Single Payer Too Exspensive, No Way?

Look at the places that have it. It is all farty and stinky and full of bugs, and also pus and oozy cottage cheesey cellulite pushing its way out of a gut wound and kittens vomiting on flowers and a chicken drumstick with the flesh peeling back for no reason and a guy staring into a mirror while he rips his face off with his own bare hands.

As Europe has been reluctantly discovering, Muslim immigration isn't like other immigration. They used to compare their levels of immigration to America's experience with Latin Americans, but the difference is that Latin Americans are quite traditional conservatives, usually Catholics, who are culturally most like Americans from the 1950's. Hardly any assimilation is really required other than learning the language. They're the same as Spanish, Italian, or German immigrants.

In contrast, if Sweden fills up with lots of Syrians and Iraqis, it will end up with areas that are like Syria and Iraq, and centuries from now those areas will still be like Syria and Iraq.

Your mother's house has single payer?!?

Awww, the center-rightists lost and the liberals won. So you won't be moving to Sweden after all. There must be some country that shares your antiquated views on healthcare and immigration.

And yet the Alliance for Sweden lost the election. Go figure.

Can you post it again? It's the only way garamet will read it, if we are lucky.

And yet all the single payer countries (with the exception of France) manage to cover everyone comprehensively while spending 1/2 to 1/3rd the percentage of GDP we do. The OP is just nonsense and half truthes. If one of right forge actually wants to educate themselves I would recommend looking at the Dutch system as something the US should study carefully.

There is, actually -- it's the United States. Yeah, hate to break it to ya... wait. No, I don't. I'm delighted to break it to ya. You are the lunatic fringe.

Just like the party that ran opposed to the Nazis lost. Winning elections does not legitimize any party's position, now does it.

If by "comprehensively" you mean "worth frozen pebbles of shit", then sure. The British NHS is shit, the Canadian version is shit, every version of this shit is shit. It doesn't serve people. It only serves the healthcare providers and their government cronies. It is cronyism. Everywhere.

FTFY.

Your one mistake in life, as it is here on Wordforge, is in thinking you're relevant.

The "United States of Cliven Bundy" is the United States. Not the United States of Michael Moore. Not the United States of Harry Reid. Cliven Bundy is one of the people. No politician is. Look at the way politician-celebrities act. They make a conscious decision, themselves, to divorce themselves from the people.

Cliven Bundy is the people. You mock that guy, you sneer at him, you look down on him, you're doing those things to regular Americans. You talk about him like he's somebody other than you. Well, all you're doing, when you do that, is showing that you're not with us.

The average American took Bundy's side, not the government's. So when you take the government's side, you're telling us that you're not with the people. Good. That makes things nice and clear. Of course, that's probably the last thing you want to do, is make anything clear.

But when you do that -- when you sneer at "the average joe" -- just remember who it is you're trying to hoodwink. Remember who it is you're trying to bamboozle, right after you gave those same people the finger.

Yep. All three of you. Well, four, now that gturner's here.

Um, Belgium, France, Germany, Denmark, etc spending about 11 to 12 percent of GDP on health care. We only spend about the same percentage that Sierra Leon or Liberia did prior to the Ebola outbreak.

All of the people. The Feds were never given permission by the people to steal any land. We never told them they could do that. So, y'know what? They didn't have permission? They don't have any legitimate claim to it. So they have no legitimate claim to excise fees from it.

I don"t know if you are ignorant or a liar but health care spending, as a percentage of GDP IN THE US is some where between 18% to 22% depending on how you count it and many 1st world countries cover everyone, not just part of the population for between 8% to 12% of GDP and they have better health outcomes plus longer life expectancy despite often smoking more and eating more bad food as a percentage of diet. So, no, your claims are bunk.

Not even all of the people in the Red Room.

Better run. You'll miss the last cube.

naw, I think the US has the market cornered on eating more bad food as a percentage of diet.

We spend about 18 percent, and a big part of that is that we use the most advanced technology and drive much of the drug development because of our private health care system. What many European countries are seeing is health care professionals immigrating to the US where they can actually make a lot of money. US hospitals now routinely recruit nurses in the UK, offering them huge salary increases and fully furnished apartments.

Much of the European health bureaucrats have gotten so daft that a few years ago they trumpeted the fact that they had finally caught up to and surpassed the US in average height as evidence of the superiority of socialized medicine. Sorry, but if height is a measure of health success then poor American blacks have the best health care in the world, because they're the tallest people we've got.

Does that include 2014? Show your work.

Many first world countries' "everyone" is about equal to the population of a single county in the U.S.

You're acting like there are continents covering this shit when it's really closer to large cities.

Are you stupid enough to think that we're stupid enough to fall for that?

Shit, we aren't even the fattest people in the world any more.

Think about that. As fat as all of us American lard asses are there are countries with more fat people.

I love that. It's honestly amusing as hell.

"We want to give the insurance companies a guaranteed, locked-in revenue source, by claiming that they shouldn't make money. We're going to wangle the fuck out of an industry, to your detriment -- now you prove why we shouldn't. We're the ones who want to change things for the worse, you do all the math."

The absolute hubris behind this mindset has to be admired for its chutzpah, if for nothing at all else.

From what I heard both the French and the Germans eat more saturated fats as a percentage of diet but they still manage to eat fewer average calories and exercise more so they stay thinner. Or at least the French stay thinner; the Germans are lard butts.

Recently the whole saturated fat thing went out the window. It turns out that you make your own.

ETA: MedicalNewsToday article

A new controlled diet study has found that increasing the levels of saturated fat in the diet does not lead to increased levels of saturated fat in the blood.

...

According to senior author Prof. Jeff Volek, the study, "challenges the conventional wisdom that has demonized saturated fat and extends our knowledge of why dietary saturated fat doesn't correlate with disease."

In the study, published in PLOS ONE, the authors state that current dietary guidelines in the US recommend the majority of calories should be acquired from carbohydrates, with only 7-10% of total energy coming from saturated fats.

To achieve this, foods containing saturated fat - beef, eggs, high-fat dairy products - should be limited. Typically, a reduction in these foods results in an increased consumption of carbohydrates.

"People believe 'you are what you eat,'" says Prof. Volek, "but in reality, you are what you save from what you eat. The point is you don't necessarily save the saturated fat you eat. And the primary regulator of what you save in terms of fat is the carbohydrate in your diet."

That more people have access to healthcare? That costs are decreasing? That the overall economy is flourishing? Or all of the above?

You really have no clue, do you? Insurers are supposed to duke it out in the marketplace and in fact do just that. Let me guess, you think Obamacare is some sort of insurance policy that steals customers from private insurance. Arguments from ignorance require no response but laughter.

The Dutch system is excellent, and what I would like to see in this country. But as long as conservatives drag their feet on any meaningful market based reforms, we will ultimately get single payer. Guys like Castle and Federal Farmer make it inevitable.

So you agree with me that the Sweden article you posted wouldn't apply even if it weren't already debunked. You're slipping -- that only took a few pages for your failure to be complete.

Don't worry America, one day when the Mexicans are in charge you'll get a health care system as good as Canada's.