Insurers Warn Losses From ObamaCare Are Unsustainable

[Helix]

Not much of a compromise position as the opposing position is to not have a US government run single payer healthcare system. That, and your optimism isn't proven by the exiting and undeniable existing US government run healthcare system track record.

then don't take the compromise. as i said, i'm fine with dragging naysayers kicking and screaming into first world healthcare, as we did with medicare in the 1960s.

Right, rather than listen to their legitimate concerns and objections, it's just so much easier to squash them and their legitimate concers and criticisms without listening. Gee, kinda how ObamaCare was written and implemented. So the leftists have established a track record for this behavior, and frankly, it's offensive.

You call that position as being a naysayer. Well, it's nay saying then backed up by the facts of the existing track record. I'd be more inclined to call that realism, frankly.

and i'd be inclined to disagree with your opinion on this issue.

No, my argument is that as the nation continues down the path of ever increasing government entitlements, similar to the the Denmark and EU models, that it'll probably take up to 40% income tax on everyone, that would be including the poor, to support the inefficient, ineffective government behemoth that would result, and it would still not delivery anything better than the established US government run healthcare system VA track record, which is horrible.

under the system that you prefer, we're administering primary care at emergency rooms, and then you and i have to pay high premiums and cost of care in order to fund it. that's a dumb way to do it.

Hardly interesting or germane to the argument as you are offering up the Canadian government that's running their healthcare system, and it's the US government that you are proposing run the a single payer healthcare system for the US, hardly the same thing, given the corrupt, elitist career politicians and bureaucrats that are permanently embedded in the US government. Do you really expect better a performance from them than what their already established track record has demonstrated? I'd call that foolhardy in the extreme, frankly.

yes, i think that we're capable of enacting a Canadian style health care solution, and that we have the ability to make it work.

Past performance the best indicator of future performance as being the fact, rather than the exception.

Not a gamble that I'm willing to risk with my healthcare or with employee provided healthcare, which actually works, and which many of those working want left undisturbed and unchanged.

There are those that don't have healthcare insurance, and it's a small fraction of the workforce as well as a small fraction of the population. Why not deal with that small percentage rather than re-writing the entire healthcare rules for everyone, by government force, into something far less and unacceptable to the workforce of the nation? That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, given the satisfaction that the majority of the workforce has with their current plans.

access to healthcare should have nothing to do with specific employment.

 

[Helix]

See bold. That makes too much sense.

Seriously though, the insurance companies have done such a great, magnificent job of scaring everyone against universal health care that overcoming it will take decades.

i agree.

 

[eohrnberger]

What of the"political elite" of all the other countries? Why is it that they aren't "fundamentally" corrupt also? I believe it is those that profess the ineptitude of Govt. are the primary cause of it being so. As long as we accept that meme that govt. is a bad we will be doomed to experience bad Govt. The current state of the Congress is a stellar example. I say get the money out of politics, ban lobbying, and start talking about how we can make our Govt. BETTER instead of accepting and even relishing it's failures. It is not like the private sector has our interests in mind so less Govt. will mean more corruption,hardships and inequities not less. We have to face the fact that our Govt. is all we have and dismissing it as fundamentally corrupt only plays into the hands of those who wish to enrich themselves at out expense. I believe that is the goal of this self-fulfilling prophecy.

Statism is a cruel mistress. Based on previous state-centric models throughout history, the people end up losing even more than they first imagined when they first accepted the state-centric model.

The more the government controls, the less control and liberty for the people. That is why the US is so unique in the world. It's model started out by turning this upside down, and putting the people first before government. We've since strayed from that, and the more we do, the more the liberties of the people are curtailed.

I feel perfectly fine being critical of government when it's as inept as what I've seen during my life. To not be critical of government's ineptitude, accepting it, is already the first step to accepting the state-centric model, with it's inevitable and negative results.

How about the government shows some wisdom, foresight and statesmanship before I just start believing that it can be anything but inept?

I rather doubt that it can. Government, especially the size of the US government, is by definition a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies are always self-sustaining, self-protecting, resisting any change, and continuously growing, as they are inept, inefficient, and ineffective. It's all that bureaucracies can manage. I think it must be something to do with their fundamental design and fundamental nature. So no, not a self fulfilling prophesy, but what I believe to be a realistic take on bureaucracies.

With all this pretty much demonstrated through history, and you still believe that there's reason to hope that in this particular case the US government won't react as the bureaucracy that it has become? I think you are setting yourself up to be sorely disappointed in the extreme.

If there is going to be a better way, the question to ask is what comes after bureaucracies?

 

[eohrnberger]

then don't take the compromise. as i said, i'm fine with dragging naysayers kicking and screaming into first world healthcare, as we did with medicare in the 1960s.



View attachment 67200325



and i'd be inclined to disagree with your opinion on this issue.



under the system that you prefer, we're administering primary care at emergency rooms, and then you and i have to pay high premiums and cost of care in order to fund it. that's a dumb way to do it.

I never said that this is the system I prefer, but it's the system that has historically been in place.

Again, rather than throwing out what is in place, what is, and has been, serving the needs of the majority of the people, and tweaking, revising the parts that need to be in order to serve the needs not met . . . I don't see the justification or reasonability in throwing it all out, and starting over, especially on just the belief that miraculously the US government bureaucracy is somehow, overnight, gain efficiency and effectiveness. Call me a doubting Thomas on that one.

yes, i think that we're capable of enacting a Canadian style health care solution, and that we have the ability to make it work.



access to healthcare should have nothing to do with specific employment.

Starting over from scratch, such after a devastating land war, I'd agree with you. But the system in place here in the US is one that has from it's inception been connected to employment. The inertia of such a long history isn't something that's going to be written off overnight.

Serving the needs of those who aren't being served at the moment: your example of how people who can't pay their emergency room visits is already an example of how the economically less fortunate are getting the medical care they need at no cost. I agree with you that it's probably not the smartest or best way to deliver the needed medical services, but it was brought on by congressional legislation mandating no one be turned away from the emergency room. Too bad those in congress voting this into law didn't have the wisdom or foresight to see this problem coming. But alas, we know that government and the leaders we elect are fundamentally inept.

 

[polgara]

Statism is a cruel mistress. Based on previous state-centric models throughout history, the people end up losing even more than they first imagined when they first accepted the state-centric model.

The more the government controls, the less control and liberty for the people. That is why the US is so unique in the world. It's model started out by turning this upside down, and putting the people first before government. We've since strayed from that, and the more we do, the more the liberties of the people are curtailed.

I feel perfectly fine being critical of government when it's as inept as what I've seen during my life. To not be critical of government's ineptitude, accepting it, is already the first step to accepting the state-centric model, with it's inevitable and negative results.

How about the government shows some wisdom, foresight and statesmanship before I just start believing that it can be anything but inept?

I rather doubt that it can. Government, especially the size of the US government, is by definition a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies are always self-sustaining, self-protecting, resisting any change, and continuously growing, as they are inept, inefficient, and ineffective. It's all that bureaucracies can manage. I think it must be something to do with their fundamental design and fundamental nature. So no, not a self fulfilling prophesy, but what I believe to be a realistic take on bureaucracies.

With all this pretty much demonstrated through history, and you still believe that there's reason to hope that in this particular case the US government won't react as the bureaucracy that it has become? I think you are setting yourself up to be sorely disappointed in the extreme.

If there is going to be a better way, the question to ask is what comes after bureaucracies?

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

Well said! :thumbs: I'm convinced from reading history that when a bureaucracy fails, you're likely to get anarchy first, then probably a dictatorship to restore a semblance of order, neither of which is appealing to me in the least. :no:

 

[Helix]

I never said that this is the system I prefer, but it's the system that has historically been in place.

Again, rather than throwing out what is in place, what is, and has been, serving the needs of the majority of the people, and tweaking, revising the parts that need to be in order to serve the needs not met . . . I don't see the justification or reasonability in throwing it all out, and starting over, especially on just the belief that miraculously the US government bureaucracy is somehow, overnight, gain efficiency and effectiveness. Call me a doubting Thomas on that one.

it's ok that we disagree about that. however, we almost replaced the system under Truman, and then that would be the system that has historically been in place.

Starting over from scratch, such after a devastating land war, I'd agree with you. But the system in place here in the US is one that has from it's inception been connected to employment. The inertia of such a long history isn't something that's going to be written off overnight.

Serving the needs of those who aren't being served at the moment: your example of how people who can't pay their emergency room visits is already an example of how the economically less fortunate are getting the medical care they need at no cost. I agree with you that it's probably not the smartest or best way to deliver the needed medical services, but it was brought on by congressional legislation mandating no one be turned away from the emergency room. Too bad those in congress voting this into law didn't have the wisdom or foresight to see this problem coming. But alas, we know that government and the leaders we elect are fundamentally inept.

i'm definitely not a fan of employment specific health care for multiple reasons. as for our current universal health care system, delivering primary care at emergency rooms seems to be a poor plan.

 

[eohrnberger]

It is not VA, even though you repeatedly attempt to wrongly associate it as such.

It is the MedicAid/MediCare model.

And it's working well-enough in both instances for a little over 40% of the country.

If we are lucky, perhaps. But if the government ends up running MedicAid / MediCare as much as they are running the VA, I don't see how MedicAid / MediCare single payer, government run healthcare delivery system could avoid descending into the performance as the VA.

The patients will want more of everything, the government will face a hiking taxes or curbing services, if not out right rationing them, and we'll be at the VA performance levels before you know it. Pessimism or realism?

Virtually every American signs-up for MediCare upon retirement. It's possible some extremely wealthy individuals pass on it to pay out-of-pocket, or purchase private insurance on their own, but I'm not aware of any.

If MediCare single-payer was so bad, and for profit private free-market solutions so advantageous, why would retired individuals not use private free-market insurance when retired?

Again, you're associating the VA model, along with conflating insurers with providers. MediCare & MedicAid are currently serving a little under half of the country, and are doing well-enough, saving lives and keeping Americans healthy. The point is: We currently have forms of single-payer in this country to the tune of nearly a half, and it's working. But unfortunately, it's limited due to means and age testing.

I'm not being facetious when I say this, but: "Why don't you locate some individuals on single-payer, and ask them point-blanketly why they chose single-payer over private insurance"?

It's as easy as talking to the nearest retiree. It may allay your fears.

And irrespective, if the country goes single-payer-for-all, you are by no means obliged to sign-up. Just as no one is obliged now. Carry-on with private market solutions (insurance, et al), if you so desire.

These are very good points IMO, since the decision to implement ObamaCare, after first promising single-payer, has been portrayed in two opposing fashions:

1] ObamaCare is a necessity on the way to single-payer, since the law would never have successfully passed without bringing the corporations onboard.

2] ObamaCare is a pure hand-out to the corporations, with little respect for the citizens or their future care needs.

ObamaCare was designed from the onset to kill off the traditional system and force a single-payer government run, one size fits all system.

I don't see how it's a hand out to corporations when one by one the corporations are finding out that they lose money participating in the ObamaCare exchanges, and are all defecting from them. ObamaCare has not been successful in it recruiting and enlisting sufficient healthy people, and / or charging them enough to cover the sick ones that did sign up.

I'm not sure which it is, but seeing it's a Dem plan I suspect (hope) it was reason #1.

But addressing those not receiving adequate insurance through employment, as you suggested, cannot be done without opening the floodgates for full-on single-payer. In reality, those who are impoverished and/or chronically unemployed have decent access through MedicAid; the seniors in turn have MediCare. Both are working single-payer systems. It's those who are employed with moderate incomes that cannot afford quality insurance, that have a problem. Many working in America no longer have access to quality affordable insurance - if their employer even offers a group plan! Even then, the insurance is often unsatisfactory, as it is with the base junk ObamaCare plans.

To open-up access to the current single-payer systems without the current age or means testing (which is what is needed to solve the problem above in the way you stated), would essentially open-up single-payer for all.

And that's exactly what should have been done IMO, implemented in a stepped manner over time.

More government control. 1/6 of the national economy. So to balance this out, what control that the government presently has that it's willing to give up?

 

[eohrnberger]

it's ok that we disagree about that. however, we almost replaced the system under Truman, and then that would be the system that has historically been in place.

True. It would have been. But that's not how history played itself out.

i'm definitely not a fan of employment specific health care for multiple reasons. as for our current universal health care system, delivering primary care at emergency rooms seems to be a poor plan.

 

[eohrnberger]

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

Well said! :thumbs: I'm convinced from reading history that when a bureaucracy fails, you're likely to get anarchy first, then probably a dictatorship to restore a semblance of order, neither of which is appealing to me in the least. :no:

Oh joy. Hopefully I'll be long gone when those other systems come through. I have no need to live through any of that.

 

[polgara]

Oh joy. Hopefully I'll be long gone when those other systems come through. I have no need to live through any of that.

Ditto! :thumbs:

 

[JumpinJack]

Insurers warn losses from ObamaCare are unsustainable.



Some companies have made good on their threats to leave markets already. United Healthcare, for example, left some states. Obama care supporters poo poo this, saying that it won't have a significant effect on the availability of health care, but United Healthcare is may only be the beginning. As other insurance companies fall there surely will be a crisis of availability.

The question will be what to do about that. The correct thing would be to remove government controls and let the market sort it out. No doubt, though, they will want to increase government control, and that will just mean more misery, more shortages, less availability. Liberals never give up on a bad idea.

Some have said that if you want to see what US government single payer health care is like then look at the VA. But this is wrong because the VA is not a single payer system. It bills Medicare and insurance, for example, and it relies heavily on physicians in training to keep costs down. This is fine, but there aren't enough physicians or nurses in training to run a full US single payer health care system. If the VA were really single payer it would cost a lot more, but you'd still have the disadvantages of the famously long wait lists, which has been ameliorated by sending vets out to private doctors. I'm not sure that option would still exist if we went to single payer.

I am moving to a smaller city. There are only two insurers who sell ACA individual plans there: United Health Care and Blue Cross. Neither offers PPOs. They sell only the sub-par HMO (BCBS) or EPO (UNH). If UNH withdraws from Obamacare, that leaves only one insurer selling the plans in that city. That's a bad situation. I've already experienced that few providers will take the BCBS HMO plans in my big city. It will no doubt be worse in a small city.

What a mess.

I think it's likely that UNH will withdraw from Obamacare. They keep rattling the sword, hoping for a solution. But none seems to be forthcoming.

 

[JumpinJack]

It will only get worse, there are very few models if health insurance plan networks that are profitable on the exchanges. To make matters even worse more and more providers are dropping exchange bought plans compromising these negotiated networks.

"You lie!" (sarcasm) That's what the ACA supporters say, when someone reports something negative about it.

 

[JumpinJack]

Goodness, I miss the days before Obamacare when healthcare was inexpensive and resources were efficiently distributed to Americans based on science.

Looking back, who knew that Obamacare would be so expensive that we'd regard the cost in 2013 and before as inexpensive. Indeed, it was, compared to now.

My policy in 2013 was $338 (a United Healthcare PPO). My policy now costs over $700 for much worse coverage (it's an HMO that almost no provider will take). And choices? Who knew that back then, there were a lot of choices compared to now. (There are only two major insurers, and all the plans have the same coverage, per the ACA. The only choice is out of pocket money choices for the buyer. Can't choose coverage you want, policy you want, lifetime cap you want, a PPO policy that a lot of doctors will take, etc.

 

[JumpinJack]

The system didn't work before ObamaCare.

It doesn't work well under ObamaCare.

When are we going to realize we need to skip the profiteering insurance companies, and go for single-payer/private provider?

Expanding Medicare seems like the best option. Single payer up to a point, but then people can buy on the private market to pay for what Medicare doesn't pay. Or at least part of it.

And citizens who don't think that eating argula is weird (as they stuff themselves into their electric chairs to glide the aisles of WalMart while they shop for more food).

 

[JumpinJack]

I'm not sure resources were efficiently distributed to Americans based on science before Obamacare, but I get your point.

I understand the need for insurance in life, but I am convinced it is harmful to public health to have insurance companies control the relationship between patient and physician.

True. When patients are a means of profit, they become things to manage, for the sake of making money. Not to provide a service or facilitate good health care.

 

[iguanaman]

Statism is a cruel mistress. Based on previous state-centric models throughout history, the people end up losing even more than they first imagined when they first accepted the state-centric model.

The more the government controls, the less control and liberty for the people. That is why the US is so unique in the world. It's model started out by turning this upside down, and putting the people first before government. We've since strayed from that, and the more we do, the more the liberties of the people are curtailed.

I feel perfectly fine being critical of government when it's as inept as what I've seen during my life. To not be critical of government's ineptitude, accepting it, is already the first step to accepting the state-centric model, with it's inevitable and negative results.

How about the government shows some wisdom, foresight and statesmanship before I just start believing that it can be anything but inept?

I rather doubt that it can. Government, especially the size of the US government, is by definition a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies are always self-sustaining, self-protecting, resisting any change, and continuously growing, as they are inept, inefficient, and ineffective. It's all that bureaucracies can manage. I think it must be something to do with their fundamental design and fundamental nature. So no, not a self fulfilling prophesy, but what I believe to be a realistic take on bureaucracies.

With all this pretty much demonstrated through history, and you still believe that there's reason to hope that in this particular case the US government won't react as the bureaucracy that it has become? I think you are setting yourself up to be sorely disappointed in the extreme.

If there is going to be a better way, the question to ask is what comes after bureaucracies?

The history I see is the historic rise of the middle class that FDR's "New Deal" enabled. Never before in history have so many been given the means to have so much and it came about because of the laws and actions of the Govt. I have also seen its components watered down and whittled down until we have returned to the wealth distribution of the 1920's. Perhaps you see that time as a "good old days" but you would be mistaken. Then we can look at the models of modern Govt. in Europe and Scandinavia, countries that ironically got their Constutions with the guidelines that FDR pioneered and they seem to be doing far better at not leaving most of their citizens behind like we are doing.
That is the history we should be learning from, I'm really not sure the "history" you seem to believe has ever really happened. You have been so overloaded with BS and lies that you actually believe it to be real history. Don''t feel bad, there are powerful forces that have gone to great lengths to make you feel this way. It makes it so much easier to take over a Govt. when the people are already apathetic about it and don't feel that Govt. can serve them in any way. Don't worry, there are plenty of us left who will resist further reversals of the promises made in the New Deal and of course the New Bill of Rights.

We had learned that economic security was essential to political freedom and to peace. "Necessitous men are not free men," Roosevelt taught. "People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made." True individual freedom cannot exist, Roosevelt argued, without "economic security and independence."

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all — regardless of station, race, or creed.

"Among these rights" — Roosevelt did not pretend to be comprehensive — were:

The right to a useful and remunerative job…
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.

https://ourfuture.org/20110112/FDR_The_Second_Bill_of_Rights?gclid=CNiOhvu0l8wCFQFahgodYEgCFA

 

[buck]

True. When patients are a means of profit, they become things to manage, for the sake of making money. Not to provide a service or facilitate good health care.

They have an incentive to provide service, as that is what entices more people to sign up for them.

But, what do patients become, when the are nothing more than an expense to the government?

 

[mak2]

We have to have an evidence based system, not profit based. Some of the best research in the world is coming from UHC systems because they are evidence based. You know, like science. Our old, and current system by the way, is profit based.

They have an incentive to provide service, as that is what entices more people to sign up for them.

But, what do patients become, when the are nothing more than an expense to the government?

 

[buck]

Some of the best research in the world is coming from UHC systems because they are evidence based. You know, like science. Our old, and current system by the way, is profit based.

That's a bit nebulous, but taking it at face value..... Even HuffPo disagrees with you.

Medical Advancements: Who Is Leading the World?

SJR - International Science Ranking

We also spend far more on R&D then any other country, though China is catching up.

 

[mak2]

I am not a doctor, I am an RN. We are really good at high profit healthcare. That is why we are the best in the world at cardiac caths and open hearts and expensive drugs but dont give a hoot about prevention.

That's a bit nebulous, but taking it at face value..... Even HuffPo disagrees with you.

Medical Advancements: Who Is Leading the World?

SJR - International Science Ranking

We also spend far more on R&D then any other country, though China is catching up.

 

[buck]

I am not a doctor, I am an RN. We are really good at high profit healthcare. That is why we are the best in the world at cardiac caths and open hearts and expensive drugs but dont give a hoot about prevention.

And yet.. Our medical research is well above any other country - which was your original claim.

For your new claim, sure we can get better at preventative medicine. A lot of that is culture and not likely to get a whole lot better under UHC.

Still doesn't answer what will happen when the patient becomes only an expense to the government already in large debt.

 

[eohrnberger]

The history I see is the historic rise of the middle class that FDR's "New Deal" enabled. Never before in history have so many been given the means to have so much and it came about because of the laws and actions of the Govt. I have also seen its components watered down and whittled down until we have returned to the wealth distribution of the 1920's. Perhaps you see that time as a "good old days" but you would be mistaken. Then we can look at the models of modern Govt. in Europe and Scandinavia, countries that ironically got their Constutions with the guidelines that FDR pioneered and they seem to be doing far better at not leaving most of their citizens behind like we are doing.
That is the history we should be learning from, I'm really not sure the "history" you seem to believe has ever really happened. You have been so overloaded with BS and lies that you actually believe it to be real history. Don''t feel bad, there are powerful forces that have gone to great lengths to make you feel this way. It makes it so much easier to take over a Govt. when the people are already apathetic about it and don't feel that Govt. can serve them in any way. Don't worry, there are plenty of us left who will resist further reversals of the promises made in the New Deal and of course the New Bill of Rights.

We had learned that economic security was essential to political freedom and to peace. "Necessitous men are not free men," Roosevelt taught. "People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made." True individual freedom cannot exist, Roosevelt argued, without "economic security and independence."

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all — regardless of station, race, or creed.

"Among these rights" — Roosevelt did not pretend to be comprehensive — were:

The right to a useful and remunerative job…
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.

https://ourfuture.org/20110112/FDR_The_Second_Bill_of_Rights?gclid=CNiOhvu0l8wCFQFahgodYEgCFA

FDR was showing exactly how much of a progressive he was.

One one thing. Where in any legal or foundational documents are these rights defined?
Surely there were constitutional amendments that granted / defined / acknowledged all these rights, yes? If so, which Constitutional Amendments are they?
From what I understand, it is only through constitutional amendments that additional rights can be defined for the citizenship.

 

[mak2]

This is why I quit discussing this. I said some of the most significant research in my field is in UHC, and it is. It is difficult to discuss these topics when we don't even speak the same language. The main reason for pursuing a Masters degree in my field is to learn how to critique evidence, many many well constructed studies come from the rest of the world, and since we are the only country left that doesnt have some form of UHC my statement is correct. For example, what studies have you read that indicate culture does not allow Americans to improve healthcare proactively by preventive healthcare? For a healthcare system to function it has to be evidence based, we have already seen a profit based system does not work. Evidence based systems function better than ours worldwide and are based on science, not profit.

And yet.. Our medical research is well above any other country - which was your original claim.

For your new claim, sure we can get better at preventative medicine. A lot of that is culture and not likely to get a whole lot better under UHC.

Still doesn't answer what will happen when the patient becomes only an expense to the government already in large debt.

 

[buck]

This is why I quit discussing this. I said some of the most significant research in my field is in UHC, and it is. It is difficult to discuss these topics when we don't even speak the same language. The main reason for pursuing a Masters degree in my field is to learn how to critique evidence, many many well constructed studies come from the rest of the world, and since we are the only country left that doesnt have some form of UHC my statement is correct. For example, what studies have you read that indicate culture does not allow Americans to improve healthcare proactively by preventive healthcare? For a healthcare system to function it has to be evidence based, we have already seen a profit based system does not work. Evidence based systems function better than ours worldwide and are based on science, not profit.

Then don't discuss. The fact is, the US puts out far more medical research then the countries with UHC. Those research studies are also cited far more frequently than those in the other countries.

 

[mak2]

Can you provide evidence of that?

Then don't discuss. The fact is, the US puts out far more medical research then the countries with UHC. Those research studies are also cited far more frequently than those in the other countries.