The lowest life expectancy, the highest infant mortality rate, and already the highest cost(relative to GDP), in the industrialized world. Somebody is making good money somewhere.

provision requiring...1099...anybody else you spend more than $600 a year with

Deer lord. I thought I wouldn't run too afoul of that, but flying from my small market usually means north of $350 for a round trip flight. And I assume that I'll have to 1099 Wal-Mart? and what about my favorite restaurants and bars? at least there I pay cash, so I can tell the IRS to prove it.

provision requiring...1099...anybody else you spend more than $600 a year with

Deer lord. I thought I wouldn't run too afoul of that, but flying from my small market usually means north of $350 for a round trip flight, and I fly at least 3 times a year. And I assume that I'll have to 1099 Wal-Mart? and what about my favorite restaurants and bars? at least there I pay cash, so I can tell the IRS to prove it.

Suderman, at reason, blogs that health insurance will cost individuals less -- because it costs taxpayers more:

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/28/health-insurance-to-cost-indiv

For a family that makes less than $33,525 the report shows that for a health insurance premium that costs $11,300 in 2014, the family will pay only $1,400 and will receive $9,900 in savings. Of course the savings are no more than the subsidy that the government will pay toward the same $11,300 policy. A family making just over six figures qualifies for “savings” of $2,300.

"The lowest life expectancy, the highest infant mortality rate, and already the highest cost(relative to GDP), in the industrialized world. Somebody is making good money somewhere."

Sigh..where to start. Okay, all the gangbanging kids in this country who tend to die by 20, lower our life expectancy. So do all the lardasses this country is chock full of. The fact that a 18 year old drug running gang member is likely to die young, does not lower my personal life expectancy which is higher here than it would be a lot of places. The fact that some constantly-eating lardass is likely to die by 60, does not lower my personal life expectancy either. So our actual, comparable, life expectancy (white people here vs white people in europe) is no lower and probably better.

The highest infact mortality rate comes from 1) gangbanging girlfriends drug users ettc who get no care whatsoever and 2) the fact that any infant who takes so much as one choking breath here-even if it's at 18 weeks-is alive, and then becomes an infant mortality stat. You will not find that same standard elsewhere. Also, we do our nest to save every baby born (except those bor in abortion mills, but I digress). A 24 weeker has no chance in most countries because they simply don't try, here they are likely to live a normal life.

And repeat the chorus: YOUR health care is not the duty of others, just as theirs is not your job.

That's probably the biggest crock people are buying: do what you want, because "Health care is FREE!"

That's a lie, and it will always BE a lie. Just wanted to make that clear.

ummm, Amy, the whole system is cracking under the weight of the freeloaders. We cannot even fully fund existing programs like social security, whic is actually underfunded this year, 6 years earlier than last projected. And did you hear Borat mention that in the SOTU sing along? We have f'ed up our largest exisiting entitlement and yet we have been given an even bigger shit sandwich by our worthless ruling class. Sorry folks, one more time, nothing short of full revolt is going to save this country from these assholes and the moronic twits that vote them in.

I will point out one other thing regarding the infant mortality stats: most countries do not have the same rigor in calculating infant mortality as the U.S. does. This article points out that preemies account for the bulk of all infant mortality. In the U.S., any baby that shows any sign of life at all at birth, regardless of birth weight, is considered a live birth. Many other countries have a cutoff weight below which the baby is not counted as a "live birth" even though the baby is in fact alive. Some other countries count babies that die within 24 hours after birth as miscarriages. And then some, like Cuba, simply make it up.

The USA health industry is among the most egregious legal rackets of modern times. It got that way because we're a nation of pussies who hie off to the doctor at the slightest reminder of our mortality. Listen to "Canary in a Coal Mine" by the Police, take a good look in your mirror, and repeat to yourself..."Not me, not me...".

Hey, was that a knock at me, Amy? I can afford my 4, you aren't paying anything of ours :) Siemens is, and they do it really well.

Not even thinking of you momof4! Just a coincidental number. Frankly, you always sound very personally responsible. I wouldn't think you the type to have kids you couldn't pay for - not for a minute.

Healthcare outcomes are repeatedly cited to claim that the expense of US healthcare is wasted, and that only governments deliver inexpensive, quality care. This is supported by an intentionally biased interpretation of the statistics.

USA Healthcare is First - Infant Mortality is Low

John Stossel presents this well. "Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health Care Study" (inside the above link) analyzes that life expectancy is a bad measure of a country's health-care system. The US has far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. Our homicide rate is 10 times greater than in the U.K., eight times greater than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.

When you adjust for these fatal injury rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation. That doesn't show a healthcare problem.

The infant mortality statistics are also carefully biased. The US counts every live birth, however premature, toward its statistics, even if the infant lives only a few hours. European countries may only count infants that live at least a day or which meet other health criteria. So, they claim fewer infant deaths, which dramatically changes the statistics for infant mortality and average life expectancy.

Critics claim that the US is spending too much compared to the numbers reported by foreign national health systems. I don't believe that those systems are including all of their costs. Government programs do not accurately report what they spend

How is this for bias? The WHO (the U.N. World Health Organization) ranks the U.S. first in specific quality of care (many factors of patient satisfaction), then lowers the U.S. rank to 37th for "overall quality" because that care is more expensive, and is not being provided as a government service (!). Then, critics cite the lower rank to claim that U.S. healthcare delivers less, despite spending more. This is ironic and fraudulent.

Andrew said a lot that I was going and better. The part about the WHO lowering the ranking because it is not government paid for is particularly nasty to me...

Another interesting one I have seen is that most (close to all for some) of the profit on many drugs comes from the US. Because other countries control the price from being too high, the companies instead charge higher prices in the US instead. The US is in effect subsidizing the cost because it might not be worth it for the companies to develop and make many of these drugs if it weren't for the US.

I seem to remember a researcher showing that if you disregarded homicides in the life expectancy calc that US had one of the highest life expectancies.