Why are U.S. citizens ignoring the 6% gain on GDP, by not nationalizing health care?

Stop! This is not about facts. These are preprogrammed little robots being used in the take over of a country.

Also, most don't know what GDP is or why it matters. If they understood the financial ramifications of nationalized health are they would not want it.

Countries with universal health care have longer lifespans.

Flase. Those ARE the facts. Single payer and government overseen health care costs half what out system does, has better public health metrics, covers e vdefryone, and does not have ghe personal bankruptcy crisis we do with millions of people who do in fact have health insurance nonetheless going into personal bankruptcy due to catastrophic m3eidaol sxpenses their insurance wont' cover. In addition of course to all the people who can't afford insurance and end up bankrupt. ThaT'S WHY WE HAVE Obamacare, TO AMELIORATE THAT SITUATION. tRUMPCARE IS THE REAL PHONY, AND WILL END UP WITH MILLIONS OF PEOPLE UNINSRED. (SORRY, /ain't no bots involved.MY CAPS LOCK KEY IS TOO EASY TO HIT UNINTENTIONALOLY). Damn, I thought I'd killed it.

No, that's just spin. Where did "the facts" come from? The people trying to push this on you.

You believe it costs you less because you're not being told what it will cost you in lower wages, higher taxes and inflation.

And isn't it funny that we went from being ranked top in health care for decades to much lower overnight the minute Obamacare was being promoted in the election?

People with no history and experience have little perspective.

Quote D45ist:

The United States has not had the best health care system in the world at least since the 1960s, if not longer. The infant mortality rate is the usual way a country's health care system is rated.

According to UN statistics, in 1965, the United States ranked 13th in the world in infant mortality-that is fewer infants died in the US per 1,000 births than all but 12 countries.

By 2005, we had fallen to 30th in the world. That fall happened well before Obamacare. Cuba had a better infant mortality rate than the US by 2005.

You don't know your facts.

You're right. We just have 8 medical professionals in the family. I'm sure they are all wrong. Funny thing is, they want a nationalized system. They know they will make a lot more money and malpractice virtually diapppears. Come to think of it, every time some kid has a rare disfiguring disease it's not the U.S. they send it to. I think it's Guatemala. Or maybe Haiti. Yeah, that's it.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot - theyre sick of being nice to annoying patients. Patient satisfaction at the hospital is a super pain in the butt.

Besides, I know you used to read (like I did) that we were always near the top in health care and then overnight we weren't. Did the entire system change overnight? No. what changed was the need to worry the people. Being played, big time. You know it even if you don't want to admit it.

Besides, I know you used to read for years, even decades (like I did) that we were always near the top in health care and then overnight we weren't. Did the entire system change overnight? No. what changed was the need to worry the people. Being played, big time. You know it even if you don't want to admit it.

Good for your family's medical professionals, but facts are facts. In 1965, when the US was so economically dominant that over 50% of the world's cars were built here by American companies, there were still 12 countries that had better infant mortality rates than the US. By 2005, there were 29. Any way you look at it, we were sliding down in terms of health care quality compared to other countries, because infant mortality is considered a pretty good measure of a country's health care system.

The US has a lot of medical research going on, which is good, but that does not mean the health care is getting out to a lot of the people.

And while you're telling me about how it's supposedly understood that the United States has always had the best health care, let me tell you a true story that occurred in the early seventies. One of my co-workers came in furious about what happened to his wife the night before. She went into a very bad diabetic state and he took her to the hospital-the only hospital in town, not another one for 25 miles. The hospital called his doctor for hours and couldn't reach him.

Since I was new to the town, an agricultural area in a county of about 40,000, I asked, "What did the doctor on duty in the emergency room do"?

"Oh," he answered, "the hospital usually doesn't have a doctor on duty. The hospital calls the doctor and the nurses do their best until your own doctor gets there, and they couldn't get hold of him all night. Slowly she pulled out of it herself with the help of the nurses and she was alright by morning."

"What's the point of having an emergency room if no doctors are in it", I asked.

"The town can't afford one. Several months a year we manage to get an intern from the Medical College to fill in". He actually thought this was an acceptable situation.

I can remember reading some retirement planning materials my parents had laying around a few years before. One of the checkpoints on it said if you are planning to move for retirement, check out the medical facilities of the place you plan to move to because, it said diplomatically, "medical care, especially in small towns, varies greatly from place to place".

So yes, D45, I am not at all shocked that the USA has not had the very best health care system in the world for several decades, if it ever had the best at all.

Yet the opposite is true for those countries who have it.

How do you explain that?

Regards
DL

Indeed, and I read somewhere that Americans are now shorter in height than the average. Poor health seems to produce shorter humans.

I should have kept that article.

Regards
DL