Baby Denied Health Care Coverage For Being "Too Fat"

I wonder, in this debate, why noone bought up this:
Total Health Expenditures as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 2000-2005 - Country Rankings
which shows that U.S healthcare is amongst the most expensive in the world relative to GDP.
This life expectancy
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia
Cost per capita (pdf you have to scroll down a bit though):
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdfTo resume the links, despite the fact that the datas I have shown are not of exactly of the same periods, there hasn't been big changes in healthcare in the U.S. so I think it's still revelant. I couldn't track down better data (no time I will try tomorrow).
It still clearly shows that U.S healthcare cost is way more expensive than "socialized" healthcare but for worse results. I may understand that you would prefer another system from a public one but how can you justify keeping the one the U.S. has right now?
It costs you more and gives you less benefits.
Notice that for efficiency, U.S scores poorly on life expectancy AND infant mortality.You also need to note that for any entreprises, healthcare cost is always here even if it isn't in the form of taxes, they either need to pay their employees healthcare (something which small business can't do), or the consequences of it by having their employees less efficient because of a condition.It is on average costlier in U.S. system to pay for healthcare, the fact that you are not paying most of it through taxes doesn't mean you are not paying for it and it is still a burden whether you pay through private or public insurance.Edited by Son, : No reason given.

I think to base you desired leglislation more on invidual cases you've seen than hard numbers. You also have a tendency to generalize individual cases believing the examples you have given represents the majority of people without insurance.
Of course, I disagree with this method of deciding law, to me law should be decided in the interest of society as a whole.I personally believes that the system that would be benefit the system more as a whole financially as well as for the wellfare of people is the "socialized" one (meaning what they have in Europe). I base this not on emotion or ideology but only hard numbers. Those are some I've shown in this message:
EvC Forum: Baby Denied Health Care Coverage For Being "Too Fat"In light on the numbers I've presented, I think it makes no doubt the U.S. system is worse because it provides less healthcare for a superior cost. It just means that it's plain innefficient for the purpose of providing healthcare (but it is if you think its objective is to enrich a few only).That's why I would understand, if you are working in health insurance, that you would defend the current system (even though I would find repulsive the idea of risking people's lives for the sole objective of gain more money).
But if you do not, I don't see how you could defend it if you are not working there, because it is just plain costlier for you without giving you any benefits compared to most other OECD countries.
That's why I would like to know why you prefers the U.S. healthcare system over more efficient and less costly system.

It's not a reply to a message in particuliar but I have a question for you, what makes you think that universal healthcare will cost you more?
I already pointed it out to you that countries (like France) that have universal healthcare pays less per capita as well as a percentage of their gdp for healthcare and get better results regarding infant mortality and life expectancy. It means that on average, everyone would pay less for better results.
What makes you think that somehow, only the middle class would pay more whereas all the others would pay much less?

But why would you think that when most other countries with universal healthcare pay less??? They spend less money on healthcare for better results so why would you be paying more if you adopt a similiar system?

The proof is in statistics, countries with universal healthcare pay less for better results. One of the reasons(already cited in this thread) is that prevention costs much less than putting people in emergency. The other is that when people are sick and/or bankrupted because of healthcare, they stop being able to be productive. I suppose there are some more but I think the end results already constated speak for themselves.

Did you notice I was speaking in total as private and public added? I'm talking about the TOTAL COST of healthcare for a country. You say that you would be paying more when most other countries with universal healthcare pay LESS per CAPITA(as well as percentage of GDP).
Why would your taxes go up more than the lowered cost for private insurance(I suppose you are talking about that) when the total payed WILL BE LESS???
It's like saying that you would pay more for gaz if it is at 100$ than if it is at 50$. Why would you think that?