Oh statistics are great but they don't give the human side. Like how many people die of cancer waiting for treatment that won't come in time. Or like the town that holds a lottery to see who gets to visit the doctor that week. Stuff like that.
Please list for me all the things that our government does cheaply and efficiently.
Government does public service more cheaply, effectively, ethically, transparently and with more accountability than the private sector. That's what it's for. It's just a matter of defining "public service".
The statistics I posted DO give you the human side, if you have a scrap of imagination. Do I need to tell you the heartbreaking story of a
particular woman dying in childbirth for you to understand that maternal death during childbirth is tragic (and conclude that lowering maternal death rates is therefore GOOD)? Do I need to give you the testimony of someone who deeply enjoys life to understand that 3 extra years of it is GOOD?
The problem with only looking for anecdotal, single incidents that support your preexisting views is that
everyone can do it. There's no objective measure of who has a better grasp on reality. That's why you
need to look at research. Research goes a long way to cutting through subjectivity.
You have to rely on the best data you have, and draw your conclusions from that. "The human side" is important in terms of identifying with your fellow man, but it's not at all useful in a logical analysis of whether a more socialised health care system would improve service and reduce costs in the USA.
Edit: I did check with the WHO the
probability per 1000 people of dying between 15 and 60 years of age, though, as it's potentially relevant to the question of how many people die due to not receiving adequate care or timely care.
Canada: 72 United States: 109