🇳🇱
> Even though I get your point on that the cost aspect is moot, I still, perhaps stubbornly and in ignorance, think it plays a factor when comparing health care between Europe and US.
Yes of course it does, but the point here is we are **not** comparing healthcare between USA and europe. I never argued "USA is better than europe".. so any effort to compare the two, while valid if that were the argument, doesnt apply here.
what I argued is that the USA system **and** the european system have both failed and neither should be emulated. So any effort to compare the two has no relevance to that discussion. Why compare them at all when we arent discussing which is better but rather why both failed?
It is clear to me both systems are an abject failure and they fail in very different ways. the USA system is a failure because of costs, and a broken welfare system that leaves many without access, this is totally value.
The european system fails because quality of care goes into the shitter when you remove competitive pressures, you get excessive wait times that result in people suffering or dying, you get violations in privacy as I mentioned, and a host of other issues.
Neither system works but if all we do is keep arguing why one failed system failed a little less than another failed system we wont get anyway. The point I am making and the point of this discussion is to point out that since both systems are failures we could and should be looking to other systems not like either of the two we are discussing here (and I already pointed out what that should be, a co-op system).
