You can not just import other nations healthcare systems. Those are cheaper because the doctors and nurses earn less and the service is worse.

Rob Delaney is a great example of an American who experienced both US and U.K. systems in depth. Look him up.

You posted a source yourself:

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/u-s-pays-more...

Salaries are almost twice as high. Those other countries also tend to have higher taxes and other salary deductions, so doctors earn less.

> Other countries have better health outcomes, so that pretty much kills your “worse service” claim.

No it doesn't. Not every US citizen actually receives the service, because they want to (or have to) save money, kicking the problem down the road, exacerbating the issue. Americans also tend to be more obese.

You call the "cancer survival" rate a cherry pick, but it's actually a good indicator how good the actual treatment is and how timely it is administered.

> Rob Delaney is a great example...

One guy's opinion isn't "evidence" either. I could give you individual health care horror stories from single payer countries, but that would be emotional manipulation.

This is evidence that harm is being caused. It's not evidence of a good health care system.

Why are male incontinence products so prevalent in the states? It's because men are pushed to get PSA and similar screening for prostate cancer. This means the US detects a lot of slow growing cancer that's unlikely to kill someone (which improves the 5 year survival stats), but it also means that the US then provides treatment to those men. That treatment has side effects.

That isn't the end result.

> No it doesn't. Not every US citizen actually receives the service, because they want to (or have to) save money

So by “better” service you mean no service for the poor. That’s better? This is how you spin a system with worse health outcomes into something “better” — again, without citing a shred of evidence.

You keep saying this but you've never provided any evidence, and it's clear the US care is worse across a range of indicators.

Some people say the US system works best for the rich and healthy, but even they suffer because of the weird amount of over-testing and over-diagnosis that happens.

By the way, health insurance in Switzerland is entirely private, but its affluent citizens are forced to buy insurance by law.

Source? This term was invented by Sarah Palin and was judged 2009’s Lie of the Year by PolitiFact.[1]

> In America, everyone gets every treatment

You have no idea what you’re taking about. There are 28 million uninsured Americans and millions more who are unable to afford treatment due to high deductibles.[2]

You cherry-picked one statistic, but overall the U.S. has worse health outcomes vs other high income countries while spending 2X as much.[3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/12/rates-of-uninsured-in-us-hol...

[3] https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/u-s-pays-more...

The lie (or at least misrepresentation) was that Obamacare had a "death panel clause" in it. An argument could be made that it still does:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/14/obamacare-d...

For the equivalent in the UK:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-28983924

> You have no idea what you’re taking about. There are 28 million uninsured Americans and millions more who are unable to afford treatment due to high deductibles.[2]

Your source doesn't actually say that. It only says 28.5 million Americans are uninsured for whatever reason. A high deductible implies low monthly premiums. To give the example of the NHS, it's 13% of your paycheck - you don't have the choice. If everybody was forced to buy insurance, premiums could be lower as well. Obamacare is just a "have your cake and eat it too" system that cannot work in the long run.

You "Medicare for all" proponents simply need to own up to the cost and not keep bullshitting about how some European country has better care at less cost and therefore the US could have the same. It's just not comparable. Several countries like Germany or Australia also have a public-private mix system. That option shouldn't be off the table either.

> https://www.bbc.com/news/health-28983924

What do you think this means? How are you understanding this article? Because I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Are you honestly saying US insurance companies don't do exactly the same thing?

Insurance companies cannot prohibit you leaving the country.

Neither will developed-world single-payer systems, in virtually all cases. It sounds like you're referencing the Alfie Evans case, which a) was unusual enough to receive international headlines and b) involved a terminal, untreatable minor incapable of making their own decisions.

Hell, even in the UK, you can opt for private treatment - they've got a dual private/public system, as do many single-payer systems.

Completely untrue in the UK. We have private healthcare alongside our NHS system. You can pay for it through insurance, or you can sell your house and pay for it in cash.

Doctors proposed a plan. The parents disagreed with that plan. The doctor's had to go to court to get permission to go ahead.

Contrast this with the US system. Doctors propose a plan and if the parents disagree it is them who have to go to court to stop the doctors.

I certainly don't think it's "exactly the same", but that's not my point. I just wanted you to move the goalpost from "there are no death panels" to "okay, there are death panels, but they are everywhere, potato/patata!". Kinda like this guy:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/8/1660050/-Death-Pan...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/6127514/Sentenc...