Don't twist my words. I'm rejecting the data, because I do not think these figures can be compared across countries in such a simplistic way.
Healthcare costs per capita and per percentage GDP are internationally used figures (e.g. by the WHO) because they take into the economic pain of the healthcare. Total healthcare costs per GDP per person is a percentage of income that the healthcare costs - but it ignores whether that cost comes from taxes or from direct payments. That's why I quoted the numbers.
Argument from authority. I don't care who uses them, I reject them on the basis that I don't think they provide a realistic picture. Disposable income in nearly twice that in the USA compared to the Netherlands. Then 4000 sounds like a lot all of a sudden!
Those insurances are private sector for the most part. Remember that I'm quoting pre-Obamacare figures. No government insurance there.
How can increasing the bureaucracy lead to a reduction in costs? It's physically impossible. You are going to have to pay the middle man as well, so cost will increase by definition. As a capitalist, you should know that.
That's just BS. Of course you can sue for malpractice in the Netherlands. You seem to keep flip-flopping to change the facts to suit your own arguments.
I sure hope you never ever get a malpractice in our hospitals,. The examples are numerous,.
I gave you data that contradicts you, and rather than posting your own sensible data you just say "I KNOW BEST and your data disagrees with me and THEREFORE MUST BE WRONG".
Instead, post your own data to back up your assertions. If you can't back up your opinions with recognised data and research, you're probably wrong.
Thank you for the data, but I do not agree that it disproves my point or proves yours.
Let's go on this Obamacare trip and see what happens,..