Well if non profit healthcare is soooo much better than for profit healthcare why do our Senators and Representatives have the best for profit healthcare? Just asking.

Yes, the gubmint also does such a fantastic job with the U.S. Postal Service.

The people that deserve the best are stuck with the worst - the VA.

If Obummer had first made the VA health services THE world-class provider (as our vets deserve) then I would not be so depressed

100%BS. Apples and oranges with regards to OECD membership. The USA is a member. Check their website. Comparing OECD to US for-profit health care is a red herring. If the author were honest he would compare the quality of for-profit vs nationalized health care, e.g., UK´s NHS. The liberals are stretching, grasping at any straw, torturing any statistic, to get you to believe they are on the side of angels and light. Don´t be fooled.
Free market competition always make goods and services cheaper, better, and more plentiful. It has never not been so. Government intervention has always done exactly the opposite. Accordingly, the only way to make quality health care affordable is to allow providing it to be profitable. The government cannot do this. Only free market competition can do this.
As the libs make practicing medicine more and more unprofitable, why should anyone be surprised that the supply of quality health care diminishes. As the libs try to make it free to everyone, demand rises because the cost born by the users is subsidized by the taxpayer. Let´s see- what happens when supply goes down and demand goes up? When the government won´t let prices respond to demand, the result is always shortages. Basic economics. We will soon be in as bad a shape as every other basket case national healthcare system if this doesn´t change.

Doctors should work for free. /s

Time...time...what is the value of time??

FTA: We spend nearly 18 percent of the nation’s economic output on health care and still manage to leave tens of millions of Americans without adequate access to care. Britain gets universal coverage for 10 percent of gross domestic product. Germany and France for 12 percent.

In the US--almost any where in the U.S.--a person can obtain an MRI or CT scan within 24 hours of knowing one is needed. With the results, one can quickly receive needed treatment.

In Canada or Great Britain, one may have to wait weeks or months to get the test, then more weeks or months to receive treatment.

It baffles my mind to think there is no difference in outcome with just this one simple difference in efficacy of treatment...how can waiting months in pain deliver "no difference" in overall health??

(FTA) On some measures — infant mortality, for instance — it does much worse.

Let´s look at "infant mortality" shall we?? In many countries (which supposedly are "better" than US) a baby does not count as an "infant" for infant mortality purposes unless it is at least 37 weeks gestation, weighs more than 5 pounds or survives without assistance for at least 30 minutes...otherwise it is simply the result of a "stillbirth" or a "miscarriage" not subject to "infant mortality" statistics. In our country, every precious wanted child is given the best care in the hopes that it can survive, ever at less than 30 weeks gestation, even at less than one pound, even if it needs resuscitation immediately.

That is not "comparing apples to oranges" that is comparing apples to empty orange peels.