gardenweasel said:
we could go to a national healthcare system....
then everyone would get poor treatment...not just the poor and those that choose not to buy insurance....
but then,where would canadians that want to get prompt healthcare go?
i would love to see everyone get equally good healthcare....
i`d also like to see everyone live in a large house...have a nice car....have life insurance to protect their familes....have a 35 hour work week.....la de da la de da...
it`s not a realistic expectation...
we can`t even control our borders...or don`t have the will to...
which is also a drain on healthcare systems in the west and southwest...
Look, first to admit I know nothing about the health insurance issues in the US, but I have to say that the basis of your post is wrong, gw.
Here in Australia we do have a national healthcare system. It's been tweaked and tweaked and tweaked, and still costing the Gov. a reasonable amount a year, but it works perfectly well along side private health insurance.
The differences are: In public health you have to wait your turn...could be in a waiting list for a year or more, and you have to 'settle' for a hospital with 8/10 beds in a room and no special facilaties etc., but you get what you need for free, and by specialised doctors.
In private health (which varies in price, but ~$500 a year), you get your procedure straight away and a 'nicer' hospital, with tv's, 4 beds a room, etc. etc.
"Medicare" covers
all Australians every time they visit the doctor for a consultation, and it's a fund paid for by a tax levy.
You go to the doctors, you show you Medicare card and you either a) Pay on the spot and get a cheque in the mail, or b) the cheque goers straight to the GP and you walk straight out the door.
Now, obviously if something like this happens in the US, then I'm on the wrong track, and I apologise, but on the surface (to me anyway!), saying that a National health care system would drag everyone's standard of treatment down seems a bit extreme to me.