You're assuming that UHC is the absolute best way to go at any cost. That's still up in the air. So what if Americans don't buy into it? I never said anything about the EU being evil. It is on an authoritarian kick though and it has problems of its own. The only thing the US should adopt from there is the metric system, they can keep the rest. I'm not okay with paying alot higher taxes and ruining our advancement in med for something I rarely ever use. We already have a system we like and that works.

Have you ever been to any of those countries?  Because you gave a misconception while trying to claim something else is a misconception.

Better is not arguable imo when over 45 000 people die every year in the US because they can't afford healthcare. And that number is 0 in every other industrialized country.
Unless someone lacks compassion for people who are less fortunate than yourself. Just the other day there was a story about a mother who lost her child because the ambulance suggested she take a car, because she wouldn't be able to afford the ambulance ride. Only in America...

My friend from Florida got bit by a dog and had to get a rabies shot. He's just a college student but was forced to pay over $4000 USD for those shots. And that's a lot of money for a college student. If that happened to me I'd pay $10 - $15. What a garbage system.

It's not a bit more expensive. Blahous mentioned in this report that it would cost the government at least 32 trillion extra and it would cost at least 6 trillion more overall. He said those are low ball figures and they are likely higher. No especially since it would stifle our advancement of meds, tech and medical procedures. It wouldn't end up as a net positive for everyone. In the current system, taxes are low for everyone and anyone just pays for whatever healthcare they want with no rationing. 

You're assuming that UHC is the absolute best way to go at any cost. That's still up in the air. So what if Americans don't buy into it? I never said anything about the EU being evil. It is on an authoritarian kick though and it has problems of its own. The only thing the US should adopt from there is the metric system, they can keep the rest. I'm not okay with paying alot higher taxes and ruining our advancement in med for something I rarely ever use. We already have a system we like and that works.

Actually, I live in some of those countries and it took me SEVERAL YEARS to refer to a specialist in a rare genetic condition AFTER I was diagnosed with a blood clotting disorder so what exactly did I claim was a misconception ?

The fact that the US has the highest amount of specialists across the world if not maybe even the highest in proportion to general practitioners ? Superior cancer care ? Highest possible accountability ? Best all around access to many medical imaging equipment ? Holds the most amount of clinical trials and produces the most amount of new molecular entities ?

Are any of these statements misconceptions ?

Using ideology to advance your case does not help in your argument at all since one approach to health care does not invalidate the other ... 

What some patients view as justice or injustice is not necessarily the same for doctors. Universal health care is an institution that sharply clashes with Americas existing paradigm of health care innovation as I outlined before with the potential for our future generations being robbed of options in leading edge treatments or coming in unprepared with emerging illnesses. Life perishing maybe sad but a true tragedy is when multiple generations are born into this world faced with a lack of response for an incurable condition that could've been solved far earlier ... 

Universal health care proceeds to encroach upon what lies in our investment of beyond just current humanity and it also exists as a tool to appropriate a better future for many generations ahead. Do you truly think that sacrificing the potential of future generations by establishing a counterproductive institution is worth the short term fix of a small portion of our woes ? 

More people talking nonsensical numbers like Cortez? 😂 It would increase the federal budget commitments by 32 trillion in it's first ten years.... What part of "by 32 trillion" don't some people understand? That's 32 trillion more in taxes to the middle class and rich.

The 2 trillion reduction in national health expenditure over ten years is wrong because it's based on Bernie's assumption that we can lower all payment rates to medicare payment rates. Blahous pointed out that can't be achieved. It would actually increase the NHE by 6 trillion. Other studies have similar numbers.

With Bernie level of price controls, the innovation and development of meds, tech and medical procedures would stagnate. The US literally pays it forward for everyone in terms of innovation in healthcare. Some of the higher expenses is from higher consumption of healthcare and expensive new medical treatments. The US would never allow price controls for many reasons. Even most dems don't support this because they looked at the cost analysis and realized what it would cost.

Taxes would have to go up expeditiously to pay for the same healthcare at a higher price overall. It would go up by 6 trillion in costs.

I would like to think that if you knew that I was personally effected by this that you would at least reconsider your stance.  Cost here in the states are preventing me from getting care that I need. I have insurance and a relatively good job.  And still my out of pocket is too high. With a program like UHC, I wouldn't be in pain now. 

The vast majority of countries in the world either have free health care or universal health care.  I will be damned if I let you trick me into thinking that my suffering is 'better' when the care I need is avaliable abroad.  Your perspective is creeping me out.  You make it about what you need right now without having the ability to see the bigger picture.   If you needed Health Care and couldn't afford it, would you then have a change of heart?

But I think the tides are turning and I will prove it by making you a promise.  In 20 years, if something should happen and you need medical care, you will get it here in the US without having to worry about costs because will will not stop fighting for you and each other.  UHC will be law mark my words.  People will look around and say "you know what we can do better and our neighbors are showing us a method that we might be able to make work for us".  We will continue to drive medical advancements and you will be able to afford it because the comparison you made is just a logical fallacy and not intrinsic to some threat presented by access to care. 

I would save you without a second thought. 

Social services are not supposed to be a net win for everyone. They're supposed to be a win for the lowest classes.

Btw the stifle of innovation is a great little fairy tale that's been told for centuries by wealthy businessmen to keep their taxes low and extend the wealth gap. Nice that you still believe in it.