There was "evidence" for that in ACA.............Nope, just not "single payer" England's NHS sucks by any/all measures, and most if not all government's universal care is supplemented with private insurance by any/all that can afford it. Thus still again the poor get less.
In England the government operates the entire health system, doctors, hospitals the whole lot. That is not single payer. Single payer is where the government simply provides insurance, i.e. reimburses private doctors and hospitals. So whatever the state of England's system that is irrelevant.
And I'd still like to hear your solution to our healthcare problems.
"98,000 in the US".............."What’s the right number? Nobody knows for sure"...... same article. (my "usual obfuscation"? LOL), and our population is 7 times that of England, and don't have the benefit of "single payer" ;-)
The English government does not operate the entire health system. There are private facilities, and private insurers, as I stated earlier, for those who can afford it....................................And I'd still like to hear your solution to our healthcare problems...What healthcare problems in particular?
The England NHS is a network of government run hospitals and doctors. That is not single payer. Nobody is talking about implementing that form of healthcare in the US.
The millions of previously uninsured and the fact we spend at least twice as much per person on healthcare as anybody else in the world.
"we spend at least twice as much per person on healthcare as anybody else in the world." We have over twice the advanced diagnostics than the rest of the world, MIRs etc. We treat more "at risk pregnancies", more cases that are death prognosticated", in general more "high risk procedures/cases" than any other nations in the world.
They mean more because there is evidence they work.
I'm curious, do you have a preferred method of reducing healthcare costs and providing healthcare for the previously uninsured?
There was "evidence" for that in ACA.............Nope, just not "single payer" England's NHS sucks by any/all measures, and most if not all government's universal care is supplemented with private insurance by any/all that can afford it. Thus still again the poor get less.
Evidence that England's NHS sucks? Real evidence, not your usual obfuscation.
In England the government operates the entire health system, doctors, hospitals the whole lot. That is not single payer. Single payer is where the government simply provides insurance, i.e. reimburses private doctors and hospitals. So whatever the state of England's system that is irrelevant.
And I'd still like to hear your solution to our healthcare problems.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/16/nhs-deaths_n_3602472.html, is the latest, the list is huge and easily accessible, if one actually cares. Obfuscation? You obviously have me confused with someone else.
98,000 in the US
"98,000 in the US".............."What’s the right number? Nobody knows for sure"...... same article. (my "usual obfuscation"? LOL), and our population is 7 times that of England, and don't have the benefit of "single payer" ;-)
Benefit - exactly. The US is a third world country when it comes to looking after its citizens.
Evidence that "The US is a third world country when it comes to looking after its citizens.",Real evidence not your just displayed "obfuscation".
Six Ways America Is Like a Third-World Country
I ask for evidence, you cough up Rolling Stone not Salon? LOL ............ Nitey nite.
Once again obfuscating, not responding to the evidence. Goodnight troll.
Name calling..... tsk, tsk;-)
The English government does not operate the entire health system. There are private facilities, and private insurers, as I stated earlier, for those who can afford it....................................And I'd still like to hear your solution to our healthcare problems...What healthcare problems in particular?
The England NHS is a network of government run hospitals and doctors. That is not single payer. Nobody is talking about implementing that form of healthcare in the US.
The millions of previously uninsured and the fact we spend at least twice as much per person on healthcare as anybody else in the world.
"we spend at least twice as much per person on healthcare as anybody else in the world." We have over twice the advanced diagnostics than the rest of the world, MIRs etc. We treat more "at risk pregnancies", more cases that are death prognosticated", in general more "high risk procedures/cases" than any other nations in the world.
That's not an answer to my question.