You apparently like to play fast and loose with the "facts". I did not contest Grubster's use of personal unverifiable experience, I just pointed out that it was unverifiable.

 

 

 

 

ReallY I like to play fast and lose with the facts? Here are the relevant comments from the thread. So you're saying your remark that "How could someone refute something you claim to had done?

You mean like one of gas station attendants you spoke to might remember speaking to negatively about Canadian healthcare?

Indeed."

So questioning the verifiability of someones evidence in support of his contention is not contesting its validity? Is it affirming it? No. Is it neutral? No.  So what is it exactly if neither of those 2? HOw are you not calling into question the validity of his evidence?

7 hours ago, Grubster said:

I have gone to Canada at least thirty times fishing and hunting, I made it a point to ask at every gas station, store, lodge,etc. how they like the health care plan there. I never had one say they didn't like it, maybe some Canadians can refute that here I don't know.

7 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

How could someone refute something you claim to had done?

You mean like one of gas station attendants you spoke to might remember speaking to negatively about Canadian healthcare?

Indeed.

 

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

 

On the one hand, you rightly contest Grubster's use of personal and unverifiable experience to support his arguments.

On the other, you invoke your own to justify your arguments.

Double standards much?

In fact, while most people on the exchanges get subsidies,  for a small percentage of individual insurance buyers, the actual rates they pay will be higher than they would have been under the old system.  Generally this applies in the case of someone who is younger, healthier,  wealthier  or some combination of these factors.

[maewang99]

Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.... all three... third rails in American politics.

but Medicaid and Medicare go bust quick.... there sure is a reason health cover gets much more expensive, or is even declined, when you get over 60 or older.... and there are 80 million WW2 USA Baby Boomers.

the US does not use accrual accounting (the government's books).

I don't see how.... given that.... that this ain't linked to the dollar at some point. 

not that you can map it out 1,2,3,4... but that it's there somewhere. not far off.

Baht 37 by year end. okay. but what about the longer trend resuming   +   the above, and not to leave out that our debt is sitting at 20 trillion. I certainly don't see an "overvalued" Thai Baht. 
 

Edited March 28, 2017 by maewang99

[Jingthing]

Under ACA there is no decline based on age or preexisting conditions.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts bickering about Canadian health care have been removed as well as the replies.

[mogandave]

Mogandave's response here is clearly a puerile attempt at misreading. No one with on honorable intent would maintain that stevenl was saying that ill people want to use the medical system to stay ill. 

Does that mean I was joking? I figured if he was going to mis-speak about what I said, I could play with what he said.

I assure you, my intent is nothing if not honorable.

Misleading indeed. You guys need to ease up a little, I thought this was supposed to be fun...

[mogandave]

Your preference for using non-sequiturs to avoid answering a question is a useful but invalid tactic, employed by those unable to answer the challenge ("Was one of those 'studies' sited [sic] when my President promised my healthcare cost would be reduced by $2,500 a year?". No, primarily because, as you well know but didn't want to deal with, none of those studies were dealing with the ACA.)
Actually, you're the one lying when you say that you don't want to deny healthcare. Allow me to quote you: "I think this is great news. I'm for repeal without replace. 
If I wanted government healthcare I would vote for it."
You stated that you are for repeal without replace. Repealing without replacing requires eliminating all of the protections of the ACA, eliminating subsidies, and eliminating the Medicaid expansion, thus, as the CBO has noted, causing up to 14 million to lose their health insurance immediately, and a total of 24 million to lose their insurance by 2026. By stating that you don't want to "replace" you are, by default, in favor of denying these people any form of affordable insurance, because replacing is the ONLY way those people could afford insurance. You lied earlier when you stated that "the idea that people were dying in the street for lack health insurance is ridiculous". There is more than ample evidence that this was, in fact, the case. A study done by Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance points out that, prior to the ACA, up to 45,000 were dying annually due to lack of health insurance (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/) and stood a 40% higher risk of death than their insured counterparts, up from 25% in 1993. The fact that you object to the idea of single-payer is noted, as is your objection to people having a replacement should the ACA be repealed. And THAT is wanting to deny health care.
 
You failed to respond to any of the information in the studies I cited, which is not surprising for someone who apparently opposes the use of facts. You refused to respond to the fact that single-payer would, according to the majority of reputable studies, drastically lower costs, thus enabling people to actually afford health care. You fail to take into consideration the fact that a lack of affordable health insurance drastically reduces the number of start-up businesses (http://www.kauffman.org/what-we-do/resources/entrepreneurship-policy-digest/can-social-insurance-unlock-entrepreneurial-opportunities), thus hurting the economy and job growth. Your arguments are fact-free, devoid of logic, and self-serving. You prefer to set up straw men as a means of dodging legitimate refutation of your position, enjoy using mocking "answers" to sidestep questions or answers you don't want to deal with, and have never, at any point, cited reputable supporting evidence. Your ability to debate is weak, as is your position.

I'm not debating, I'm posting my opinion.

I would put studies by medical schools about how important heath coverage is in the same waste-basket as a study Chevron did on global warming or that R. J. Reynolds did on the benefits of smoking.

I want most everyone to have quality healthcare, and I think the private sector is a better means to that end. You see it differently.

What question has anyone asked that I have sidestepped?

[JCauto]

12 hours ago, tuktuktuk said:

I don't see it quite that way.  Sure there's always some greed at work, but without the profit motive we'd have nothing.  We don't want doctors and hospitals that are paid like teachers and auto mechanics.  Insurance companies are just going along for the ride.  We enabled them.  You're just placing a bet that says your health will be worse than what your premiums represent.  Just like Vegas, they win or they wouldn't exist.  For most of us our health is good enough that we'd be better off without insurance.  What started the spiral was managed care.  Insurance companies were put in the position of trying to reduce the overall costs.  The approach was to negotiate.  Hospitals doubled their prices so they could be cut in two and everybody thought it was a win.  The problem is that somewhere along that road we lost track of cost, price and value.  I don't know if there's a way back, but letting government fix it has got to be the worst of all worlds.

 

I can understand that this idea has been drilled repeatedly into the heads of every American from birth, but actually it's not true - there ARE things that exist without the profit motive. One of those things in more socialized countries is healthcare. Often there's still an element of private sector and the profit motive, but this is always a small minority of care in these countries. (BTW in my opinion this is a good thing as it provides more options and it demonstrably hasn't resulted in negative impacts on the system as a whole). So yes, we have healthcare that is primarily (and sometimes completely) devoid of a profit motive. And within those systems, there are numerous well paying jobs for nurses, doctors and other healthcare practitioners. No, they don't pay the same amount that doctors get in the USA, but doctors here do quite well. 

So there's actually quite a lot of evidence that government-run and -managed healthcare works quite well with or without a profit motive from dozens of countries which are Western democracies with market economies. In fact, these healthcare systems are providing better health outcomes for the population as a whole at a far lower cost and this is not even in dispute. Yes, you CAN get better high-end healthcare in the States, but you have to pay for it yourself. So while the best level of care is available in the USA, it's not generally available, it's only there for that small sector of the population who can afford it or the high-priced insurance plans that enable it.

[stevenl]

I'm not debating, I'm posting my opinion.

I would put studies by medical schools about how important heath coverage is in the same waste-basket as a study Chevron did on global warming or that R. J. Reynolds did on the benefits of smoking.

I want most everyone to have quality healthcare, and I think the private sector is a better means to that end. You see it differently.

What question has anyone asked that I have sidestepped?

Not Chevron, but Shell did a study on global warming about 25 years ago, with the conclusion we have to change to renewable sources asap in order to prevent a disaster.

sent using Tapatalk

[mogandave]

Not Chevron, but Shell did a study on global warming about 25 years ago, with the conclusion we have to change to renewable sources asap in order to prevent a disaster.

sent using Tapatalk

Coincidentally they are invested heavily and making long money on renewable energy.

[attrayant]

They followed their own advice?  Simply scandalous. 

[boomerangutang]

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Another thread has got taken over by the Trump haters, each trying to prove how terrible Trump is. However, if the non Trump haters are like me, they'll be leaving this thread to let the anti Tumpers talk to each other. It does get boring, thread after thread being taken over by hundreds of posts just saying the same things over and over, ad nauseam.

Bye by from me.

bye bye.  If the anti-Trump crap sounds repetitive to you, well, so be it.  He's bad for America in so many ways, it's hard to find just ten reasons to focus on.   People who are trashing Trump are doing so because they care about the US, Americans, and other folks elsewhere.   

 

[Rhys]

Days of Medi-cal, Medi-care,  privilege vs right,  responsibility vs greed...  Figure it out... all the best

[stevenl]

Coincidentally they are invested heavily and making long money on renewable energy.

Good for them and the environment.

You're missing the fact that this throws your statement in the round archive though. But who cares, you're only here for some fun any way and don't care about a serious discussion.

sent using Tapatalk

[mogandave]

Good for them and the environment.

You're missing the fact that this throws your statement in the round archive though. But who cares, you're only here for some fun any way and don't care about a serious discussion.

sent using Tapatalk

What statement?

[boomerangutang]

4 hours ago, Rhys said:

Days of Medi-cal, Medi-care,  privilege vs right,  responsibility vs greed...  Figure it out... all the best

what's your point?  

[Traveler19491]

11 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I'm not debating, I'm posting my opinion.

I would put studies by medical schools about how important heath coverage is in the same waste-basket as a study Chevron did on global warming or that R. J. Reynolds did on the benefits of smoking.

I want most everyone to have quality healthcare, and I think the private sector is a better means to that end. You see it differently.

What question has anyone asked that I have sidestepped?

 

 

As I said, your "opinion" is fact-free, illogical, and self-serving. The simple fact that you are unable to refute any facts placed in rebuttal to your "opinion" is evidence of your inability to do so. The simple fact that you refuse to recognize the validity of scientific studies done on a given subject, whose results don't match your "opinion", and which you "disagree" with based on zero evidence to contradict them speaks to your inability to rationally arrive at a valid "opinion". And,  no, you don't want everyone to have quality healthcare, or at least you don't give a crap if they don't. Your preference for repeal without replace testifies to the "sincerity" of any of your objections to the contrary. And your refusal to cite evidence supporting your "opinion" or to refute the arguments of others constitutes sidestepping. You are a prime example of the current trend of belief by the un-/under-educated that "my opinion is just as valid as your facts". Sorry, but in real life, it doesn't work that way, no matter how badly you want it to.

[mogandave]

As I said, your "opinion" is fact-free, illogical, and self-serving. The simple fact that you are unable to refute any facts placed in rebuttal to your "opinion" is evidence of your inability to do so. The simple fact that you refuse to recognize the validity of scientific studies done on a given subject, whose results don't match your "opinion", and which you "disagree" with based on zero evidence to contradict them speaks to your inability to rationally arrive at a valid "opinion". And,  no, you don't want everyone to have quality healthcare, or at least you don't give a crap if they don't. Your preference for repeal without replace testifies to the "sincerity" of any of your objections to the contrary. And your refusal to cite evidence supporting your "opinion" or to refute the arguments of others constitutes sidestepping. You are a prime example of the current trend of belief by the un-/under-educated that "my opinion is just as valid as your facts". Sorry, but in real life, it doesn't work that way, no matter how badly you want it to.

What facts have you provided? Seems more like you attacking me because I believe studies (scientific or otherwise) funded by organizations that stand to benefit from the results are suspect.

Did you actually read any of the "scientific" studies you linked to?

[mogandave]

As I said, your "opinion" is fact-free, illogical, and self-serving. The simple fact that you are unable to refute any facts placed in rebuttal to your "opinion" is evidence of your inability to do so. The simple fact that you refuse to recognize the validity of scientific studies done on a given subject, whose results don't match your "opinion", and which you "disagree" with based on zero evidence to contradict them speaks to your inability to rationally arrive at a valid "opinion". And,  no, you don't want everyone to have quality healthcare, or at least you don't give a crap if they don't. Your preference for repeal without replace testifies to the "sincerity" of any of your objections to the contrary. And your refusal to cite evidence supporting your "opinion" or to refute the arguments of others constitutes sidestepping. You are a prime example of the current trend of belief by the un-/under-educated that "my opinion is just as valid as your facts". Sorry, but in real life, it doesn't work that way, no matter how badly you want it to.

Now again, without all the name calling, what question did you ask that I side-stepped?

[geriatrickid]

On 24 March, 2017 at 10:23 PM, hansnl said:

Has he got anything else to be proud of?

I would expect that his ending of torture  and keeping the USA from  tailspinning into  economic collapse  are two of his finest achievements. Or, were you oblivious to the Wall Street financial collapse, the  mortgage kiting and  toxic securities crisis? Perhaps you are one of those armchair warriors who  supports torture. Combat veterans and qualified interrogators disagreed with the  use of torture.

[Traveler19491]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

What facts have you provided? Seems more like you attacking me because I believe studies (scientific or otherwise) funded by organizations that stand to benefit from the results are suspect.

Did you actually read any of the "scientific" studies you linked to?

 

 

More of your BS deflection. I read the summaries of the studies, and just because a medical group directs a study does not invalidate its findings. If anything, their expertise in the field lends more credibility. The studies cited utilized publicly available statistics and data to arrive at their conclusions. Your refusal to accept the findings in no way diminishes their validity. It just further demonstrates your inability to deal with reality. But, as you seem to think that a group that works in the healthcare field is suspect in their conduct of a study, here's a few that are not directly related to healthcare and yet arrive at the same conclusions based on the same data:

http://kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/

 

http://healthblog.ncpa.org/does-lack-of-insurance-cause-premature-death-probably-not/ This study cites the Journal of the American Medical Association findings. Yes, they are in the healthcare field, but unless your logic is that doctors are unqualified to comment on the effects of not having access to healthcare via insurance, then this is a valid study. And if that is your position, then you are one unmitigated dumbass.

 

http://web.missouri.edu/~milyoj/files/AJPH_Brief_Draft.pdf

 

I realize that citing scientific studies is an exercise in futility with you for the simple reason that you are incapable of dealing with facts. Your statement, "What facts have you provided" is ample evidence of that, given that all scientific studies are based on FACTS, hence the term "scientific". Your inability to recognize science for the pursuit of truth is, all by itself, ample evidence of your lack of intellectual prowess. Your "opinion" remains, as it has always been, invalid. I would suggest that you save yourself further humiliation by accepting that the facts do not, in any way, support your "opinion". Your continued insistence that your "opinion" is valid in the complete absence of supporting data is laughable. There are no facts on your side. Were there, you would have provided such to bolster your "opinion". In the absence of facts, your "opinion" remains what it is...BS. Now, by continuing to argue, you're doing nothing more than trying to save face. You will now prove my point by responding with nothing more weighty than another diversionary statement designed to deflect (once again) from the argument. I realize that it is of paramount importance to you to get in the last word, so have at it. I've wasted enough of my time attempting to engage in a rational argument with an irrational individual. Trying to argue facts with you is like trying to play chess with someone who can't quite grasp the concept of checkers, so I refuse to continue engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed individual. Peace out. Have fun.

 

[mogandave]

More of your BS deflection. I read the summaries of the studies, and just because a medical group directs a study does not invalidate its findings. If anything, their expertise in the field lends more credibility. The studies cited utilized publicly available statistics and data to arrive at their conclusions. Your refusal to accept the findings in no way diminishes their validity. It just further demonstrates your inability to deal with reality. But, as you seem to think that a group that works in the healthcare field is suspect in their conduct of a study, here's a few that are not directly related to healthcare and yet arrive at the same conclusions based on the same data:
http://kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/
 
http://healthblog.ncpa.org/does-lack-of-insurance-cause-premature-death-probably-not/ This study cites the Journal of the American Medical Association findings. Yes, they are in the healthcare field, but unless your logic is that doctors are unqualified to comment on the effects of not having access to healthcare via insurance, then this is a valid study. And if that is your position, then you are one unmitigated dumbass.
 
http://web.missouri.edu/~milyoj/files/AJPH_Brief_Draft.pdf
 
I realize that citing scientific studies is an exercise in futility with you for the simple reason that you are incapable of dealing with facts. Your statement, "What facts have you provided" is ample evidence of that, given that all scientific studies are based on FACTS, hence the term "scientific". Your inability to recognize science for the pursuit of truth is, all by itself, ample evidence of your lack of intellectual prowess. Your "opinion" remains, as it has always been, invalid. I would suggest that you save yourself further humiliation by accepting that the facts do not, in any way, support your "opinion". Your continued insistence that your "opinion" is valid in the complete absence of supporting data is laughable. There are no facts on your side. Were there, you would have provided such to bolster your "opinion". In the absence of facts, your "opinion" remains what it is...BS. Now, by continuing to argue, you're doing nothing more than trying to save face. You will now prove my point by responding with nothing more weighty than another diversionary statement designed to deflect (once again) from the argument. I realize that it is of paramount importance to you to get in the last word, so have at it. I've wasted enough of my time attempting to engage in a rational argument with an irrational individual. Trying to argue facts with you is like trying to play chess with someone who can't quite grasp the concept of checkers, so I refuse to continue engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed individual. Peace out. Have fun.
 

Yes, while I have been attempting to deflect the BS, it has proven difficult what with you ranting on about what a fool I am.

As I understand it, reading a study's summary is like reading a headline, it only conveys what the author wants it to covey. Personally, I try to not cite a study unless I have read and understand it, and I certainly would not attempt to hold it up as fact.

So to be clear:
1: You are willing to cite a study as fact without having read it, correct?
2: It is your position that who funds a study and whether or not they benefit from the outcome of the study makes no difference as long as you read the summary and it supports your agenda, is that also correct?

Incidentally, I really doubt you have wasted much time with me as I assume you just regurgitate the same weak, condescending, ad hominem attack on anyone that dare disagree with you.

Finally, while I know you want me to have the last word, I would much rather have it answering the questions you accused me of side-stepping.

[tuktuktuk]

20 hours ago, JCauto said:

 

I can understand that this idea has been drilled repeatedly into the heads of every American from birth, but actually it's not true - there ARE things that exist without the profit motive. One of those things in more socialized countries is healthcare. Often there's still an element of private sector and the profit motive, but this is always a small minority of care in these countries. (BTW in my opinion this is a good thing as it provides more options and it demonstrably hasn't resulted in negative impacts on the system as a whole). So yes, we have healthcare that is primarily (and sometimes completely) devoid of a profit motive. And within those systems, there are numerous well paying jobs for nurses, doctors and other healthcare practitioners. No, they don't pay the same amount that doctors get in the USA, but doctors here do quite well. 

So there's actually quite a lot of evidence that government-run and -managed healthcare works quite well with or without a profit motive from dozens of countries which are Western democracies with market economies. In fact, these healthcare systems are providing better health outcomes for the population as a whole at a far lower cost and this is not even in dispute. Yes, you CAN get better high-end healthcare in the States, but you have to pay for it yourself. So while the best level of care is available in the USA, it's not generally available, it's only there for that small sector of the population who can afford it or the high-priced insurance plans that enable it.

When I dream about a single payer healthcare system I imagine somebody like Nancy Pelosi being in charge and the sweet dream turns into a long national nightmare.  We'll just have another tax like social security and medicaid that those idiots (dems and republicans alike) can dip into to pay for all sorts of other things that both you and I would agree are foolish. Maybe those other countries don't elect idiots like her and her fellow congressmen.