Health Care and the Candidates

[RubySlippers]

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/28/60minutes/main3889496.shtml

I just want to know how each candidate will fix this problem?

[National Acrobat]

They won't. They can suggest things, or come up with a grand proposal, but ultimately it will be up to Congress to actually pass legislation dealing with Healthcare, which is why several states, such as Massachusetts have gone ahead and done their own thing, because Congress will never get around to making something that everyone can agree on. The President can use his office as a bully pulpit or he can veto legislation he doesn't approve of, but basically it will come down to Congress. With that in mind, a deal will have to be struck that is balanced. Without votes, you don't get a bill passed.

[Elvi]

Why would you want them to fix this problem Ruby?
This is what your Capitalist Eutopian society would do.
Keep the rich healthy and happy, use the poor and disguard them when they are of no further use.
After all, there are plenty more where they came from...

[Hunter]

As one of the uninsured I find your remark to be both offensive and insensitive, Elvi.  Yes, I have to choose between eating and having medical care.  Which is why my health is borderline and even then I barely scrape by.  Quit being such a troll.

[Elvi]

My remark was not directed at either yourself or any others who are unable to pay for medicines Hunter.
I actually think that it is a disgusting state of affairs when the very people of a country have to recieve health 'donations', from the people who should have been able to treat them freely in the first place.
I find it a horrific state of affairs, when people are suffering for the lack of being able to afford treatment for even the most miner of ailments, in a country that is lauded, (by some), as the greatest upon this earth.

The remark was actually directed at (and addressed to, you may notice), Ruby herself, who has said on many occasions that it doesn't matter about poverty either in her own country or any other for that matter, as long as America is 'great'.

If you wish me to find quotes from the many threaqds she has said this in, then I will do so.
(I believe the last time she referred to capitalism, being the great American way, was in the thread about Microsoft?)

[kongming]

When I found out about America's medical system, I was actually horrified. I seriously couldn't imagine such a system outside a third world country.

Here in Australia, if you exist and are an Australian citizen, you have a medicare card + number. It's sort of like social security, you just have the number, it identifies you, and you can't elect to not have one. This is just used for medical situations.

To see a doctor, some require you to pay the full fee (and you can then get medicare to reimburse you), and others send the fee straight to medicare, and you don't have to pay a cent. Because not dying is sort of a right, besides, the last thing they want is for people to not see doctors, then spread diseases around. Now, to see a specialist, you generally have to pay for that yourself, or get (cheap) private health insurance which will at least cover part of it. For instance, a psychologist or psychiatrist could cost you around $150 per appointment, but simple health cover can reduce that to less than half. Or you can get another government branch to cover the entirety of it, in some cases.

Now, for prescription medication, as long as you have a medicare card, the most it can possibly cost you is $31.30 - the government pays the rest. Now, if you are on low income, that changes, and the most you can spend is a mere $5. That's right, my monthly prescription for antidepressants is just a fiver.

I hear it's even better in Europe. But seriously, I can't imagine living in a country that didn't offer these benefits or similar ones. It sounds like the basic right of the people, and if America does ever adopt a system like this, it will be a big benefit for the people, and a good sign for the country.

[RubySlippers]

Ok since this verging on a personal attack on myself and my views I just wanted to point out I want to see what the candidates intend to offer this sort of group not that I necessarily agree with socialized as opposed to private medical care.

Frankly I'm opposed to any Federal solution when states and counties have the clear Constitutional obligation to provide for such care as also overseeing education is not a Federal matter or maintaining a standing army.

I'm not opposed to government run programs quite the opposite as long as the Federal Government stays out of it I feel states and if they won't counties should provide such a system. At least through public hospitals and clinics much like existed in the early twentieth century before and just around WWII. Many states for example to hold a medical license in fact most required community service hours to practice medicine in their specialty. For example my grandfather a surgeon in New York State Had To work at a community run or charity hospital for 10 hours a month or two surgeries whichever was greater. The only exception was to that those doctors in employ to such a facility full time. I see no problem with that they have the privilege of practicing medicine in the state and country for that there is a requirement of service hours.

In this case if the areas these people lived in had public community hospitals funded by the states and counties they may have the care they need and this charity shows its hardly expensive to provide it at a certain level of care.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

I am not so sure ruling out a Federal health care system.  An the dreaded 'S' word of socialism for the Health care system.   For leaving it to the states can have an adverse affect overall.  For example,  state A initiates a comprehensive affordable health care that provides.  A state that has a good strong economy base.  Then you have State B, not so good.  But there looking out for the poor and disable.  But the middle class is fitting the bill.  But their neighbors in state A got a great deal going.   An well a wife in state b gets cancer.  An in their own state they cannot afford.  So they move to state A, where l they would be covered.  But this begins to add up.  State A's strong economic base is crumbling now under the weight.     That is one example.  It is happening now, people moving to states that they can get better help.     Then some states cannot even afford to enact a health care system, let alone individual counties.    Especially since most of the states infrastructures are 30 years over due in being redone.  So then do you put it in the hands of the private sector.  Well that is truly where it has been.  Since we had no health care system in place other then the joke that is medicare.   An well were at 47 million uninsured.

[RubySlippers]

Its simple principle States are more agile and know their local needs better than the Federal Government and the counties and cities/towns even more so. And who said this has to be government run Florida's governor has a plan to work with insurers to allow parts of policies not needed to be removed for reduced rates. Example a single man doesn't need obstetrics and gynecological services so they wouldn't have to be covered. And to come up with insurance plans that are less frill oriented to maybe get policies more people could afford.

Not perfect but Massachusetts set up a state level plan didn't they?

No solution is perfect we have a huge country and Libertarians feels generally the Federal Government is at best able to deal with matters that must be done at that level. Signing treaties, protecting the nation with  a military big enough to defend us and regulating trade minimally and with the least direct interference by the Federal Government. That would leave far more money from slashed taxes to pay for these other programs at the State and local levels.

On the main arguement is who is best able to efficiently provide a program I argue bottom up and your arguing top down use of force. Thats what a Federal and State government is who can use its force it ability to enforce its will on a citizen. A right only one group in the US has other than that is a criminal armed with a gun. If we must have a government and even Libertarians are not generally anarchists then we say keep the power as close to the voters level as possible.

But really how much would a health care system cost if there was a payroll tax for it, take money already there such as that spent by companies to provide health care and medicaid plus that spent on charity care by counties. We set up a program lets say at the county level in Florida with state assistance from perhaps a 1 cent sales tax increase and set up a good county health care complex with funds to primary care doctors on a list to give some choice. Florida could likely do a nice safety net plan. In fact my grandfather ran a public hospital it had group wards for non-infectious patients with sixteen beds to a room, competant doctors that were public employees and charity care hours used by them to get the specialists needed, a dental care section and worked with private primary care providers in the town. And patient paid on their ability to pay. Most chairty hospitals were just the same just paid for and run by religious orders or religious groups also never turned poor people away and were rather common in large cities.

I do blame the Federal Government thanks to their meddling in setting up Medicare and Medicaid and frankly sticking their hands into the free market of medicine it killed these fine institutions that offered the care people needed. Its there money and the WWII forcing down of wages but encouranging company based health care that allowed medical providers to drive up prices since they could. The natural cost containment of a county or state having so much money to fund state community care and the patients expected to pay something if they could for their care drove up the costs. The Federal Government made medicine a business not the free market as long as everyone had to pay into it and the voters could vote for their officals locally who controlled the health care dollars there was a natural cost containment. If the hospital charged more than people would ask do we need this fancy new machine, is it really important than doing it the old way and doctors could practice medicine using the most effective approaches on a budget. I know my grandfather had to be really convinced to spend a large sum for a new x-ray machine since he had to explain his budget to a commitee and that was partially with local citizens on it. Since it allowed a film hard copy of an x-ray a big deal he moved to get it and explain it was better for these reasons- they could keep a record for study to see if the condition changed, other doctors could get a copy and assist with added treatment and it used less radiation so it was safer to do more of them.

Just look now, how many doctors keep lists of cheap drugs from Walmart in their offices to use I see very few, my doctor does plus one from Target and Sweetbay Supermarkets all of which have cheap drug programs. But I mentioned this to a specialist and that I had to work within a budget he couldn't handle it. For those of you knocking the free market Walmart alone started a new trend saving consumers a great deal of money. My own drugs went from over $100 to $20 a month thanks to them. Doctors don't as a rule care about costs anymore, neither do hospitals or the government or the patients- there is no longer a cost containment system. I just want that to be true again. If you go to a doctor everyone has a say in the system you by paying for the visit, the hospital and clinics that offer higher level care answer to the community and state and that they work in a budget like normal people. If a hospital recieve X number of dollars per year they would have to decide how to most wisely use that to cover the citizens in a plan locally approved. I don't know why everyone has a problem with this. I trust a local city council far more than anyone else I can talk to them easier and they answer to the voters more directly.

But still what do the candidates have planned that is my question even Hillary is unclear as to how she intends to work her miracle program.

[Sherona]

decided I am a bit too biased in this situation so wont say what I was goiong to..that and too tired to think properly.


just going to say that I have been in these "public ward" charity hospitals..they are underfunded, understaffed, and over worked....it was a nightmare, and I still actually bear physical as well as mental scars from my stay there.

[Sugarman (hal)]

Why would you want them to fix this problem Ruby?
This is what your Capitalist Eutopian society would do.
Keep the rich healthy and happy, use the poor and disguard them when they are of no further use.
After all, there are plenty more where they came from...

WOW... very strong statement. But am afraid it may be the truth.

[RubySlippers]

And if the government at the Federal level would be restrained as per the will of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution maybe they would have more Health Care and better jobs. Take one area the military the Constitution permits raising taxes for an army for TWO YEARS to bolster state militias and the naval forces during a time of war. If we just eliminated the Army and Air Force and handed that to the States to set-up we would save a huge portion of funds from our annual budget. And could lower taxes on the people considerably. With more money in their pockets they would have more money to pay for Health Care. The same if you get rid of any other government agency not necessary and required to run its Consitutional duties. Including cutting regulations that make business more expensive where such laws are not required under the Constitution or Amendments. That bit of logic seems to miss everyone a minimal Federal Government leaves them in need of far fewer funds and that means less taxes. And States can tax on their end to take up the slack as can counties but the voters will have far more power to keep those increases sensible.

And the Counties and States can set up any form of Health Care program they wish and could work as groups under interstate agreements, there doesn't need to be a Federal program or oversight.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

RubySlippers  having grown up a Air Force brat and being around the military.  I have to say that the proposal to disband the army and air force.  Or should a say move it over to the control of the states.  Is really highly inconceivable.   The make up of armies and technology is not the same as it was in the founding of our country.   The logistics of such is really fool hardy.  Besides, this is the national guard and the air national guard anywhys.

I like to point out the fact, that you do not mention the navy or marines for this.  Simple reason, states with no body of water.  Would not support having a navy.  They have no need, not unless to late with and if the other states along the coast are threaten.  This would put a  burden of all the navy and marines cost on those states.  Thus why the navy was never considered.   Now how would that apply, without naming states.  How would they contribute, what kind of air force or army would they put forward.  The equipment how would it work.  What type of gun to issue.  Does Illinois by from Boeing, while California buys from Lockheed.   Can Rhode Island even field a squadron of planes.  Who has tankers, or the medivacs the night in gales.     Or how about the air force weather planes.  That go out and fly through a hurricane.  Who funds that.  Is it Florida,  do they do it all on their own.  Perhaps with a few of the other coastal states.  Does Minnesota, I mean they don't have to worry about such.  So why should they.

No this  is not an answer to helping gain funds for a comprehensive health care.  Though better budget responsibility.   Leadership that is not inept, that will not rush us into a war that was not needed.   That will if goes to war, do so with rational and intelligent decisions behind the actions.    Then perhaps we begin to save money and alas have funds to be able to have a health care package. 

[Humble Scribe]

Take one area the military the Constitution permits raising taxes for an army for TWO YEARS to bolster state militias and the naval forces during a time of war. If we just eliminated the Army and Air Force and handed that to the States to set-up we would save a huge portion of funds from our annual budget.

How? You'd just be paying it in state taxes instead of national ones.

Look, there are all kinds of arguments about at what level it's appropriate to run each kind of government service, but surely even if nothing else, national defence has to be run at a national level. It can only ever be less efficient at a state level. How can a state afford to pay for nuclear submarines or aircraft carriers? Would you give each state 10 or so nuclear warheads each? Will they each have to develop their own nuclear infrastructure to support them? Including reprocessing plants, test sites... where will Rhode Island test its missiles?

It sounds like you are advocating dismissing the federal government and becoming 50 nations, and if you think that will lower your taxes, you are living in cloud cuckooland.

[Sherona]

If we just eliminated the Army and Air Force and handed that to the States to set-up we would save a huge portion of funds from our annual budget. And could lower taxes on the people considerably.

Erm can anyone remember oh a tiny little war called the CIVIL war that was in a good majority fought because the States wanted to have autonomy from the US government? This would just open the door for another to happen.

Ok Slavery was a big issue then, it was one of the major reasons (unfortunately) that the states that suceded(ok I know thats not spelled right) from the Union...The Union wanted to abolish slavery, and those states wanted to keep such laws governed by the states..whats to stop the states disagreeign about issues and going and invading another state...its silly.


I also suppose that you haven't lived through a major riot where the federal government had to come in because even the state national guardsmen couldn't quite quell it? (60's era stuff) You can not just take away national defensees and say "Each state its own" because that would make our small states a good vulnerability point. Mr. White wants to invade US, so instead of picking California as an entry point (amongst the biggest population, hence more taxes and more military personell) they pick Rhode island..and one by one knock through the states because there is no national defense..atleast this is how I am viewing the whole "Disband the army and make it the states point of view"

Another point, is there are poor states. Louisiana, Mississippi are two of the poorest, how the hell is saying "No federal government" goign to help these? They barely having enough funds now, take away Federal aide and boom.

ALSO, when natural disasters happen, katrina was a horrible FUBAR moment for our government, but things like Andrew the tornados in Oklahoma in 98 and in 03, national aid, national guard organized BY the federalo government was sent in...


Personally saying that each state needs to be autonomous is basically saying lets make 50 small tiny countries vulnerable and inefficient rather then 1 good size country that needs to fix its problems.

[LordAnubis]

Every state for themselves was tried, the Articles of Confederation, it didn't work out.  The Founding fathers didn't want the government to be static and tied to old ideas, that is why there is a process to amend the constitution and it was purposefully written Vague.  To allow it to grow and change as the need arose.

Military spending is maybe 25% of the budget, while yeah a signifcant amount of money government is still running in the red, it'd just get moved to the other government agencies that need money.

Then you have the new State funded militaries that you now need to tax for, only now the military spending is split up between a much smaller group of people run by a government body that doesn't have the power to over spend when suddenly war expenses outstrips the onhand money.

I'll agree I wish the govenement hadn't done it for the most recent war, but a war isn't cheap and you can't tell a soldier you sent overseas to fight, "Sorry, it isn't in the budget for you to get bullets or a trip home, good luck."  Anything that is going to bleed money has to be run by the Federal government, because it'll bankrupt a state.

I have a feeling this arguement will be posted at some point so I wanted to head it off now.  Yes, it isn't a good thing for the government to bleed money and it'd be great if it could keep from over spending, but people keep expecting a free lunch.  People want government services but they want lower taxes.  They want the government to step in and protect them from one persons abuse while leaving them alone to do what they like.  People have been trying to balance the budget, but to balance the budget you have to either increase your inflow, taxes, or decrease your expendatures, government services.

The question then becomes, what do you cut?  And think on that carefully, there are no government agencies created to screw people over, every single one was born out of a need expressed from the people and while it may not be running as best as it could be there are people benefiting from the agencies.

[Sherona]

I have a feeling this arguement will be posted at some point so I wanted to head it off now.  Yes, it isn't a good thing for the government to bleed money and it'd be great if it could keep from over spending, but people keep expecting a free lunch.  People want government services but they want lower taxes.  They want the government to step in and protect them from one persons abuse while leaving them alone to do what they like.  People have been trying to balance the budget, but to balance the budget you have to either increase your inflow, taxes, or decrease your expendatures, government services.

I agree with this hesitantly. Hesitantly only because I do not want to make it seem as if I think that those who do need the government funding that are drawing our fnds int he red more and more each year are to blame.. But on the whole. I agree. Cant have your cake and eat it too. :)

[LordAnubis]

Oh I don't think the peopleusing the government programs are to blame.  There are alot of people who need the funds they are recieving.  I was more trying to get at that if you're going to balance the budget you're going to have to raise taxes or start hurting people who need government support.  And finding a job isn't much of an answer these days since out sourcing makes you compete for some jobs on a global market where costs of living are lower.

[Zakharra]

 There is also a lot of people who just mooch off of the system. Scamming it. They can work, but they are too lazy or like the easy way out on other people's backs.

[Nothing]

I don't have healthcare, and I don't have a job....but my boyfriend has two :)

No, I worked for a while, always for family...after my dad sold his business, I lost my job and spent 6 months going to interviews....sent in about 50-60 applications a week, got maybe 2-3 calls back, and never, not once, came close to getting hired....I have really bad social anxiety, and I guess people can tell that I just really am not comfortable outside my home, and they just didn't want me working for them....

So, now my boyfriend works 70 hours a week to try and support us, because he doesn't want me to work. I feel bad about it, but...I tried..I don't really know what else I can do other than go back to the panic attacks before and after the interviews...and that didn't even work out...constant rejections started to play a pretty bad role on my mental stability, which wasn't all that great in the first place....

As for healthcare...well, I sure as hell can't afford it. Almost nobody in my neighborhood can, but then I live out in the middle of nowhere in a trailer park...lots of people around here are on government funding and welfare, ect. ect. Some of them genuinely deserve it, and some of them are just milking the government for a free ride.
And, as for government funding and help for us, well....we make too much money, since he works, and we're not crazy enough to get help, Depression and social anxiety and bi-polar just aren't enough to qualify for disability... so they just kinda told me to fuck off and get a job...but in a much nicer, more professional way :)

[OldSchoolGamer]

No one is going to fix the issue.

The fundamental problem with American policymakers is that politicians evaluate proposed policies based on how well those policies conform to ideology rather than whether or not they actually work.

One example of this was midnight basketball programs...the local government funded night sports programs for at-risk youth.  The programs were proven up one side and down the other to pay for themselves many times over in terms of reduced crime and increased academic performance.  But conservative politicians couldn't stand the fact that these kids were getting "something for nothing" and killed the programs.

Lest anybody think I'm picking on the Right, the Left is just as good at this sort of thing...can anyone say "ethanol?"  Ethanol programs are popular with farmers, and enable politicians to make speeches about how they're "doing something" about the oil shortage.  Problem is, ethanol takes almost as much fossil fuel input to grow (corn) than the oil it replaces.  We couldn't even run a fifth of the cars on the road on ethanol--unless we don't mind starving.  But ethanol subsidies keep growing faster than the corn itself.

So if politicians can't see the wisdom in funding prevention programs that pay for themselves and then some, and insist on funding programs that Physics and Chemistry 101 students could see are useless, I really don't see any likelihood of healthcare reform.

[Methos]

Healthcare is a rather tricky subject and I doubt there is really any good answer that will satisfy anyone on the subject. If there exists a perfect health care system I defy you to show it to me. All of my personal encounters with a health care system have been a socialist one.

Sherona described a charity hospital as "under funded, over worked and understaffed" that tends to describe the entire Canadian medical system. Socializing the system doesn't solve shortages, guarantee more or better treatments or easy access.

All we have is lousy health care rationed out to people and paid for with tax dollars. Its till nearly impossible to see a doctor in some parts of the country, not because you 'lack coverage' but because the doctors aren't taking new patients as they have too many as it is. You'll wait hours in the emergency rooms and if you need surgery that isn't life threatening good luck having that any time soon. That and there is nothing really which holds the system accountable in any significant way.

This is what we get and HEALTH CARE consumes more than HALF of every provincial government's budget. (that's the equivalent of a State) Beyond that based on the current level of spending and an aging population health care is either going to have to be radically altered or its going to beggar either our governments or those of us in the work force with crippling taxes.

Part of the problem here is so people feel they have some sort of magical entitlement to health care. This sadly is a myth. There is no golden promissary note from heaven which says everyone has the right to see a doctor for every problem that ails them. We all don't wind up with the same cars, the same houses, the same disposable income to take vacations and buy things with. Health care is no different, its just another service, fetishing it as some sort of 'right' simply causes debates to devolve in shrill screaming about people dying in the streets which really is a myth.

If you really wanted to look at what's keeping health care from being unaffordable its generally unionized workers in the health care sector in Canada, likely the same in the states. And in the states its the absurd tort laws you have. I mean as a lawyer some part of me gets hard at the thought of multi-million dollar awards for things that might be worth a couple hundred grand here. Its a huge drain on your insurance industry and your premiums are charged accordingly. Although ironically the same politicians who want to socialize the health care industry don't want to touch either of those problems as they're in bed with the unions and trial lawyers.

[Humble Scribe]

Demand for healthcare will always be greater than supply. After that you have to ration it. You can ration it by clinical need, as happens in Europe and Canada, or you can ration it by price, as it is in the US. I know which system I think is fairer.

Protip: most 'socialised' healthcare systems spend far less than the US (both as a proportion of GDP and on a per capita basis) and yet deliver as good an outcome if not better (especially considering the quarter of Americans who have no health insurance).

[Celestial Goblin]

Part of the problem here is so people feel they have some sort of magical entitlement to health care. This sadly is a myth. There is no golden promissary note from heaven which says everyone has the right to see a doctor for every problem that ails them. We all don't wind up with the same cars, the same houses, the same disposable income to take vacations and buy things with. Health care is no different, its just another service, fetishing it as some sort of 'right' simply causes debates to devolve in shrill screaming about people dying in the streets which really is a myth.

This is pure bullshit and a reason why I have no more respect for libertarianism than I do for soviet communism or anarcho-primitivism.

A society that doesn't recognize healthcare as a right is dysfunctional in the same way a society that doesn't provide free education to children or a police force equally protecting all citizens is dysfunctional.

Basically, it comes down to you being willing to let someone go without medical attention in order to have more money for a car, house or vacation.
My question is, what if you'd be on the other side?
Were you ever trough a surgery? What anasenthic did they give you?
Have you ever had to go to work with a fever?
Did you ever fear for life of someone you care about?
Do you know someone who was permanently disfigured?
Do you know someone who gone trough an abortion?
Do you know someone with mental problems? Dangerous to others?
Did you ever have allergies? Allergies that can lead to a painful death?
Did you ever use a pain-killer? How would you feel without it?
Did you ever break something? Were in a cast?
Do you have someone in your family with a serious illness like cancer or alzheimers?
Do you have kids?

Imagine being in any of the above situations, not being well off and having someone tell you that you can suffer because there's no 'right' to get any help.

And that's just the moral argument. There are practical arguments for healthcare being a guaranteed right as well.
(like epidemics, desperate people breaking law, people with rare diseases gettinh shafted, hospitalization costing more than prevention and the fact that other people can bring more benefit than 'cars,houses and money for vacation')

[Methos]

Generally I don't believe in the existance of positive rights. I think the whole notion of entitlement is a bunch of socialist non-sense that is probounded by bleeding hearts and those who cast an envenious eye upon the possessions of those who are more clever, harder worker or simply more fortunate than they. I'm content with the government staying out of my way and leaving me to my own devices to make of my life what I will. If that results in misfortunate for others - such is life an element of misery and imperfection has existed in the human condition for as long as the species has lasted. There is no perfect tomorrow where everyone has enough, there are no sick or diseased or anything of that nature. Its the stuff of pipe dreams, fantasies and science fiction. Comparing a police force to health care is also hyperbole, enforcing laws is clearly a negative not positive right and as such a police force would exist in even in a state without any positive entitlements.

I don't believe there *is* any right to get help. My personal circumstances are entirely irrelevant. What your doing Celestial isn't appealing to logic but emotion. Something bad may happen to someone I care about or myself therefore the government should save everyone? That presumes that a) I'm incapable of adequately retaining insurance through private means - not really a problem for most capable people who've obtained education or skills training and that b) those I care about are incapable of doing the same.

But why Celestial should I be my brother's keeper - not even my brother's keeper but the keeper of a vast host of people I've never met? Why should my tax dollars be devoted to supporting the poor health choices of people who injest all manners of illegal substances, fail to adequately maintain their bodies, have poor diets, drink, smoke and make a variety of other advised decisions? Why should their choices be subsidized by an unlimited call upon my money?

If my labour goes to generating my wage - it should be mine to do with as I please. Beyond some common items like roadways, police and fire services and national defense should I not be free to make such arrangements as I deem fit to deal with other aspects of my life? Who are others to demand that I contribute to paying for the education of their children, their healthcare and other programs?

A practical argument? All you've really made there is an argument for legitimizing the theft of money from people because you think the 'government can spend it better than they can'. That's really not an argument so much as an articulation of envy. As for the superior performance of a government managed system - not really. A monopoly such as exists in Canada compliment by a monopsony of unionized health care worker labour creates the most inefficient system that can occur under any economic model. There is no practical benefit to it.

Here's another question for you Celestial - why should you pay for health care for people who aren't even in your country legally? I all your arguments apply equally to illegal immigrants as much as to any other person. After all they are sick and needy. I mean really following your arguments to their logical conclusion non-one should have any more than anyone else and we should all live in barely above third world conditions once we've redistributed everything as things like 'cars, homes and vacations don't really matter'.