I didn't give my anecdotes. Probably because they are, in true policy creation, completely fucking meaningless next to raw statistical data. I'm sorry if that's blunt or insensitive, but that's how governments overseeing hundreds of millions of people need to function.ShadowKatt said:Actually , that doesn't sound anecdotal, it sounds more like gross generalizations and veiled political attacks (especially that bit about the "Death Panels". How quaint.)
My sister became very ill while traveling in Thailand. She was able to see a doctor almost immediately. He prescribed antibiotics, and she picked them up roughly 10 minutes later. The entire experience cost her almost nothing.I really don't care about your arguement. As I said I've seen it first hand and as such I will oppose the entire "Universal Health Care" deal until I see a more viable option. We have a model right now where the poor cannot afford non-critical medical care, or we can switch to the socialized health care that tries to treat everyone and winds up treating no one. Or we can look for a third option that actually works. For now, I'll stick with what has worked.
My mother was traveling with an ultimate frisbee team in Prague. One of the players badly broke his ankle during a game. They were able to see a doctor within the hour. He set the leg, attached the cast, and sent the player on his way. His bill? Under $20, and that was mostly for the pair of crutches he got to keep.
I have more.
Point is: if I had this evidence to support my own personal views, but a grip of statistical analysis showed that my experiences were aberrations, and that the far more effective and economically viable system was privatization, I'd be able to grasp that truth and move past my own limited point of view. Given the complete opposite is true, why can't you do the same?