But number one, in cost.
Here for quality rankings.
Here for cost rankings.
France has costs, but it has quality with it.
We don't.
Additional helpful links to be informed, here (it pays to know who Rick Scott is to recognize his fingerprints on stuff), here, here (study detail), and then here, here, here and for a grab-bag see what you find site - here, to round things out.
If any reader knows of any more recent CREDIBLE study than what I have found to list, please send an email.
_____UPDATE_____
A poll, here plus info on sponsorship, MoveOn.org, here. The questions look fair to me.
If anyone has knowledge of other recent poll results - in detail, not op-ed commentary interpreting something without giving the data, please email.
Here, on thoughts concerning fair polling; and with links to three polls the author deems fair, (or at least interesting), here, here and here.
I am not suggesting that people who think need polls telling them what to think. Instead, I suggest if you have a nagging distrust of the stories being presented by FOX or MSNBC, or Strib, or other mainstream media as reflective of public opinion, at least there are polls you can look at to see evidence related to any such beliefs.
Not that the coverage from mainstream media itself is bad evidence of shortcomings, but this polling stuff is additional proof.
Then, ask yourself: [1] why is a thousand page bill being waved around, in differing versions when fewer pages would do; [2] why was there that big rush to pass a thousand pages of stuff before the August recess; [3] why is the press not telling you much about what's in the thousand pages so you don't have to slog through the tedious turgid language on your own [hint, they know you won't do it on your own, start there in thinking about the question]; [4] why is the press instead giving you the he said, she said People-magazing-like version of covering the posturing by the politicians; [5] what are they all up to; and [6] with a plan that has everyone having to buy insurance coverange why do you reckon the insurers are at pains to sound as if they are unhappy with all the additional money that will be rolling in from that, or as if they are unaware of that being an outcome?
Ask more questions of yourself if you like, but think about my six starting queries.
Ultimately - Who's trying to pull wool over our eyes, and if you say "both political parties" you may be onto something and if you also say "moneyed interests" and "the health-industrial complex" then you are on a roll, and having a good start at humming the right tune.
If you say, "Where's rope, where are they, where are the lamp posts," you may be approaching a proper mood to confront political realities.
Perhaps, but perhaps not. Some might say that kind of thinking is extreme - and that it is better to stay with the status quo.
Some might say, "Trust me." Do so, if it at the same time fits your trust in your own judgment and ability to figure things out, but not otherwise.
______FURTHER UPDATE______
TRY THIS: Why do you figure they all - the politicians - started by saying single payer is off the table as an "unrealistic" option? Were they talking about its merits, or merely about their attitudes and allegiances when going into their so-called "reform" mode? I have no answer but that they were deliberately setting up a rigged casino from the start; and why, because they deserve the popularity and trustworthiness ratings the public gives them.
