Where in the Constitution does it say the Fed gov should provide health care.

I've explained why it isn't. A commodity gives you choice. You have no choice in healthcare.

Lol, every one of those nations are ranked higher than the Us, and clearly prove my point.

Nope

 

You have exactly the same choices with healthcare that you have with any commodity. You can buy or not buy. You can buy at a certain price or you can negotiate a different price. You can buy a contract from any supplier you want.

Every one of those nations RATION health care using a metric called a QALY. It's why granny gets sent home to die in other nations but can get a pacemaker here if she wants one. It's why the baby in England can't get experimental treatment but could if she lived here.

Our healthcare system costs more because we do *NOT* ration healthcare. The amount of healthcare spending in the US is not set by a government budget - and when the budget runs out we don't tell people they have to wait till the next fiscal year for treatment! Our costs are set by what the customer wants when they want it instead of by what government will allow us to have.

Comparing the US healthcare costs to nationalized healthcare systems is comparing apples to oranges.

 

Nope. If you have a heart attack, you are taken to the nearest cardiac facility and treated. You can't shop around or negotiate price. You pay, or you die. Which is why, healthcare is not a commodity

We ration care in this nation, under a for profit system.

.
She can get one there too. You're pretending no elderly people in those systems get care.

Insurance here doesn't cover experimental treatment, so no she couldn't get it here. Unless she has tens of thousands of dollars to pay for it.

Of course we do.

Th costs are set by the mega monopolies of pharmaceutical companies and hospitals.

No it isn't. The systems are apples to oranges. One is proven superior (single payer) the other is a demonstrable failure(the US system)

 

No, I linked to me showing you why it isn't a commodity.

A tv is a commodity by definition. Healthcare is not a commodity, by definition.

 

\
No you only linked to a baseless unexplained assertion.
Health care is a commodity by definition which you have utterly failed to even challenge and cannot do so,

Go play with kids you are out classed and out of your league

 

Nope. I liked you directly to the explanation showing it's not a commodity.

Already proven it isn't. A tv is a commodity. I can shop around, compare prices or choose not to buy one at all, and still live. Can't do that with healthcare, because it isn't a commodity.

You have been thoroughly owned in this exchange. You should probably take a basic economics course, and learn the difference between commodities, and life or death procedures, and why the two aren't the same.

 

Yes you are proven wrong

 

Linked directly to the explanation of whynits not a commodity.

.
Lol

Except healthcare isn't s commodity.

Nope. If yuh have a heart attack, you can't shop around for a hospital. You go to the closest cardiac facility, via ambulance. You can't negotiate price. You pay, or you die. You can choose not to buy, but then you die.

Lol, now we both know this isn't true.

I just explained basic economics to you, and showed you what a commodity is (a tv) and what s commodity is not (healthcare)

There is a huge difference between a commodity (tv) and life saving necessity (healthcare) which is not a commodity.

 

Lol, no

 

Yes you are

 

shown you why it's not, by definition, a commodity. Sorry

 

Lol, no

 

No you did not you did not even try.

You only made a baseless assertions which has been proven false

 

yes you are

 

Sorry, shown you whynits not s commodity.

 

Lol, no

 

Healthcare? It's the section right below the one that guarantees a woman's right to have an abortion.

 

No you have no you failed miserably.

health care is a commodity which is fact you cannot refute

 

Yes you are

 

Sorry, shown you why it's not s commodity.

 

Lol, no

 

Now you are moving the goalposts. The issue was can you choose your hospital generally, not limited to just a heart attack. This is just another argumentative fallacy.

Typical.

Pathetic.

Which just goes back to the theme that you think a nationalized health care system will provide the same health care to everyone that a rich person can afford. It won't. It will provide less health care than you can obtain today.

NHS documents the use of the QALY metric. It *does* limit health care for the elderly because it uses life expectancy as the main part of the metric.

But you *can* get the experimental treatment! Several hospitals have offered to treat her. She won't get it under the NHS. Once again the QALY metric limits the treatment available to patients.

The only rationing is that which you do to yourself. The system itself does *not* ration care.

Now you are dissembling. The issue was the overall cost of our system vs nationalized health care systems in other countries! Stay on topic!

Nationalized health care systems that ration care using the QALY metric will *never* offer the level of health care we offer here. That's just a plain basic fact.

BTW, if you think you got away from having to defend your claim that health care is not a commodity -- YOU DIDN'T! We all understand that you can't defend your assertion!

 

Why would we do something as silly as that?

 

Nope just the Constitution and how it speaks three entities, the People, the States, and the United States the federal government.

 

Since we replaced the market-economy based upon the exchange of monetary value for products and services, the rule of Supply and Demand covers all its aspects.

Unless you have a better theory with which to supplant it.

That'll get you the Nobel Prize in economics! (Go for it ... ! ;^)