You can't debunk a fact. According to your study, which I have no reason to trust over all the others, we would save money. Pretty much every other country with single payer pays less on healthcare than we do, and they have better quality.

Seniors have Medicare in the United States. There are several countries with single payer that have lower wait lines than we do. Every country rations care, the difference is, here it's based on money, and in most developed countries, it's based on necessity

All commies will swing

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ

@Neco2040 See we're back again

Btw, you should tag me after you finish your argument

Like right now, I see your tag, but I might forget to come back and look at it when you finish making your argument

There is no "fact"
I said yes the people would say money, but not 2 trillion dollars. Only 15 billion.

**"Pretty much every other country with single payer pays less on healthcare than we do, and they have better quality."**
The US really beats them on quality and waiting times as we can see by the chart. In these very countries, medical care is rationed much more.

**"Seniors have Medicare in the United States."**
So? That doesn't change the wait times of hospitals.

**"There are several countries with single payer that have lower wait lines than we do. Every country rations care, the difference is, here it's based on money, and in most developed countries, it's based on necessity"**
Except these are all the single payer countries, apart from Denmark. The countries with single payers are on the red, these are the countries that have the highest wait times out of the lot.

Not every country rations care, only inefficent state run ones. The US doesn't ration healthcare, other freer market healthcare systems like Singapore and Switzerland don't ration healthcare either and definitely not on money.

Most of the medical innovation really comes from the united states

funnily enough thats one of the least regulated out of the healthcare market

So you concede that we would pay significantly less under a single payer system? I'm not sure since you didn't really respond to that point

And it's simply not true that we have better quality. If you have to go to the hospital, they will take you here and in those countries. The difference is you won't go bankrupt in most developed countries

I said that above

We're not measuring cost, we're measuring quality

cost has no metric in this field

I said they pay less under the system we have now

And I just said, if you need help immediately, you will get it in both countries

How is that relevant to quality?

However thats not always true haha, broken legs. My friend had to wait 5 hours in A&E once in uk

@Neco2040 And remember only few countries have a single payer system

That's the main issue we are worried about, right?

Mhm?

How long they will have to wait for an emergency?

I mean not really no

Quick access for care for all reasons

Last time I showed you the chart of waiting times you talked about medicare

But last I checked medicare wasn't a hospital so it is irrelevant to waiting times.

However it does create increased demand with limited supply, and for the US to get the lowest out of the lot, means the US is doing very good with waiting times @Neco2040

Not to mention the US has many of the best medical centers in the world

for example: Cleaveland clinic, Mayoclinic and Kasier integrated healthcare system

Theres another study comparing one of these and the NHS.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC64512/

I don't care for all reasons, just emergencies, and it's the same with emergencies. If I have to wait a little longer for an elective procedure, but I save thousands of dollars, it's worth it.

Yeah but thats now

I rather settle for the best

Which is private without any state intervention

peen machine

Rip the governor of Virginia

Career is done for