[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Huzurdaddi:
They are indeed evidence. They are not statistics.

Sure they are evidence. They also happen to be useless in drawing conclusions about the actual state of something.

Google it yourself willfully ignorant boy.

Failure to provide the evidence to support your own claims has very little difference from being unable to provide evidence to support your own claims. Failure to provide evidence indicates that the evidence doesn't even exist in the first place.

Lawsuits ( a ) give compensation for damage , ( b ) provide a strong disincentive to perform malpractice and ( c ) remove people who commit malpractice from the medical system.

Yes, they do all of these things. In fact, they provide such a strong "disincentive to perform malpractice" that many doctors are leaving the profession.

But, of course, you know this. Much like you know that Canada's health system is worthless compared to the US system *if* you can pay in the US.

No, I don't "know" that the U.S. system is superior if one has the money. Are you telling me that you would rather get treatment for Parkinson's disease in the U.S. instead of in Saskatchewan? After all, one of the leading Parkinson's researchers in the world works in Saskatoon. I also take it that you would ignore the Edmonton protocol for implanting pancreatic islets into diabetics. I can name numerous examples of areas where you would be better off receiving treatment in the Canadian health care system, which blows your claim that the Canadian system is "worthless" out of the water.

You've yet to do anything other than continually repeat the assertion that "Canadian Health Care sucks". You haven't made a useful argument until you can back up your statement with something more than "Because I say so".

Ahh I see your definition of meaningless. If you do not understand something it is meaningless. If you disagee with something being evidence it is not. I think I start to understand.

Right, so the acronym doesn't actually mean anything. Thanks for clearing that up. If you aren't willing to define your terms, then your argument is worthless.

And I explained why the statistics you provided show that free medical coverage increases aggregate health figures.However that does not mean that the health system is "better." Of course as always you fail to realize this.

Aggregate health statistics are the _only_ meaningful measurement of whether a health care is better at serving a population.