I think the problem is that you've made assumptions about context external to the dialogue text. I stick to the text rigourously. Thus, while you were referring to some study in one of your links, I was responding that there was no study mentioned in the text of the dialogue. Because I don't read blogs.

Firstly, drop the Commonwealth Fund thing. Seriously, they're not important, I already told you that I had no commitments to them. I didn't realise that American Conservative/Libertarians hated them so much. They are registered private foundation and are not allowed to engage in political advocacy, but whatever. This has nothing to do with the subject, which is that American healthcare is measurably poor. To this end, I've noted the WHO WHR 2000 report and the OECD datasets.

You keep droning on about studies which self-advertise with some preset agenda. This again I think reflects more than anything your paranoid, conspiratorial worldview. It's particularly irrelevant since I've never made any reference to national "studies", as you like to call them, but reports and statistics by multinational organisations, that is the WHO and the OECD.

In summation: Stop bleating about the stupid Commonwealth Fund, I'll drop them. It doesn't matter since the WHO and OECD data basically report the same thing anyways.

Just so your aware, highly accredited people and organizations are not "blogs". A blog is something like Tumblr, you know, a place that doesn't have decades of awards for quality and intelligence.

Jesus, you're really overrating them. That one magazine seemed to be a tabloid in anything but name, John Stossel is a television personality, and Forbe's Magazine just a common-level business magazine. All of which publish material in periodic format like a blog.

You might be interested to know that blogs have been around long before Tumblr. Old old style format is basically what the blog section of magazines look like now.