Congratulations America

[Juska]

Nope, the insurance company that has a monetary incentive to deny your claim knows better than a government that makes no profit by refusing to pay for you. Very logical.

If insurance companies constantly deny people's claims no one would have insurance. They run the numbers and know how to make a profit. Look, I don't need insurance, once again I could pay for medical services with my own money which is subject to no insurance company or government.

One again. The VAST MAJORITY of the world has socialized health care systems, and has had for DECADES. No "worst atrocities in history" have resulted from socialized health care.

Who gives a freaking crap if the vast majority of the world has socialized health care systems? If the vast majority of the world participates in genocide would you participate in genocide? The worst atrocities in history happen when you let the government think for you, the people, like I said earlier. I never said socialized health care directly leads to government abuse, what I said is the same line of thought (that the government knows what's best for me) can lead to both.



...which will actually be cheaper than their current coverage, on average.

Really? Proof please. Not if I make a decent wage already.

On the other hand, all that money that people were saving for when you broke your leg and have to sell your house to get it fixed can now be invested back into your economy, which will raise demand to balance the drop.

Lol, you don't need to sell your house to pay for a broken leg. The medical costs for a broken leg paid in cash would be in the neighborhood of $3,000 maybe. I'd have to talk to a doctor to get exact numbers. But it doesn't cost $40,000+ like your house does. If insurance would cost you $2,000 a year if you don't break your leg for two years you save a thousand bucks. Obviously there is more to it than that but you should be able to understand my logic.



While we are pulling out random bits of idealistic documentation to apply to a real world situation, I will again point out that it is state in the UDHR that health care is a basic human right and that governemtns therefore have an obligation to provide it.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has no power over me, it is not part of my constitution and my government is not obligated to follow it. Random bits of idealistic documentation? The U.S. Constitution is what guarantees my rights as a citizen, it is what gives my government it's power! It's no random bit of idealistic documentation.

Anyway the UDHR says this:

Article 25.

   * (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

See, the right to a standard of living, it doesn't actually give you the right for health care.

It also says this:

Article 3.

    * Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.


You are assuming here that the people who administer this thing will be skimming off the top. Which is a pretty big assumption, and is utter speculation. The people who administer this have no monetary incentive to deny your claim.


No, I am saying that bureaucrats require a SALARY! and upkeep FOR THEIR WORKPLACES ect.

Say one bureaucrat requires $60,000 in salary a year and he can administer $1,000,000 in taxes to the needy. $1,000,000 - $60,000 = $940,000.

Whereas the people who the $1,000,000 comes from require no salary to provide for their needy neighbors by themselves.

When the government "competes" in the marketplace all other competitors die out, you can't compete with a behemoth like the government which can create laws and has incredible resources at it's disposal, eventually all other competition be gone.

Note: All bolded statements are quotes from Shadow

I'm sorry that you don't see that forcing someone to do something solely because they are a living being is a detriment to liberty and that you don't see how much liberty is essential for the benefit of mankind.

[Gorak]

I took a look at the bill
and it is a pretty crappy, half butt suedo public healthcare bill

nothing like what we have in Canada

but it's a start, and hopefully will get reformed  in the near future.

but here, our health premiums are also based on income
$35k-$50k a year, your looking at around $45 a month, unless your employer covers it. It does cap out at some point, but I don't know what, I doubt it'd be much over $50 a month even if you make a 7 figure salary
the idea is, if you make more money, you can afford it.

But I understand you prefering that those who are less fortunate die rather then recieve medicare they cannot afford just so you can save $50 a month. 
I mean, that's the American way is it not?

But hey, by supporting the healthcare system I enjoy so much, I'm just letting the government think for me.
I am just a drone with no opinion of my own.
Excuse me while I go participate in genocide now

[Genevieve]

Who gives a freaking crap if the vast majority of the world has socialized health care systems? If the vast majority of the world participates in genocide would you participate in genocide?

Umm is this a joke? Seriously, that's probably definitely the stupidest argument I have ever seen. The point is that the vast majority of the world's socialized health care systems work, and work well, and they have for many years. And that having it doesn't lead to governments forcing us to pay for other stuff, or whatever it is you're worried about. Even though that kind of is a government's right, I mean, how many other laws are an impingement on your precious freedom?

If insurance companies constantly deny people's claims no one would have insurance. They run the numbers and know how to make a profit. Look, I don't need insurance, once again I could pay for medical services with my own money which is subject to no insurance company or government.

We're trying to sell universal health care to someone who doesn't even believe in the idea of insurance. I think it's time to give up.



I was shocked to find out in first year law that the Australian Constitution doesn't really give me any rights. I realise now that I should be glad to live in a country that doesn't refer to an ancient piece of paper to decide that what is clearly right for them, is wrong.

[Gen. Volkov]

Now that is an opposition reason I can respect. Thank you volk, for actually giving a reasoned arguemtn instead of something about liberty and communism.

You're welcome.

I don't think bipartisan support is possible on this one. The way the debate has happened, this will either end up being shot down completely or implemented completely, with any major reforms and support from the republicans happening many years down the road. I think that is largely the fault of th republicans, as well. They way they campaigned against the health care reform (ie, "death panels" etc.) really polarized the argument to the point where a lot of people simply decided that it was bad, end of story, regardless of its actual changing content.

I disagree, I think bipartisan support was possible, but the Democrats writing the bill more or less refused to listen to the Republicans. You are right that the Republicans polarized the argument, but I think that had more to do with the content of the specific bill than any deep-seated resistance to any sort of health care reform.

You can't possibly be suggesting that Obama didn't ask for bipartisan participation. All he got from it was rude words.

He asked in the most superficial and media friendly way. The Republicans were essentially shut out of the process. He put on a little dog and pony show in which he met with Republicans and Democrats, and basically said "OK, here's the bill that the Democrats have written, what minor changes can we make to get some Republicans on board?" What it was really about was making the Republicans look bad. They were never going to compromise on anything major. Obama might have, but Pelosi more or less wants to stick it to the Republicans, because she has a big majority and really only needs the support of a few Democrats to pass any bill.

[Juska]

But I understand you prefering that those who are less fortunate die rather then recieve medicare they cannot afford just so you can save $50 a month.
I mean, that's the American way is it not?

When have I ever said that? It really doesn't matter about the money, it is the principle of being forced to pay.

Look, you say you want to help those in need correct? I want to help them just as much, you see there are thing called charities and foundations based upon the notion of providing for the needy. See I can give my money to those charities and foundations of my own free will and provide at least the same amount of benefit as it would if the government taxed the same amount money out of me. Most likely it would provide greater benefit, because you see even charities must compete against other charities so there is more and more progress. The government doesn't need to compete against anyone and once again I have the freedom to choose who to give my money to.

If everyone who wanted to help the needy would give of their own money to charities there would money to help people (which actually happens right now believe it or not), although many of the people who are proponents of forced giving give very little at all.

See the difference between you and me is that I believe that people can help people, you believe that people must be forced to help people.


But hey, by supporting the healthcare system I enjoy so much, I'm just letting the government think for me.

In some ways yes.

I am just a drone with no opinion of my own.

Obviously not, you have been expressing your opinions this entire time

Excuse me while I go participate in genocide now

Ok, genocide was perhaps a little extreme of an example, the point was that what everyone is doing is not always the right thing to be doing. Which actually tends to work out quite a lot, what everyone is doing is usually not the right thing to be doing.

Note: The above bold statements quoted from Gorak.

Umm is this a joke? Seriously, that's probably definitely the stupidest argument I have ever seen. The point is that the vast majority of the world's socialized health care systems work, and work well, and they have for many years. And that having it doesn't lead to governments forcing us to pay for other stuff, or whatever it is you're worried about. Even though that kind of is a government's right, I mean, how many other laws are an impingement on your precious freedom?


Which country has had the best medical care in the world? Which country has poured the most money and seen the most results in progressing medical further and further? Yes, The United States the country that until now (or in 4 years when the laws actually go into effect) didn't have a socialized health care system.

Anyway refer to above about doing what everyone else is doing, oh I'd also like to point out America (yeah the country built upon the principles of liberty and democracy) has progressed to the dominant economic and military power within 150 years of existence, I don't know, maybe we are doing something right, just maybe.


We're trying to sell universal health care to someone who doesn't even believe in the idea of insurance. I think it's time to give up.

I believe in the idea of insurance, I also see that financially you can benefit by forgoing insurance. Obviously, you run the risk of losing this game, but insurance companies run the risks and figure out how to win, they play on people's fears. Not having insurance is not the right choice for everyone, but it can be a good choice for some and that's my point.


I was shocked to find out in first year law that the Australian Constitution doesn't really give me any rights. I realise now that I should be glad to live in a country that doesn't refer to an ancient piece of paper to decide that what is clearly right for them, is wrong.

Yes, ancient piece of paper. I'm pretty sure the U.K. still has laws that go back to the Magna Carta which was written in the 13th century.

Besides, the basis of society is law, The Constitution outlines what the government can do within the law. I'm glad you agree that this health care bill is unconstitutional. I'm sorry that you have no rights in your country as protected by your constitution.

Note: Bold statements quoted from Genevieve.

[Shadow]

Anyway the UDHR says this:

Article 25.

   * (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

See, the right to a standard of living, it doesn't actually give you the right for health care.

including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services

medical care

And yes, your country signed into the UDHR by being part of the UN. So it is just as binding as any other piece of historical documentation you choose to bring up - the fact that your country is arrogant enough to ignore it doesn't change that, it just means that nobody else can intervene. And before you say "that it justh medical care, which anyone can get, itll just cost them if they don't have insurance" We can go on to infer from the right to food, shelter, etc that they meant "without bankrupting themselves and thereby sacrificing several of their other basic right"

No, I am saying that bureaucrats require a SALARY! and upkeep FOR THEIR WORKPLACES ect.

Say one bureaucrat requires $60,000 in salary a year and he can administer $1,000,000 in taxes to the needy. $1,000,000 - $60,000 = $940,000.

Whereas the people who the $1,000,000 comes from require no salary to provide for their needy neighbors by themselves.

You just pulled that number out of the air.

If insurance companies constantly deny people's claims no one would have insurance. They run the numbers and know how to make a profit. Look, I don't need insurance, once again I could pay for medical services with my own money which is subject to no insurance company or government.

There are people in major insurance companies whose sole job is to find ways to not pay claims, or to find ways to take back large claims after the fact, or to drop sick people, etc. It makes perfect economic sense, but it is not the kind of thing I want in charge of my health. On the other hand, my health care costs here are so low, I don't even really notice them. If I break my leg, it's free!

Who gives a freaking crap if the vast majority of the world has socialized health care systems? If the vast majority of the world participates in genocide would you participate in genocide? The worst atrocities in history happen when you let the government think for you, the people, like I said earlier. I never said socialized health care directly leads to government abuse, what I said is the same line of thought (that the government knows what's best for me) can lead to both.

My point is that it works, has worked for years, and will continue to do so, and that having soccizlied health care will not turn you into a drone/slave or whatever it is you are picturing,. Also, straw man argument much? Cheap health care != genocide, by any stretch of the imagination. Which your country has also failed to do anything about and continues to fail, by the way, but that's another story.

Really? Proof please. Not if I make a decent wage already

Personal experience of every people in the world who lives in a socialized health care system, and the well known and documented fact (google it) that the US pays among the largest percentage of its GDP per health care of any nation in the world. Note that since it also has the largest GDP, it means you are paying a [haties] of a lot more than anyone else, period.

Lol, you don't need to sell your house to pay for a broken leg. The medical costs for a broken leg paid in cash would be in the neighborhood of $3,000 maybe. I'd have to talk to a doctor to get exact numbers. But it doesn't cost $40,000+ like your house does. If insurance would cost you $2,000 a year if you don't break your leg for two years you save a thousand bucks. Obviously there is more to it than that but you should be able to understand my logic.

Both my parents have had extended hospital stays in the past 20 years, each twice. In your system, it would have cost us our house and the clothes off our back. Here, we didn't pay a dime, and our economy did not collapse overnight either.

Article 3.

   * Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

And socialized health care does not contradict that. The rest of the world is quite happy with their freedom and their socialized health care.

Which country has had the best medical care in the world? Which country has poured the most money and seen the most results in progressing medical further and further? Yes, The United States the country that until now (or in 4 years when the laws actually go into effect) didn't have a socialized health care system.

No, not you. You rank 37, IIRC. Quality of care does not equate with best system! Your health care system is great for those who can afford it, and nonexistent for the rest. For the average consumer, your health care system ranks among the worst of the developed countries of the world. Incidentally, somewhere near there, possibly 38th place, is Cuba, which puts the American system about on par with a third world country.

Incidentally, the top 30 health care systems in the world are all socialized, to some degree.

[Genevieve]

Besides, the basis of society is law, The Constitution outlines what the government can do within the law. I'm glad you agree that this health care bill is unconstitutional. I'm sorry that you have no rights in your country as protected by your constitution.

Err I didn't say it was unconstitutional, that was you.

And I wasn't talking about laws, I was talking about your "right to freedom" bs, which, if you always interpret as extremely as this, would make a whole lot of the basis of society unconstitutional.

Oh don't worry, I have some rights protected by my constitution - like just compensation for assets taken by the commonwealth. That'll come in handy some day.

[Alazar is Back]

I know im gonna get flamed to all hell for saying this, but i fully agree with Juska. I am a poor college student who works his butt off to pay bills. I am uncovered, and I am in huge disagreement with this bill and any other socialized medicine. It doesn't help that I am in my party years and like to get drunk ocassionally. The difference between the US and Canada is in the a case of beer runs you about $20...in Canada its something like $50. Not to mention all the taxes, I don't need or want healthcare(like many americans). So how is it fair that I have to pay for some other lazy butt to get it? I give money to people who need it alot. I do my best to help people and my community out. Being forced to give things is a violation of what this country was built on.

You people can say what you want about other countries that had dictators. I am sorry, it's sad, it really is, but there is nothing I can do about it. I know maybe the rest of the world is just jealous of what we have. We are one of the most dominant and successful nations in the world. This has happened with our CURRENT healthcare system. Our country was built on liberty and freedom, I for one would like to show our founding fathers the respect of keeping that in place.

To be honest noone from this country or others can judge socialized healthcare in america. How many people does Canada have? Or any of these other countries? It is far different circumstance, a solution for one country can be hell for another. That is just common sense. If you really want to get costs lowered, you get rid of the liabilities for doctors, and start restricting doctor visits. I know people who go in if their nose gets stuffed up. The high health costs come from stupid use of healthcare. Another way to lower costs(here comes a lot more flame) is to not give health care to illegal aliens. I am sorry, but they don't belong in our country, so if they come here illegally then they better get their asses back to Mexico if they want to be treated. It's ridiculous that we have to spend all that money on people who are not Americans and do not belong here. We have enough of our own problems. But the US like always has to try and help all the other nations in the world. Or have you all forgot that? All the groups that do all the work all over the world in poverty stricken countries. So seriously stfu before you go bad mouthing one of the greatest countries in the world.

[Sharptooh]

I know maybe the rest of the world is just jealous of what we have. We are one of the most dominant and successful nations in the world.

So Successful = A Debt hole of over £11 Trillion, how are you going to pay that back???

Also last time I checked a lot of people in this country had a really biased view of Americans as arrogant full of themselves "America is the capital of the world" kind of people, usually this is unjustified (as in the case of most forum members) somehow Alazar you seem to be the exception.

Another way to lower costs(here comes a lot more flame) is to not give health care to illegal aliens. I am sorry, but they don't belong in our country, so if they come here illegally then they better get their asses back to Mexico if they want to be treated. It's ridiculous that we have to spend all that money on people who are not Americans and do not belong here.

If you were a broke, starving person from a corrupt state in Africa with a wife and children who depend on you I'm sure you'd see things in a slightly different light, unfortunately some people are born into bad situations, when they rush to you for help I'd feel pretty bad if I said to them "Go away and enter this country legally, it'll only take a year or two, in which time you and your family could die, but that's how things work here"

We have enough of our own problems. But the US like always has to try and help all the other nations in the world. Or have you all forgot that? All the groups that do all the work all over the world in poverty stricken countries. So seriously stfu before you go bad mouthing one of the greatest countries in the world.

Seriously, I think America (the government that is) has done more bad than good in some situations, there's always an alterior motive and they never seem to help people just because they need help, that's charities job's, and last time I checked America was not the only country that had charities centred, or operating in it.

So seriously stfu before you go bad mouthing one of the greatest countries in the world.

You can be very hypocritical Alazar.

[Alazar is Back]

What a surprise...another one of sharptooths highly uneducated posts...(I know I don't do as much research as I should. Say what you want, but we were basically the world leaders at one point. It IS slipping from us as our leaders continue to dig us into deeper holes.(like this healthcare bill)

I could be broke and starving with a wife and children and all that. I feel bad for people who are born in to bad situations, but guess what? That happens in our own country. The illegals not only get free care in emergency rooms from us, but also take many AMERICAN jobs. The US does help Mexico alot too. Shoot if the US were to stop all tourists from going ther Mexico would be hurting, am I wrong?  The difference between me and free loading border jumpers is that I would work my tail off to support my family in some way. I would try to go the legal way into a country. If you think about it, the ones who enter legally have a better life. They get paid a lot more that way.

The rest of the world is not our responsibility to be honest. To say that the US doesn't help all these countries is complete and utter bull poo. We help lots of disaster stricken nations, EVEN in our own time of need. Instead of just calling me hypocritical how about actually stating your line of thought? That post means nothing to me, so please DO EXPLAIN.

[Shadow]

All the groups that do all the work all over the world in poverty stricken countries. So seriously stfu before you go bad mouthing one of the greatest countries in the world.

All the groups? No. Some? Yes. The US donates a VERY small portion of its GDP to development of other countries compared to the average percentage donation. You are not saints.

We help lots of disaster stricken nations, EVEN in our own time of need

And more often, you ignore them. For example: Rwanda, Darfur.

A significant amount of the aid your country gives is tied aid. Which has been proven to be ineffective compared to normal aid.

The difference between the US and Canada is in the a case of beer runs you about $20...in Canada its something like $50

Wrong! Yet again you show that you have no understanding of the country that is your neighbor. Stop making crap up to support your arguments.

But the US like always has to try and help all the other nations in the world. Or have you all forgot that?

Again, most of the "aid" you give is quite unwelcome (intervention) or tied, or simply useless (abstience only education versus AIDS, for example). And the amount you give is proportionally tiny compared to most other developed nations. Get off your high horse.



All of this is irrelevent to health care though. Are you simply trying to say that because America is AWESOME, that our opinions are irrelevent and your (apparently uninformed) opinion is more relevent? Because if that's the object here, then I think I will just ignor eyou for the rest of this little debate.

[Gen. Volkov]

Seriously, I think America (the government that is) has done more bad than good in some situations, there's always an alterior motive and they never seem to help people just because they need help, that's charities job's, and last time I checked America was not the only country that had charities centred, or operating in it.

So our outpouring of support to Haiti after the Earthquake, and Indonesia after the tsunami, those had ulterior motives? The Navy battle group we sent in to deliver supplies and provide medical help, that was what? A demonstration of military power? To who? Alazar may be a little puffed up about how great the US is, but our track record of helping people in need is second to none. Whenever there is a natural disaster around the world, the first people to get there are usually Americans. We're also usually the last to leave. Let's be honest here people, the US has had a lot of misadventures, I'll be the first to admit it. But Americans are very generous and giving people, and we give out more aid on a yearly basis than any other country in the world. More than the UK and Japan combined.

The US donates a VERY small portion of its GDP to development of other countries compared to the average percentage donation. You are not saints.

Top 5 countries:

US aid vs GDP % = .01%
Japan aid vs GDP % = .02%
UK aid vs GDP % = .04%
France aid vs GDP % = .03%
Germany aid vs GDP % = .02%

Looks to me like the biggest economies in the world all donate a very small percentage of their GDP to development of other countries. Left out China, since they don't appear on the top 10 biggest donors list.

And more often, you ignore them. For example: Rwanda, Darfur.

Human made disasters are a little different. Besides, no one did much about Rwanda and Darfur. The US was far from alone in that category.

But yeah, this is a little irrelevant to health care.

So, back on topic:

Incidentally, the top 30 health care systems in the world are all socialized, to some degree.

Based on the WHO's ranking, which prioritizes things like universality and access to health care. Juska has a point. We put more money into medical research than any European country, both as a percentage of GDP and in absolute terms. We also have very high quality of care. I've a feeling that with the increased number of people with access to health care provided by this bill, even though I don't like this particular bill, the ranking for the US is going to go way up. Which just shows that in order to get a good ranking by the WHO, you have to be socialized, and that the other factors that go into making a good system are not taken into account as much. Like doctor-patient ratios, which are MUCH better in the US than in Canada or the UK, even though both countries rank higher on the WHO list than the US does.

[Shadow]

Top 5 countries:

US aid vs GDP % = .01%
Japan aid vs GDP % = .02%
UK aid vs GDP % = .04%
France aid vs GDP % = .03%
Germany aid vs GDP % = .02%

Looks to me like the biggest economies in the world all donate a very small percentage of their GDP to development of other countries. Left out China, since they don't appear on the top 10 biggest donors list.

My point here was just to show Alazar that he was talking out his [Behind] and making up numbers without doing any research. I don't actually care what the numbers are, I was just making the point that the US is not the biggest aid contributor nor the most active, as he was implying.

Based on the WHO's ranking, which prioritizes things like universality and access to health care. Juska has a point. We put more money into medical research than any European country, both as a percentage of GDP and in absolute terms. We also have very high quality of care. I've a feeling that with the increased number of people with access to health care provided by this bill, even though I don't like this particular bill, the ranking for the US is going to go way up. Which just shows that in order to get a good ranking by the WHO, you have to be socialized, and that the other factors that go into making a good system are not taken into account as much. Like doctor-patient ratios, which are MUCH better in the US than in Canada or the UK, even though both countries rank higher on the WHO list than the US does.

Being socilaized is not a requirement for a good ranking, simply easy access for all economic levels. Your system does not have that, so they do poorly.

A system that only caters to a certain number of people is not a good one, no matter how much research funding goes into it.

The doctor-patient ratio being so high is at least partly due to the fact that a lot of people are excluded. Fix that, and it will even out. I doubt your health care system is going to rise much in the rankings regardless. My point was just that what Juska was saying about having the best health care in the world is simply not true accoridng to an objective ranking system.

If you want to nitpick and say "we are better in this and this area, etc" then fine, do so, but overall, your system sucks as measured by the average consumer experience.



About illegal aliens: I never once implied that they should be covered. Far as I know, they are not in Canada. In order to get medical insurance through the government, you should be a registered tax payer.

[Gen. Volkov]

My point here was just to show Alazar that he was talking out his [Behind] and making up numbers without doing any research. I don't actually care what the numbers are, I was just making the point that the US is not the biggest aid contributor nor the most active, as he was implying.

We are the biggest aid contributor though, in absolute terms. Ally probably was just talking out of his rear, but I was pointing out that you were too, since you didn't bother to do the research either.

Being socilaized is not a requirement for a good ranking, simply easy access for all economic levels. Your system does not have that, so they do poorly.

One of the five criteria was "distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population". Another was "health inequalities (or disparities) within the population". Both of these are rather biased towards socialized systems.

A system that only caters to a certain number of people is not a good one, no matter how much research funding goes into it.

If you say so. I disagree. There are multiple aspects that go into making a good system. Universality is just one.

The doctor-patient ratio being so high is at least partly due to the fact that a lot of people are excluded. Fix that, and it will even out. I doubt your health care system is going to rise much in the rankings regardless. My point was just that what Juska was saying about having the best health care in the world is simply not true accoridng to an objective ranking system.

Um, doctor-patient ratios are a calculation that looks at country population vs number of doctors in that country. So no, it has nothing to do with people being excluded. As for rising in the rankings... we are the top country in at least one of the other categories the WHO ranked by. However, you are right that the rankings are not going to change. They haven't since 2000, which is the first and so far last time they were done. So your argument about an objective ranking system is based on data that is 10 years old. If they were done again though, given our top status in things like responsiveness, and the increase in coverage due to this bill, I suspect our ranking would increase, rather dramatically.

If you want to nitpick and say "we are better in this and this area, etc" then fine, do so, but overall, your system sucks as measured by the average consumer experience.

No, China's system sucks. Our system is in the top 40 out of 190 countries ranked. You guys are only 7 spots above us. Below such luminaries as Morocco, Oman, and Colombia. I'm not nit-picking, I'm just point out that universality isn't everything.

[Alazar is Back]

Shadow I was not talking out of my butt. My point was that there are a bunch of people on here trying to drag America through the mud. I never said America is the best, I simply stated that we are not arrogant assholes. We do give a lot of support and aid to countries in need. My other point is that in the global economy the US ranks as one of the highest. We have had a downturn in the last decade though. You're right I did no research. I am lazy and quite frankly care enough at the moment. Besides it was a point I was trying to make in arguement to Sharptooth's response. I agree with you when it comes to illegal aliens. If you want to get emergency health care then you need to do it the legal way.

I wasn't randomly bring illegal aliens up though, California for example spent millions of dollars treating illegals in emergency rooms.(I don't know the exact number so if someone like Volkov wants to look it up be my guest)

The point is that this violates a freedom of ours, we can't even run our economy now, so how do they expect to pay for this, and our country is far different from many other countries like Canada. As it is with everything the results of socialized medicine will be different in different places. Different populations, and economies..