>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

That's the biggest misconception that all you non-Americans need to get your facts straight about. Canadians & Europeans look down their noses and say, "Oh how awful that you evil American's don't 'cover' all your people..." Bullcrap. There is a difference between being 'covered' and being TREATED. I would venture to say that the end result of the evil American system is that far more people are TREATED than in the precious socialized countries where everyone is 'covered' but is routinely denied treatment. I'd rather have a system where 42 million people weren't 'covered', but almost everyone was being treated as opposed to a system where everyone was 'covered' but that people are not treated.


Via Wiki

One complaint about both the U.S. and Canadian health care systems is waiting times, whether for a specialist, major elective surgery, such as hip replacement, or specialized treatments, such as radiation for breast cancer. Wait times in each country are affected by various factors. In the United States, access to health care is primarily determined by whether a person has access to funding to pay for treatment and by the availability of services in the area and by willingness of the provider to deliver service at the price set by the insurer. In Canada the wait time is set according the availability of services in the area and by the relative need of the person needing treatment.

A report published by Health Canada in 2008 included statistics on self-reported wait times for diagnostic services.[47] The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 3 months.[47][48] The median wait time to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 86.4% waiting less then 3 months. [47][49] The median wait time for surgery is a little over four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months. [47] [50] In the U.S., patients on Medicaid, the low-income government programs, can wait three months or more to see specialists. Because Medicaid payments are low, some have claimed that some doctors do not want to see Medicaid patients. For example, in Benton Harbor, Michigan, specialists agreed to spend one afternoon every week or two at a Medicaid clinic, which meant that Medicaid patients had to make appointments not at the doctor's office, but at the clinic, where appointments had to be booked months in advance.[51]

In Canada, waiting is prioritized by patient according to relative urgency, with urgent patients receiving immediate access and the least urgent waiting longer. [52] Studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; 57% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 23% in the U.S., but Canadians had more chances of getting medical attention at nights, or on weekends and holidays than their American neighbors without the need to visit an ER (54% compared to 61%).[53] However, statistics from the free market think tank Fraser Institute in 2008 indicate that the average wait time between the time when a general practitioner refers a patient for care and the receipt of treatment was almost four and a half months in 2008, roughly double what it had been 15 years before.[54]

A 2003 survey of hospital administrators conducted in Canada, the U.S., and three other countries found dissatisfaction with both the U.S. and Canadian systems. For example, 21% of Canadian hospital administrators, but less than 1% of American administrators, said that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50-year-old woman; 50% of Canadian administrators versus none of their American counterparts said that it would take over six months for a 65-year-old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery. However, U.S. administrators were the most negative about their country's health care system. Hospital executives in all five countries expressed concerns about staffing shortages and emergency department waiting times and quality.[55][56]

In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, the President and CEO of University Health Network, Toronto, said that Michael Moore's film Sicko "exaggerated the performance of the Canadian health system — there is no doubt that too many patients still stay in our emergency departments waiting for admission to scarce hospital beds." However, "Canadians spend about 55% of what Americans spend on health care and have longer life expectancy, and lower infant mortality rates. Many Americans have access to quality health care. All Canadians have access to similar care at a considerably lower cost." There is "no question" that the lower cost has come at the cost of "restriction of supply with sub-optimal access to services," said Bell. A new approach is targeting waiting times, which are reported on public websites

>> ^quantumushroom:
I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.

The Constitution limits government power and says any powers not expressly given to the federal mafia is given to the States.

Actually, the Constitution does allow the federal government to "rob one group of people ... to pay off others...."

The 16th Amendment grants Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Furthermore, there is nothing in the Consitution which circumscribes how Congress may spend those revenues, except as it may infringe on the rights of the States or the People (10th Amendment). In fact, Congress is explicitly granted the power to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." (Article I, Section . If the good health of its citizens is not considered part of the general welfare of the United States, what can be?

You might have a constitutional argument against a single payer system by claiming it infringes the rights of the People to rip each other off, but you definitely do not have one against a government sponsored health insurance plan designed to compete with private insurance.

Wait..QM..how do you think health care works if you adopted the..say, canadian system.

Do you think people really just walk in and out without doing anything? We don't pay anything, but we have to present a valid health card..which is government distributed.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Penn & Teller have a TV show that describes what I think of THAT claim. No 3rd world country has better health care than the U.S. The lists you're talking about tend to be weighted (deliberately) in favor of socialized systems. If we swapped over to a social system IN NAME and did nothing else, they'd rank us #1.



Really? You think if you suddenly call your health care system socialized, everyone will take your word for it? There's a saying "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it's still not a good fucking health care system"

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

I don't really have a position on the healthcare debate. I think our current system needs an overhaul, but I certainly don't know what the right answer is. I don't mind the tax increase if the public option is an improvement, thought I'd rather see them allocate money from other budgets.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Under this so-called 'awful' system in the U.S. I had a family member who was diagnosed with NHL and skillfully treated by excellent doctors in top-notch medical facilities. They recieved over a half-MILLION dollars in medical care and I paid a grand total of $5,000. I'd be paying just as much (or more) under a social system in the form of taxes and 'denied care'. Every social plan so far includes premium payments, copays, and prescription drug costs - so 'free' it ain't...

You probably mean you paid $5000 on top of the insurance premiums you've paid all year. That would be the case for most people, anyway. How do your costs look then?


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Neolibs can't have a discussion on an issues without resorting to propoganda,

What is "neolibs" if not propaganda? You're comparing people arguing for public health care with a violent right-wing political movement.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The fact is that there are many very valid arguments against socialized medicine. The US government's current medical care programs are abject failures. With a track record like Medicare and Medicaid, why would anyone with a brain assume that the US government is going to run a clean, tight ship with its so-called 'public option' of Obamacare? And PLEASE... Spare me the bologna of "well the government runs medical care just fine for congress and the military..." People who say that crap are comparing grapes to basketballs.

This part baffles me as well. I've never known military healthcare to be anything but the worst of the worst. I've not experienced it, mind you, I've just always heard from every soldier I've known that military healthcare is garbage and most of the doctors are there because they couldn't make it in the real world.


>> ^TheFreak:
As my father lay dying in the hospital from the effects of cancer treatment (not the cancer but the 'cure') a Doctor came in and told us they believed there was one last thing they could try that might save him. It had been done in 2 other cases of the same problem and had worked both times, they had what they needed and were ready to go but they needed approval from the insurance company. Hours later my father was dead with no approval yet from his insurance company.

Unfortunately there's no real 'cure' for cancer... basically they poison the shit out of you and hope the cancer dies first. However, if I'm not mistaken, what you describe is illegal. I believe doctors are required to take any action necessary to save a life regardless of whether the patient can pay or not. I don't believe approval from the insurance co should have even been considered.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Why stop with "free" health care? Doesn't everyone deserves a free home, food and automobile (plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?


While sweeping floors is unskilled labour, I think I'd be affected more by having nobody clean the areas around where I lived than if the brain surgeons stopped their work. Without anyone removing rubbish all the time, the rat infestations and associated disease would probably harm and kill more people than brain surgeons save.

Don't underestimate the importance of core workforce like cleaners.

>> ^gtjwkq:
It might work, but have you considered that it also pushes costs up since there's no price competition? It poorly allocates resources because it's run by bureaucrats and politicians?

There is price competition in Ontario and many other provinces in Canada. Hospitals are mandated by law to operated in "positive" budgets, as well private clinics do exist here. Generally when dealing the a persons health you don't want "price competition" you want to aim for best service at reasonable price for the public dollar. So you use general oversight rules.

If there is one overriding issue with the current round of debates in the US over "healthcare", is that they want to have it at the federal level for one and all. Sorry, bad idea. Hell it's a terrible idea. The only way it'll work efficiently(due to the way the government exists in the US & at the state level) is to have each state responsible for their own level of care like Canada.

If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.

Canada doesn't do asylum based on illness, that's reserved for other things. We do however bring people back into Canada from around the world who actually need medical care and can't get it in 2nd and 3rd world countries for treatment all the time. That aside, if you show up in Canada and require critical care for some emergency condition. You'll get it. Whether or not you'll have to pay for it(being that you're out of country and a non-payee into the system) is another question altogether different. Healthcare isn't free here either, that's where that 50% tax rate comes in along with country wide equalization payments. Since Canada already deals with Americans, and other foreign nations entering the country for healthcare, I'm sure you can figure out how much of a strain the puts on the system. And yes, there's a special division relating to healthcare fraud from non-Canadian nationals in every province.

>> ^quantumushroom:
You amaze me with your complete lack of looking into ANYTHING QM.
I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.


Bingo!

You treat the constitution like others (you perhaps also?) treat the bible... your one stop shop for everything. Everything begins and ends with one document and you'll be damned if any further discussion will be had because apparently that document is perfect. (Let's ignore the raft of amendments... they... um... just fine tuning and already perfect document aren't they?)



Have bothered AT ALL to look at other countries that do healthcare a SHITELOAD better than the US? How do you not think it's fair to provide necessary healthcare to everyone in your country? Under what warped logic do you think that only those that can afford it should be able to live, while those that can't die?
How does that work?


Life isn't fair and no amount of government force will make it fair. I wonder if you lefties even know what's going on in America. Socialized medicine practically exists NOW. WTF is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? S-Chip? You'd have to work pretty hard to not get the care you need, especialy if 20 million Mexican illegals are getting it.

No one is saying that the US system is GOOD now at all. But what you DO have is the situation where private health companies are consulted BEFORE you get treatment to see if you will be covered for that treatment. THAT is absolutely insane. Look, here in Australia we have public and private... public health guarantees you all the necessary health care you need, and you pay a levee on that in your taxes (Medicare levee), if you take out Private health care (as most do), then you don't have to pay that levee as you are paying your own way via the private insurer. You don't suddenly stop getting public health, just the hospitals get paid by the private insurer rather than the government. Also, private health care gives you elective benefits and better rooms in hospitals etc. (ie. your own room rather than shared). The deal is, you can get better 'extras' etc. surrounding core health care by being on private, but you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it... and that's the way it should be.


And your intro also speaks of being simple minded also:
Doesn't everyone deserves a free home
There is such a thing as government housing, and it's used by people who have fallen on hard times until they can afford something better. The houses are never fantastic, and you wouldn't want to stay in them, but they provide shelter while you try to pick yourself up... Of course you rally against such ideas and think they'll only be populated by the lazy, and how dare they get a roof over their head when you work for all you have...
I don't object to safety nets, but you know and I know that's not what we're talking about here. Also, with the Christianity bashing that goes on here at liberalsift, I wonder where the morality of the left exists on its own merit? Was every atheist born knowing 'the right thing to do'?

Wah? Huh? I don't get the point of this comment at all. If you're going down that religious path of 'well, I have this book that tells me my morals, and what is right and wrong... you must have no morals and not know what's right and wrong because you don't have a book', then sorry, but that's an insanely stupid tree to be barking up. If you truly believe that you would do 'bad things' if you didn't have the fear of god punishing you for breaking his commandments for doing so then you are a 'bad person'. Most of us don't do 'bad things' because we don't want to hurt other people or make life worse off for others, not due to some selfish fear for ourselves.


Um... ok, if you don't think there's a need for 'soup kitchens' and other such ways for people who have become destitute, then I would LOOOOOVE for you to end up jobless sometime and not have any family support, and then you can say there should be nowhere for those without money to be able to find shelter and food.
I'd friggen love it.
Well that's just fucking wonderful. With all the shit you've been through, you'd rather just wish harm on others that disagree with you, eh?

I didn't wish harm on you. I wished destitution on you (which doesn't have to physically harm you at all, just take your ego down a few notches). I wished that you ended up with no money and therefore be reliant on the very things that you think shouldn't exist, because apparently you lack a iota of empathy and are incapable of ever seeing how someone could end up poor and without help and need some help to get back on track. Sometimes, for some people such as yourself, the only way to get through that 'it's other people' mentality is for it to affect you directly.


You're making shit up that has nothing to do with my argument, so here it is again worded slightly different: is it the government's obligation to provide "free" basic everything ALL the time the way they claim to want to do with healthcare?


No, and no one is suggesting that the government should provide everyone with free everything. What we're saying is access to healthcare should not be dictated by your bank balance. I, because I earn a good wage, should not be able to get a heart replacement if I need it, but let someone else die because they couldn't afford the operation. That just isn't right, and nowhere in the bible does it say anything about looking after only those who can afford it. In fact, I'm pretty sure it talks about taking care of the weak and needy.


automobile No, but free/heavily subsidized public transport works wonders for actually being able to get to... oh, I dunno... jobs.
I'm not against local public transportation. In some places it works, in others it's been an expensive disaster. And it's not my point. But if you think people with no car have a right to a "free" bus, so be it.
No, people who have no access to their own transport through not being able to afford it, despite their best efforts, should be able to use public transport to get around. If you deny people the ability to get around, how are they ever going to get to the jobs to make the money to be able to pay for these things themselves?



(plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?
Now you're just being a douche. You've got no concept of how any of this works do you? You think that those at or under the poverty line just LOVE living in government housing and surviving on handouts... hell, why bother working when life is so grand hey?
You're an idiot. People don't want to remain like that, people never want to GET like that, but some people do, some through no real fault of their own (some by their own fault, but so what). The idea is, you give them a hand through those times until they can once again become a constructive member of society. And people WANT to get a good job and be able to buy their own home/car and feel like they've been productive. I don't know anyone who enjoys relying on the handouts. But I sure as fuck know people who HAVE HAD to at one time or another and are bloody glad those things were in place to catch them during the tough times.
And some of these people now work for multinational companies in technical roles and are doing very well for themselves... because they were helped during the rough patches.
It ends up costing LESS in the long run you know.
Yeah, that's why we're several trillion dollars in debt. I have another theory about those success stories: those people might have made it whether there was government aid available or not.

Um... you're several trillion dollars in debt for many, many reasons, not least of which is the trillions of dollars you spend on your damn military. You can't take anything you don't agree with and try to suggest THAT is why you're in debt... sorry, doesn't work.

And in regards to those that would have made it one way or another... not necessarily so at all, although you'd LOVE to think so, because that's the right wing brain. "Successful people will always be successful with no help from anyone else". Which is a load of crap. SOME people pick themselves up completely independently and become successful with no external help, but ALMOST ALL have support from many places. A particular case I'm thinking of (a friend), spent years being horrendously insecure in themselves and doing f-all for his career and being effectively 'a drain' on society as you would say. But now he earns a good wage and is giving back to society through his taxes, so therefore paying back for his time. He needed that time being supported to get out of that rut. If there was no support... well, I don't know what would have happened to him, but it wouldn't have been nice.


Also... it'd be friggen hilarious if you got some illness that cost an enormous amount of money to treat, and your private health care provider decided that it wasn't covered (as they like to do)... then you'll be bleating that there should be public health.
If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.
If you take nothing else away from this: I don't pretend to have all the answers, while Big Government tyrants do. I oppose socialism in general and in particular this health scam the Obamunists are trying to pass as quickly as possible before the people realize what they thought were brownies are really dog turds.
A government big enough to pay for your kid's "free" health care is also big enough to say, "You're over the limit for treatment costs. Back of the line."


Huh? You've given up again... you've obviously got some hardwired words in your brain that are 'bad':
'Socialism' = bad
'Big Government' = bad
without really thinking through what you're saying.

Saying that a government can turn around and deny care is, well ridiculous when you're comparing it to private companies that do it ROUTINELY. If government does it (please do give me examples where they have... hmmm? I can pull out stupendous amounts of private health examples), then they have public outcry from the country to contend with because it's health care that WE are all paying for. If a private company denies treatment then you'd just say 'Well... it's a free market, go with another provider'.

I really think that you've been taught to believe these right wing mantras but, like most right wingers, you haven't thought through the consequences of those actions AT ALL... You run on an endless loop of 'hard work will get you what you need', whereas we run on one that says 'a fair go for everyone'. Your loop ignores how people get started in the first place, how people need help to get up from being poor and uneducated and pull themselves up to be really productive members of your country. You think that anyone who can't afford to go to university or get healthcare or have a car only lacks those things purely through their own laziness. We think that maybe you help people to have the opportunity to become educated and not be sick, and maybe that gives them a better chance to spend time learning a trade and becoming skilled and earning a great wage and getting their family moving on and up rather than staying poor and a drain on society for ever.

>> ^quantumushroom:
If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.


It depends on the province and the circumstance. There isn't a universal Canadian health care, it's run by the provinces and territories. The only thing the Federal gov't really does is keep pumping money into it. Every province has different rules. I know in Ontario, if it were desperate enough, they would. Eg. It needs to come out, or you've been in a car accident etc. If it's someone in the US who came to Canada to get treated, they would either charge them, or not admit them. It depends on the situation. The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto is famous for taking in families with kids in dire need, and charging OHIP for it, which no one seems to mind.

>> ^TheFreak:

Now, tell me how having the government making decisions about my health care is worse than having profit driven corporations making those decisions. Tell me how corporate beuracracies are inherently more efficient than anything the government can design.
One thing seems obvious, if this sort of thing happens within a government program we have the opportunity to insist on change and things can improve. When this happens because of a private corporation we accept it as unassailable because we know we're powerless.

I'm sorry that happened to your father. Remember, the US is not the best example of completely private healthcare, there are many govt programs and tons of regulations that are a burden to competitiveness and cost reduction.

If healthcare was truly free of unnecessary regulations, you'd have many more options for your father's healthcare and the companies would have to actually compete for your money, which would tend to make these options less expensive.

The govt on the other hand, has no incentive to reduce costs or be efficient, they would institute a monopoly also affecting anyone dealing with this govt provided service (professionals, healthcare institutions, pharmaceutical companies, etc.). So even in countries where the taxpayer picks up the bill, the net cost of the whole system is way above what it should be if it were provided by the private sector.

The biggest mistake is when people assign the US's healthcare problem to lack of government, when what actually made the US healthcare industry so great once was the private sector. After many years abusing the healthcare industry, the govt wants to convince us that just letting them run the whole thing is the solution.

If you want to solve the problem of healthcare and nail the culprit of our economy's recession, you do that by reducing the size of govt, not by making it even bigger.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Bill Kristol is very ignorant on military healthcare. As a former soldier during peace time I have to say the health care sucked. No choice whatsoever!! I was a paratrooper so I got injured a lot and have plenty of experience with military medicine hackery. Had to deal with wait times, referrals and all that crap. So yeah, I prefer my insurance provided civilian health care.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Under this so-called 'awful' system in the U.S. I had a family member who was diagnosed with NHL and skillfully treated by excellent doctors in top-notch medical facilities. They recieved over a half-MILLION dollars in medical care and I paid a grand total of $5,000. I'd be paying just as much (or more) under a social system in the form of taxes and 'denied care'. Every social plan so far includes premium payments, copays, and prescription drug costs - so 'free' it ain't...
People get medical care in the US just fine. The sad-sack horror stories that neolibs drag out are rare exceptions. Most people in the US get fantastic medical care at very affordable prices. For every person who has a bad experience in the US system, there are equal numbers who have horror stories about thier socialized medicine.
This dictomatic language of "Oh my social system is PERFECT and your private one is hell on earth...!" is so typical of the neolib left. Neolibs can't have a discussion on an issues without resorting to propoganda, logical fallacies, exaggeration, and outright deception. They have no sense of nuance and substance.
The fact is that there are many very valid arguments against socialized medicine. The US government's current medical care programs are abject failures. With a track record like Medicare and Medicaid, why would anyone with a brain assume that the US government is going to run a clean, tight ship with its so-called 'public option' of Obamacare? And PLEASE... Spare me the bologna of "well the government runs medical care just fine for congress and the military..." People who say that crap are comparing grapes to basketballs.


I'm a cancer survivour and a type I diabetic, I had a tumour on a nerve branch, and had to have six weeks of radiation therapy, total cost to me: The parking at the hospital, and the skin cream for the therapy, which was fifteen dollars. The only thing I waited for was for my doctor get better, after he was recovering from surgery (which was two weeks.) I had all these procedures appraised (including talking with a nutritionist who rearranged my menu while I was having the therapy.) The surgery and radiation, going off a hospital in Virginia, came to just over 180,000 dollars. Most of it being the surgery on the nerves.

How much would all those tests and surgery, and therapies cost in the US, with all the hidden costs of pharmaceuticals etc. And yes, Canada does have other expenses, we're helping fight in Afghanistan, so we're shouldering the cost at the same time. I doubt anyone has ever said their public health care is perfect, but everyone can agree: It's a lot better than Americas current one. So "every social plan" includes premium payments, copays, and prescription? Well, they don't cover all prescriptions, but they reduce the cost on a lot of them in Canada. But, I didn't have to pay for a damned thing for my cancer surgery and treatments, other than parking at the hospital and some cortazone. I pay my taxes, and I'm glad I can help people like me or who are worse off than me.

>> ^dag:
^with these kinds of comments I fear the US will once again get the healthcare it deserves. Now is not the time for quoting Locke. And if you disparage the elderly getting quality healthcare- I'd say your heart is two sizes too small. There should be a "common good" and care for the elderly falls into it.


They don't call me 'frosty' for nothing. But yes, thank you for nursing such a bleeding heart and proposing to stop it with someone else's means. If you care so much for the elderly, here's what I suggest you do. Get through the grueling pre-medical curriculum. Get all A's. Get through four years of medical school and go well into six figures in debt. Maybe if you score high enough on your STEP 1 and are at the top of your class you can place into a geriatric subspecialty residency. Work 80-100 hour weeks at minimum wage for five years. Then and only then will I respect your 'generosity' and give you credit if you choose to devote your mind and effort to probono or reduced wage public sector work. In the mean time I suggest you leave the geriatricians to dispose of what is rightfully theirs as they goddamn well please.

>> ^dag:
^with these kinds of comments I fear the US will once again get the healthcare it deserves. Now is not the time for quoting Locke. And if you disparage the elderly getting quality healthcare- I'd say your heart is two sizes too small. There should be a "common good" and care for the elderly falls into it.


I'm not disparaging the elderly, I'm telling you straight up that there is a larger dynamic here than what you are suggesting. If given the choice between no SS/Medicare taxes throughout life or a million dollars worth of procedures when I'm 85, brother, I'm choosing the less taxes. That's an even easier choice for my generation than ones before it since SS/Medicare will implode long before we retire. But even if those were sustainable systems, the point is that some people would rather live a better life than a longer life. In the old days, people made these kinds of decisions and accepted the tradeoff. Now we run a giant ponzi scheme called Social Security (of which Medicare is a part) where the choice is made for us to live a longer life at the expense of a better one. Even that is debatable since a prudent investor would be able to get both. SS/Medicare intake isn't invested at all, just transferred from one generation to another, with a "trust fund" spent by congress decades ago and replaced with IOU bonds.

We don't have a 100% private system, far from it. The high prices are because of government involvement interfering with the market's pricing mechanism. What I fear most is idealist people like you who have zero understanding of what costs are incurred by such systems despite the fixed prices. The costs in the quality of life, the costs on your currency's value, the cost in being unable to compete with foreign production whose employers aren't strapped with paying for the abuse and fraud borne by a system in which people are spending other people's money on services. Like I said before, our economic wellbeing has changed dramatically since leaving the gold standard and borrowing at interest well in excess of our productive capacity. People like you don't understand how ugly our bond market looks, how it went from a normal mortgage to an ARM equivalent. You can't even figure out how to fix Medicare without cutting into some other socialist program you want, and you want more? Figure out how to pay for all the imports, interest obligations, military empire, and socialist services you currently have before dreaming up new ones and adding to the deficit. You think you can add to it in perpetuity, but one day foreigners really will scoff at the notion of buying our debt and we'll be SOL.

Would you trade your current public health care for the American one?

This is exactly the mentality I am talking about. You act as though health care systems exist in a vacuum. In reality, every country that has socialized medicine has to try and budget it AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER THINGS. And each country has different OTHER THINGS. We have a shitload of OTHER THINGS we already have to borrow trillions year over year for. I blame our socialist education system if people spent all those years in school and can't figure out basic economics. Sure, Cuba spends a shitload on socialized medicine and manages to achieve a lower infant mortality rate, BUT AT WHAT COST ELSEWHERE? Cuba has little else to spend on other things and has a relatively poor standard of living compared to America. That's why people die on banana boats trying to get here, not the other way around. They don't have the privilege of being the reserve currency of the world where central banks will buy their debt in the most absurd circumstances.