> Because... guess what, with more money, you can achieve more.
Isn't the whole point here that healthcare in the US is spending a lot of money for the results it shows? If money is no problem then this is not a debate.
> Yes, France has bad results, and it is still better than what is available in the US. The fact that you have to find a worse model to compare to your country just means that you're already failing.
I dont think you got my point. The debate on socialized care in the U.S. has to compare what the U.S. would look like with it. If you compare current US with current socialized France, you will make the mistake of saying "socialized medicine is better" on that sample. Add argentina into that mix, and now socialized medicine doesn't work as well. So you need a different model to compare what is successful and what isnt on each instance.
Compare any country with socialized medicine and with a GDP per capita in the same order of magnitude as the US and it's always better. France is not an outlier.
Isn't the whole point here that healthcare in the US is spending a lot of money for the results it shows? If money is no problem then this is not a debate.
> Yes, France has bad results, and it is still better than what is available in the US. The fact that you have to find a worse model to compare to your country just means that you're already failing.
I dont think you got my point. The debate on socialized care in the U.S. has to compare what the U.S. would look like with it. If you compare current US with current socialized France, you will make the mistake of saying "socialized medicine is better" on that sample. Add argentina into that mix, and now socialized medicine doesn't work as well. So you need a different model to compare what is successful and what isnt on each instance.