Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
You should take a look at the top ten health care systems in the world, and see how many how some form of a two-tiered system.
Lets take a look.
1. France - two tiered system.
2. Italy - two tiered system.
3. San Marino - Universal.
4. Andorra - Universal.
5. Malta - two tiered system.
6. Singapore - two tiered system.
7. Spain - Universal.
8. Oman - two tiered system.
9. Austria - tough to figure out. I assume its Universal.
10. Japan - two tiered system.
11. Norway - Universal.
12. Portugal - two tiered system.
13. Monaco - Private.
14. Greece - two tiered system.
15. Iceland - Couldn't figure out.
16. Luxembourg - Couldn't figure out.
17. Netherlands - two tiered system.
18. United Kingdom - two tiered system.
19. Ireland - two tiered system.
20. Switzerland - two tiered, but WAY more private than public.
12 out of the 20 are two tiered, including 6 out of the top 10, with one unknown.
Yeah, two-tiered health care doesn't work. Just ask all the citizens of those top ten countries that have two-tiered health care.
Oh, and the population of the top ten countries with a single payer system?
San Marino - 30,000
Andorra - 85,000
Spain - 50 million.
So sorry, but you're completely WRONG. Two-tiered health care DOES work. You're just one of those people Cowperson was talking about.
Despite the evidence clearly showing that two-tiered health care works very well throughout the world, you still deny it.
And yes dammit, I went and looked up every single country on that list and found out what kind of health care they have.
|
That's a bizarre list, Azure. It looks like you're comparing two different things: two-tier and single-payer. You need to do an apples-to-apples comparison: based on who pays and who has access--though that would admittedly be a more complicated process, and perhaps not the sort of thing where a quick google search would count as research.
Also--what makes those the "top 10"? How are you defining "two-tier?" What are the costs as a percentage of GDP?
Sorry, before you accuse me of being shrill, you'd better find some facts to back up your claim that two-tier health care is
efficient. Even if we accept your list (and for the record, I don't... France as a two-tier system? lol! Oman in the "top 10" over Sweden, Norway, and the UK?! What is it they say on the internet? Oh, yes: ROFLMAO!) it still doesn't speak at all to
my point, which was not that according to your definition single-payer health care is better--merely that as a percentage of GDP it typically
costs less.
Not to mention the tortured logic of your post: because 6 of the "top 10" health care systems are two-tier, therefore two-tier is better. That just hurts my brain. One part false dilemma, one part begging the question with a sprinkle of "appeal to common practice." You need to find some evidence that
actually supports your claim.
Until then, you're offering about as much as Cowperson did in his post. A little folksy rhetoric on top, but not a lot of filling in the pie beyond calling your opposition names, I'm afraid.