I didn't say they didn't exist. But neither are they the only types of people who don't have health insurance either. They make up 28.1% of the uninsured population. In factover 80% of uninsured people come from working families, 70% from families with one ore more full-time workers, and 11% from families of part-timr workers.

Still 28.1% is quite a large percentage.  20% of people without health insurance aren't citizens... and wouldn't be covered by a national health insurance anway.

Add in the fact that government run health insurance is by far the most expensive... and we've got a problem.  (Look at Medicaid and Medicare if you don't believe me.)

Directly quoted from the source:

"The WHO study finds that it isn’t just how much you invest in total, or where you put facilities geographically, that matters. It’s the balance among inputs that counts – for example, you have to have the right number of nurses per doctor."

Please read, and put your childish argument of "not valid" to rest, it's plenty valid, and quite thorough, and it just shows your system doesn't work:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html

They also have the full report all the way at the bottom.

Edit: It's under the historical reports, 2000. You can view the full text online, it's quite interesting actually.

Well, I see how government run insurance can get costly, however if the government was the one in charge of the health, people pay less per capita, and apparently the overall health is a lot better.

Also, over 40% of the households that are uninsured earn over 50k, and the current average is around 46k (give or take a few thusand, but definitely a few thusand under 50k from what I remember) for a family of 4.

There's a reason they don't conduct the study anymore.  Subjectivity is one of those reasons.

It's as if you didn't read it at all. They adjusted things overall, and the worst crime they did was ask customer satisfaction. Given their data and everything they went throguh and most iportantly, the scope. I can't imagine this being cheap at all hence the reason. If you think it's not valid that's your personal problem, it's quite valid in many points. It's not even metastudy like tat one Happiness study they did. This is hard data adjusted for well being of a nation. The US wastes more money per capita for lesser quality of service. Simple as that, it's a broken system. What else do you want for change to occur?

Yeah.. which makes you wonder if it's really a cost issue... or a budgeting issue.

You are trying to use other countries as a basis without looking at the overall differences in countries.  Such an analysis is severly flawed.

I agree with that guy before. Americans probably complained that they werent even listed in the1st draft, so they threw them a spot @ 37, far enough away to not ruffle any feathers of the countries that actuially have a GOOD health system.
There are better, more valid sources im sure, but everyone who is fapfaping over how wonderful the horrible US health system is, should watch 'SICKO'

It took me a couple of hours to read all of this thread including the sources, but now I'm up to date.

I reckon both systems can work quite good in good economy times, both can suffer in depression times. But in the more socialized version still all people are covered.

In the private system during a crisis it's a fact that less people are covered due they simply can't find a job. Many of the US-guys here can't imagine that, but in Europe we face a situation, where growth is limited due to lack of new land, resources etc. and there simply AREN'T ENOUGH JOBS FOR EVERYONE.

The US will face this part of the problem in the next years due to the recent crisis. You can put it as you want and keep telling, hey everyone can make it on is own, but there will be always people who simply can't because they're not smart enough or anything else you can think of. You can't argue this, because obviously most of you guys are benefiting because of this. As well your extreme system will just work, as long as enough immigrants come in and do the poor jobs and hope that they'll make it as well. Good old Bavarian-German saying: Economy needs idiots.

Private funding won't work as well. Who is giving his money to organisations, when he just lost half of his fortune due to the crisis. I've already read that the private organisations suffer from the crisis.

So the main problems as with all the discussions in this thread and others are:

1. Who do you trust more? Government or Companies

2. What happens with the people not able to provide their living for themselves or simply to lazy?

2.1. Would you leave the people who are simply not able behind or not?

2.2. What do you want to do to let the lazy not take advantage of the system?

So most Europeans here would basically answer this:

1. Government (not really but who else should we and at least they brought us some good education to question them)

2. We should help them in some way

2.1. No we don't want to, because we could still end up like one, if we're 50 and our companies shut down

2.2. Try to make the system as effective as possible and start to put some pressure on the lazy ones

Most Americans would answer:

1. The Free market (ignoring the opening posting which compares government vs. companies, not realizing that both are part of the free market in the Western world)

2. Let them help themselves

2.1. Private organisations will do that.

2.2. WHO???? / F... them!

Always glad for more input from you guys

You do realize even most liberals realize Michael Moore is full of,  it right....?

He's the king of cherrypicking... and if that doesn't accomplish everything he wants... just making shit up.