>Appearantly you did not read my links at all, and draw conclusions from one individual. The facts are different. Universal health care IS working in the netherlands.
>
>I was merely pointing out that the Dutch people have diffeering opinions about the quality of their health care system. However, in your not so humble opinion, no one else is entitled to theirs because you have all the correct facts about how well the system is working.

Walter gave his opinion and shows willingness the enter a true debate. In response you quote one (for us anonymous, perhaps even made up) Dutch individual. The quote is small, generic and partly emotional. That's fine. But does that quote give you the right to jump to the conclusion that apparently "the Dutch have differing opinions"? IMO, that's incorrect. It is a fallacy.

Oh sure, the conclusion is correct. But it's a conclusion that you don't need your Dutch friend's quote for. It is true where ever a decision was the outcome of a political debate. Our health care system (or health insurance system) is, of course, the outcome of a political debate. But, believe me, the current system is not (or no longer) an issue that divides the Dutch. Most are quite satisfied with most of its aspects. Am I satisifed? Yes, by and large. But not totally. I think the Dutch system puts too much emphasis on 'protocol' and not enough on 'experimentation' (hope this is the correct English word). But in essence that is not an insurance issue. Rather, it is a critique on the practice of medicine.

Walter replied to you with arguments and a list of websites. You reacted with 'I was merely pointing out...'. Formally that sounds correct here, but you used that quote to support your opinion and it is your task to react with arguments to his arguments, either as Marcia or in name of that Dutch friend. If you're not willing to do so, then you should not have quoted that friend, in a debate.