You've obviosly never heard of Public Goods or Market Failure.

http://www.economist.com/research/economics/alphabetic.cfm?letter=P#publicgoods

http://www.economist.com/research/economics/alphabetic.cfm?term=marketfailure#marketfailure

No one is claiming that Canada has a good model to follow.  By socialized healthcare standards they rank pretty poorly compared to the European nations, but overall still better than the U.S.  France has the system which we should emulate the most.

If you look on the column next to the article you posted, you can find this:

Cancer survival figures 'outdated and pessimistic'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1409805/Cancer-survival-figures-outdated-and-pessimistic.html

timmah just give it up. these people will not beconvinced of anything.

They think they are right, and that is that.

Economics and facts are on my side, if you bothered to read.

I have heard of both of those. Healthcare is not mentioned in your link, and I don't believe it applies.

Here are the 3 criteria listed (all have to apply):

? non-rival ? one person consuming them does not stop another person consuming them;

In the case of England, public healthcare has led to wating lists (so everybody consuming this resource is affecting other people's ability to consume the resource). This has not been corrected by market forces, because there are not enough doctors & competition to fix the problem. In the US, I can find another doctor if mine does not satisfy me. This motivates doctors to do a good job.

? non-excludable ? if one person can consume them, it is impossible to stop another person consuming them;

In the US, hospitals are required to provide service, even to those who can't pay.

? non-rejectable ? people cannot choose not to consume them even if they want to.

If somebody does not want treatment for cancer, they can refuse. If an individual wants to pursue a natural course of self treatment rather than seeing a doctor, they can. This is their decision. This aspect does not ever remotely apply to this situation. This fails.

Healthcare clearly does not fall clearly under 'Public Goods'.

Market failure does not apply, because the over the top lawsuit rulings leading to increased cost are handed out by government, not the free market (A judge is not part of the free market, nor is a jury). Therefore, goverment body (the legislative branch) needs to regulate a runaway part of government (the judicial) to fix the problem that was caused by a branch of government in the first place. This is why we have checks and balances. 'Market Failure' by definition, cannot be caused by government.

Timmah!, out.

Rock solid argument there, buddy . Posting two links that you clearly don't understand was just brilliant.

I'm done for the day, have fun ignoring facts!

I am more than willing to debate, but just because you say something doesn't make it true.  Show me one legitimate study that says that our healthcare system is better than most of the European nations' healthcare systems.

I am willing to cite legitimate research data for just about any claim I am going to make.  Just because you are unwilling to extend the same courtesy to me does not mean that I am being unreasonable.

If you actually read your posted article, you will find that they were talking about the American statistics, and the way statistics are collected in general.

"If more up-to-date information were used, the 10-year survival rates for all cancers would rise by around seven per cent, the study found.

Although the conclusions are based on American statistics, the same approach should also show longer life expectancies in Britain."

If, like the article says, ALL statistics would rise by 7%, they would all retain their place on the list. America would still be first, and England near the bottom.

I am willing to concede the U.S.A. has very good cancer survival numbers (unfortunately that study doesn't have any numbers for France, the highest ranked healthcare system in the world).

But that doesn't mean that we still aren't underperforming. Look at our infant mortality rates:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-07-29-infant-mortality_N.htm

The USA's infant mortality rate remains stubbornly high, according to a report released Tuesday.

The infant mortality rate for 2005 — 6.8 infant deaths per 1,000 live births — remained the same as in 2004, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Center for Health Statistics. Joann Petrini, director of the March of Dimes' perinatal data center, says it's disappointing that the rate of infant deaths hasn't declined since 2000.

Death rates range widely among ethnic groups, with a rate of 4.9 deaths among Asians or Pacific Islanders, but 13.6 deaths among blacks, the report shows.

The smallest and most premature babies have an enormous impact on infant mortality, according to the report. Less than 2% of births — those of babies born before 32 weeks of pregnancy — account for more than half of the deaths. A full-term pregnancy is 37 to 41 weeks. But even late preterm" babies — those born at 34 to 36 weeks — are three times as likely to die as full-term babies. Nearly 13% of babies are born preterm, a 20% increase since 1990, according to the March of Dimes.

Other leading causes of infant death were birth defects and sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, according to the report.

Public Good

Non Rival, Non-Excludable It is against the law to turn down serioulsy ill patients.  However, a hospital can turn down patients with illnesses that are not serious.  What does this mean?  A poor person will be turned away until their illness is so bad that they have to be treated, which is almost always more expensive.

Non Rejectable Hospitals cannot reject healthcare for serious cases.  Not only is it horrible for you to suggest that a person having a heart attack should reject treatment, but if someone is having a heart attack they are not able to turn down treatment.  If someone is having a heart attack and you do not bring them to the hospital or inform the authorities to come get them, you can be punished by law.

Market Failure 

Market Power Many hospitals operate a regional monopoly and have little to no reason to provide quality healthcare.  Ever been to a rural hospital?  You dont want to if you are sick.

Externalities The market does not take account the benefit of having healthy workers or the benefit of preventative medicince.

Public Goods Explained above, hospitals cannot turn down seriously ill patients and seriously ill patients cannot turn down treatment.

From the website: Abuse of market power is best tackled through antitrust policy. Externalities can be reduced through regulartion, a tax or subsidy, or by using property rights to force the market to take into account the welfare of all who are affected by an economic activity. The supply of public goods can be ensured by compelling everybody to pay for them through the tax system.

I'm going to go with economist.com over Timmah.