[evgen]

This is simply untrue. Government run health care reduces costs (by eliminating the rent-seeking middlemen in the process and by controlling costs through direct fiat if necessary) and improves outcomes. Government run health care also incentivizes the government to tax behaviors and products that have negative long-term health consequences so that it can control the eventual costs that it will end up paying.

US health care is not the best in the world and has not been for a very long time. Some people may travel to the US to see a specialist, but 10x as many Americans travel to other countries to get care that they are unable to get in the US (usually due to cost.) The US usually ends up dead last in health care among the more industrialized nations and more recently was ranked 37th in the world by the WHO. Please find me a single ranking that puts US health care at the top of the list, I could use the laugh.

[jsbaby608]

The WHO list is heavily biased toward quantity of care (IE: socialized) and not quality. So, it's not really a good judge of the best quality.

If 10x Americans are getting surgery overseas because it's cheaper, this doesn't mean it's better. Our disussion is about the best quality, not on price.

Show me the studies where government-run care saves money, yet has the exact same quality as US care.

Judging outcomes and life expectancy is a red herring, because different populations have different diets, lifestyles, and genetics, which definitely leads to different outcomes.

If are sacrificing quality for cheaper care...no thanks.

I also see my mention of Surgery by committee is ignored in your comments. I'm assuming this means you know this is true. Why would I want this?