Yes sorry, I put words in your mouth.

It is a waste of time I.M.O.(though I appreciate your effort) to compare health care systems w/o first arriving at some sort of consensus about what we expect from a health care system. If !2th and Rebellion define a successful health care system as one that is designed to make money for shareholders by denying care and leaving many with capricious care and/or financial ruin -well this is the system for them. We have not defined the terms of the debate but as soon as I saw cancer outcomes as a barometer for comparison, I was sure that something smelled. Cancer care and diagnosis is still in the toddler stage. Our current treatments will someday appear as sophisticated as the "bleeding" cure appears to us, now. I would rate a successful healthcare system on public health measures, infant mortality, access and responsiveness across income groups, the overall health of the population. Whatever the Brits spend , I guarantee that the U.S. spends more because it always costs more to hire fleets of paper pushers, advertising, over-compensated C.E.Os and still have lots left for the shareholders.

12th, there is ample evidence that single payer system health care is more efficient than privatized health care. I am outa here for a couple of weeks but I would be happy to review any evidence to the contrary, when I return.

Health spending is rising faster than incomes in most developed countries, which raises questions about how these countries will pay for future health care needs. The issue may be particularly acute in the United States, which not only spends much more per capita on health care than any other country, but which also has had one of the fastest growth rates in health spending among developed countries. Despite this higher level of spending, the United States does not achieve better outcomes on many important health measures. This paper uses information from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)1 to compare the level and growth rate of health care spending in the United States with other OECD countries. In an increasingly competitive international economy, policymakers in the United States will need to be aware of how the health spending and spending growth in the United States compares to that of other nations.

It is reasonably well known that for some time the United States has spent more per capita on health care than other countries. What may be less well known is that the United States has had one of the highest growth rates in per capita health care spending since 1980 among higher income countries. Health care spending around the world generally is rising at a faster rate than overall economic growth, so almost all countries have seen health care spending increase as a percentage of their gross domestic product (GDP) over time. In the United States, which has had both a high level of health spending per capita and a relatively high rate of real growth in that spending, the share of GDP devoted to health grew from 8.8% of GDP in 1980 to 15.2% of GDP in 2003 (Exhibit 5). This almost 7 percentage-point increase in the health share of GDP is larger than increases seen in other high-income countries.

This paper analyzes data on health spending and national income from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries with above-average per capita national income. We exclude countries with relatively low per capita income because they have fewer resources to devote to health care and other necessities and do not provide a reasonable comparison for spending in higher income countries.2 We have provided footnotes where the OECD data show a break in series, indicating that the OECD data may not be comparable over the entire period that is being analyzed; Germany is excluded from the time series exhibits because its data are not comparable over the time periods due to reunification.3 The level of total health expenditure per capita is shown in U.S. dollars, adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP).4 Data on growth rates and health care as a percentage of GDP are based upon the national currency of each country, with growth rates adjusted to remove the impact of general inflation.5

Exhibit 1
Total Health Expenditures Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2003:
Canada $2998
U.K. $2,317
U.S. $6711

The info is a little outdated but I think the relative expenditures still hold.

I have yet to see any of this "ample evidence". Do you have any answer to my question as to why you think the govt is the answer?

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

Statistical evidence was provided. I guess higher death rates doesn't count for you. I don't have to accuse Moore of anything, his status as a propoganda spreader is fact. As were the stats in that article.

Which is exactly why I said we should work to cover those who are not covered but haven't continually made bad choices. Besides having failed to provide evidence that the government would somehow make all of the above better (I have similar stories under government travesty healthcare), you have failed to provide evidence everyone will be on the losing end. Millions in the US have had no issues with the system.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

It's incomprehensible why anyone would believe the government is better at anything by itself. Some are enslaved to government services. Welfare and other government programs created a generation unable to help itself.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

Versus having the money stolen, lost, or otherwise swindled like with government care. And profit for shareholders for all insurance companies is a myth. Harvard Pilgrim, top rated HMO, was in receivership (bankruptcy equivalent) as recently as two years ago. Mutual companies are owned by policy holders thus excess profits are returned to them. Several BCBS across the US have struggled at one time or another. Tufts is struggling now. Insurance companies getting rich is a great myth, one I'm sure Moore pushed in his propoganda piece.

More proof then that US ingenuity provides better care than most other countries. And why not cancer as a barometer. I don't see you complain when stats that tell you what you want to hear like heart attack rates are provided.

The government needs their paper pushers too, the difference is with the government they're still with one hand while pushing papers with the other.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.