well ever last democrat that ran for president sure thought we could.
wonder what they know that were missing?

A sound conclusion, but realize that the marginal cost of curing one more 1000th patient is much higher than the 100th.  When a nationalized system comes in and undercuts the market price of that cure, everyone goes ahead and sticks with whats provided by a government.  That means everyone is going to use national sponsered healthcare and you run into the efficieny problem that we had at the begginning.  The only different is that you have government taking the brunt of the escalating healthcare costs.  But at least everyone gets accomadated right?

However, the U.K. has a private system that is doing great running along with the NHS in order to accomadate those who need more "appropiate care" and can shell out the dough for it. 

The only way I could see your idea working is if the government started purchasing already existing healthcare networks and then state-sponsoring them.  You can't leave a lack of care regionally so all major health networks must be purchased.  Think of the scope of that and whether our treasury could handle it. 

Either way, both either require a huge burden on the national debt or a collapse of the private health industry...which is HUGE.  So in America, who is the link?  Insurance companies. 

I say force people to buy health insurance, subsidize those who can't, take steps at the federal level to mandate certain healthcare cost minimizations like limited liability for malpractice and and the digitization of health records.  Problem solved.

Now convince the American people that this will work.  

*Oh and one more thing: Start a national catostrophic (sp?) loss and terminal ill fund for those who can't get that kind of coverage.

No, just that everything they say has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Hey, look at how the Democrats did when they won Congress a year and a half ago. I wonder if they know we're still *in* Iraq? Must have slipped their minds...

Actually, that's a really good point.

Basically, you have NO Republicans who would vote for it... and there may not even be enough Democrats (unless they can sweep Congress this year - doubtful, though).


Without a doubt.

But what is different/special about America that means it wouldn't work over there?

i keep hearing how they are so much alike.

what are the key differences that make obamas more plausible then clintons?

You're right. I don't trust government.

Maybe it's cause I'm young and have the "down-with-the-man" syndrome... but I simply can't rely on my government to make any moral decisions for me or my fellow countrymen. They've shown time and time again that they're either too stupid or too greedy to be given large sums of money - and a system of universal health care will only perpetuate this bungling band of baboons to berate and blight us.

There are other measures they could take BEFORE making it a federal program and if they even TRIED them I would have an untold amount of respect for them... but right now they're not even trying.


My issue isn't with the tax system, but rather the way universal health care is being advertised.

It's. Not. Free.

At the least, they're being disingnuous - or at worse, lying - when they say it is.


Do you mean "over here"?

If so, I already answered that:

"My point was that just because it works somewhere else doesn't mean it will work here. It's not American arrogance, but rather the understanding that the populations of each country has different issues and motivations and habits and governments... and a blanket system might not work everywhere else.

That's all I was saying."

TINSTAAFL. 

"There is no such thing as a free lunch."