On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:14:25 -0500, Omelet <omp_omelet@gmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <vd63e3lt9tg89s4514kfjeit6c43vigg0j@4ax.com>,
> blake murphy <blakepm@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 14:43:34 -0400, Peter A <paitken@CRAPnc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <9fmdnc_4KvmLrn3bnZ2dnUVZ_r6rnZ2d@comcast.com>, Goomba38
>> >@comcast.net says...
>> >> But the truth is is that not *everyone* there really "gets the service"
>> >> they want. There is rationing, and exclusions based on age and other
>> >> factors that we don't subscribe to but these are often not mentioned in
>> >> the argument for nationalized health care. There are limitations on
>> >> which doctors one can use or see. It is a different system, but not
>> >> necessarily a better one. They each have their points but no country has
>> >> managed to combine the best of each into one program.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >The US spends a lot more, per capita, on health care than any other
>> >country. The last stats I saw, a few years ago, had the US spending
>> >about 40% more per capita than Canada. When you compare waiting times
>> >and similar measures, you must take this into account. When the US
>> >system comes out as "superior" it's not necessarily because our free
>> >market health care is inherently better that the "socialized" systems of
>> >other countries - it's simply because we pour a lot more money into
>> >health care. If Canadians decided to spend 40% more on health care,
>> >their socialized system would likely be better than ours.
>>
>> and if you look at stats like infant mortality or life expectancy,
>> u.s. health care is not better than canada, britain or france.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>Blake.
>
>It runs much deeper than that. The "cost per capita" is not the real
>problem. If only it were that easy.

no, but the fact that we spend more per capita for poorer results
means our system is not 'the best.' by a long shot.

your pal,
blake