Anyone who wants healthcare and isn't afraid of work can have healthcare.  Go work full time at mcdonalds if you need to.  They have great benefits.  The only people without health care are people who screwed up somewhere along the line.  I was in that category for a while, and yes it sucked.   But it was my own fault, just like everyone else in that category.

I think that article prooves my point far better than yours, it even says it in the opening statement:

"steep monthly premiums, higher copayments, outrageous deductibles and fewer benefits. Moreover, the process can be tedious and downright confusing — which helps explain why there are some 50 million Americans under age 65 who went at least six months without coverage"

Also THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE after your cherrypciked number:

"While individual plans may appear cheaper, individuals have to pay the entire premium on their own. And as we mentioned earlier, those in restricted states, and older individuals with health issues, can expect to pay a lot more. "It's not uncommon to hear of people paying $10,000 to $12,000 a year," says Families USA's Stoll."

Selective reading at its best?

Considering he had no prior knowledge, and that no one used it for anything yes, yes it does. It basically means that the knowledge was lost after Duchense didn't spread it out enough.

Your opinions is not only pointless to discuss but is based on some heavily flawed arguments. Discuss if you wish.

lol, your funny.

Yes, you could pay $10,000 if you have health issues. But you have health issues, who should pay it?

I have a car that cost a lot more to fix then some people. Should we spread that cost around too?

And thanks for proving that a LOT of people probably pay LESS than the 218 a month, being a lot pay a lot more.

I think you have selective logic.

Another thing I just thought of, again just throwing this into the debate, is insurance really the only way to be covered for health care? I mean all insurance does is pay out expenses you rack up... There are other ways to set aside money for health care, like a Health Savings Account. You don't pay much if anything for a HSA and you keep all the money (tax free I might add) to pay for medical expenses. And if you don't use it, you keep it for retirement.

Come to think of it, I nearly signed up for a HSA a couple years ago... I think it is a better plan to have an HSA and a low coverage emergency only insurance. After all, insurance was only intended to be used for medical emergencies.

And what will that 218 a month get you? Will it even cover a simple X-ray? Not to mention what happens when the insurance companies start finding loopholes and start finding ways of making you shoulder every single expense even when you are paying for insurance. Also notice how much deductible this 218 dollar coverage gets you.

Your logic is the one that seems to be lacking in this debate, if anyone's.

One could argue that the Healthcare across the EU has certainly gotten worse since 2000 as well.  The fact that this data is from almost a decade ago is precisely why it's impossible to argue.  Sure the WHO is credible, but they compiled this list in 2000 then magically stopped because of it being too hard to determine.  That statement alone shows the general subjective nature of these 'rankings' and really goes to show that it's all very, very subjective and hardly verifiable.  

I would also argue that there is certainly a significant flaw in their methodology as it pertains to the size/population of a country and the issues that that causes. There also is a significant flaw in their methodology as it pertains to personal care and health. 

1 France           65,000,000
2 Italy              60,000,000
3 San Marino           30,000
4 Andorra                70,000
5 Malta                   403,000
6 Singapore         5,000,000
7 Spain               40,000,000
8 Oman                 3,000,000
9 Austria               8,000,000
10 Japan           127,000,000
11 Norway            5,000,000
12 Portugal         11,000,000
13 Monaco               32,000
14 Greece           11,000,000
15 Iceland                300,000
16 Luxembourg        500,000
17 Netherlands   16,000,000
18 United Kingdom        61,000,000
19 Ireland              4,000,000
20 Switzerland      7,500,000
21 Belgium          10,000,000
22 Colombia        45,000,000
23 Sweden            9,000,000
24 Cyprus                 800,000
25 Germany         82,000,000
26 Saudi Arabia    27,600,000
27 United Arab Emirates  4,000,000
28 Israel               7,000,000
29 Morocco          34,000,000
30 Canada          33,000,000
31 Finland             5,000,000
32 Australia         21,000,000
33 Chile               16,000,000
34 Denmark           5,000,000
35 Dominica              70,000
36 Costa Rica        4,200,000
37 United States of America   303,000,000

For example,  there isn't one country that deals with the same land area and population size as the United States,  Not even close.  And the ones that do have comparable amounts of both aren't anywhere to be found on this chart.

People in the USA own more land than most of these countries.  This results in people being more sprawled out across the country.  Being further separated leads to the necessity of traveling further.  (Not nearly the same issue in a lot of smaller countries).  Which provides more usage of vehicles, cars , public transportation ,airplanes, etc.  You see in many of these smaller places where a large percentage of the population lives in close proximity.  This promotes healthier lifestyles (Like Walking or Riding Bicycles).

Additionally,  the percentage of elderly (65 and older) in the United States accounts for (13% of the population alone or around 40,000,000). Now this percentage alone isn't as much of an issue but combined with the previous two issues of sprawl around the country and maintaining these elderly as well as the expected significant increase in elderly.

And bias would be very easy to argue for the WHO considering it's located in the heart of Europe.

I would assume difficult to determine would mean more along the lines of "costs too damn much to do again" over difficulty to get the results. And yes, you compare the European populations, but add them all up, and notice 15 or so European nations are in front of the US. I'm guessing that if you add them all up it would show more people are getting better socialistic medicine for cheaper.

As for distance, please refer to this chart:

http://rankingamerica.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/chart-of-urban-populationxls.jpg   (I have no fucking clue how Hong Kong has over 100%)

If anything people in the US are far closer than people in Europe are, seeing how many of them are in cities, closer to hospitals. Also are you saying there are more elderlyin the US than in the EU? Europe had just as big of a baby boom as the US did in the 50s and 60s.

Edit: Forgot to mention, the WHO is part of the UN, based in NYC.

Edit2: Also forgot that it was in Switzerland, the most neutralcountry in Europe you could think of.

Well, those numbers don't seem very accurate to me.  These numbers are much higher, and are for employee coverage, which is typically cheaper than private health insurance:

http://ehbs.kff.org/?page=charts&id=1&sn=6&p=1

The average annual premium for single coverage in 2008 is $4,704 and the average annual premium for family coverage is $12,680. These amounts are each about 5% higher than the premium amounts reported in 2007.

Smaller firms (3-199 workers) have a lower average family premium ($12,091) than larger firms (200 or more workers) ($12,973).

Premium Costs for Single and Family Coverage

• The average cost of premiums for single coverage in 2008 is $392 per month or $4,704 per year (Exhibit 1.1). The average cost of premiums for family coverage is $1,057 per month or $12,680 per year (Exhibit 1.1).
  
  
• The average premiums for covered workers in HDHP/SOs are lower for single and family coverage than the overall average premiums for covered workers (Exhibit 1.1).
  
  
• The average premium for family coverage for covered workers in small firms (3-199 workers) is lower than the average premium for workers in large firms (200 or more workers) (Exhibit 1.2). The average single premiums are similar for covered workers in small and large firms.
  
  
• Average single and family premiums for covered workers in the Northeast are higher than the average premiums for covered workers in other regions. Average premiums for single and family coverage are lower in the South than in other regions (Exhibit 1.3).
  
  
• Premiums also vary significantly by plan funding and workforce attributes.
  
  
  • Average single and family premiums are higher for covered workers in partially or fully self-funded plans than in fully insured plans (Exhibits 1.5 and 1.6).
    
    
  • Covered workers in firms where less than 35% of workers earn $22,000 or less annually have higher average single and family premiums than covered workers in firms with a higher percentage of workers earning $22,000 or less annually (Exhibits 1.5 and 1.6).
    
    
  • Average family premiums are higher for covered workers in firms with at least some union workers than for covered workers in firms with no union employees (Exhibit 1.6).
    
    
  • Covered workers in firms where less than 35% of workers are age 26 or younger have higher average family premiums than covered workers in firms with a higher percentage of workers age 26 or younger (Exhibit 1.6).
    
    
• There is a great deal of variation in premiums across workers and firms for both single and family coverage.
  
  
  • Eighteen percent of covered workers are employed in firms that have a single premium that is more than 20% higher than the average single premium of $4,704, and another 22% of covered workers are in firms that have a single premium that is more than 20% less than the average single premium (Exhibit 1.7).
    
    
  • For family coverage, 18% of covered workers are employed in a firm that have a family premium that is more than 20% higher than the average family premium of $12,680, and another 20% of covered workers are in firms that have a family premium that is more than 20% less than the average family premium (Exhibit 1.7).

And even these 2004 numbers are significantly higher than the ones you posted:

http://www.kff.org/insurance/chcm090904nr.cfm

In 2004, premiums reached an average of $9,950 annually for family coverage ($829 per month) and $3,695 ($308 per month) for single coverage, according to the new survey. Family premiums for PPOs, which cover most workers, rose to $10,217 annually ($851 per month) in 2004, up significantly from $9,317 annually ($776 per month) in 2003. Since 2000, premiums for family coverage have risen 59%.

Company healthcare probably should be more expesive then regular healthcare.

I pay about $100 a month for healthcare that i got myself and i get some amazing benefits.


Think about it Company healthcares are negotiated both with their union/employees and insureres. Which means companys are locked in to whatever they agree opon for the length of the contract.

While me. My old insurnace jacked up it's premiums by like 50 dollars within a year. So I canceled and signed with a competitor who offered more benefits for less money.

If companys get their rates jacked up.  There isn't much they can do.  Furthermore when the contract is up.  More often then not labor leaders insist on keeping the same insurance because they want to keep what they're used to.  At GM they had Blue Shield... when Blue Shield didn't even exist anymore!

Also private healthcare is priced for... people who don't have jobs with healthcare.  Which more often then not are crappy jobs.