re: #594 EmmmieG

That didn’t tell me wait times. That told me whether or not they liked their systems. The true test, both for over here and over there, is to ask people who have experienced both.

Actually, it did. It’s in one of the many, many tables: it asked about wait times before seeing a doctor. Every other nation but the US had a better score.

Some of the other systems are hybrids, aren’t they? Or, which ones are hybrids?

Many, like ours, are hybrids, yes. But the difference is that they are universal, and ours are not.

If I am not mistaken, you have your basic level of care, then you get private to cover more than the basic level.

That would be a vague and inadequate summation of the case in many countries. That document details the differences rather well, it’s a very valuable resource for anyone interested in this topic.

Yeah, it’s an anecdote, but there was nothing heartbreaking about it. His condition was easily curable, and the test was totally unnecessary.

I am saying that it could have been a heartbreaking choice. It often would be.

Again: You are acting as though consumers of health care would have access to all information necessary to make informed consumer decisions about health care. This is fallacious, and I’m wondering why you think it’s possibly true.

To evaluate the health care delivery at two different medical centers is an enormous project; why do you think an average consumer would be able to do it?