Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance

[rubberhead]

It's an interesting reference. But I disagree with the bit about slaves. No-one is advocating that doctors, for example, should work for no payment.

Yes, the doctors would not work for no payment, so the taxpayers would become the slaves. 50% tax = 50% slavery. If you have to work until August to pay your taxes, then you are a slave for half the year. Yes, I've heard the collective action, bridge building argument, but if you don't want/don't use a single payer system, but are forced to pay for it, then you are a slave for whatever amount of time the government forces you to work for no pay to cover your share of the service that you are not using.

They pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

That means they pay less.

I guess you don't know what the word "half" means.

Yes, I agree that our health care is expensive. When are you going to make the argument that the government needs to start an insurance company? There are many reasons why our health care is expensive, one of which is the way that health insurance companies attenuate price controls on demand, but a government option won't change that. It will just violate a bunch of peoples' rights. They pay half because they have more rationing and I'm not sure, but I'd be interested to know how many malpractice lawsuits there are in those utopias. Nice try on the trolling by the way, but the 8th grade tactics don't work on me. If you want to win this argument you're going to have to come up with an argument.

 

[MalibuMan]

I see Iceland is listed. What high standard of living can you have being bankrupt?

Iceland goes bankrupt - BusinessWeek

 

[rubberhead]

I see Iceland is listed. What high standard of living can you have being bankrupt?

ouch... i hope those who support the plan will come up with some new and more convincing arguments, because I've noticed that at this point in the discussion the losing side of the argument goes silent because they are afraid that the kool aid will wear off. Obamaphoria is no substitute for reality.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

High Living Standard Countries

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?

In order to permanently dismantle this bullshit comparison, consider:

The United States has more illegal aliens than 6 of those countries have people.

The State of California has a bigger population than 8 of those countries has people.

The Country of Iceland has a population of 304,000.

The most populace nation, Japan, has a landmass the size of the state of CA and no illegal aliens!

 

[manu1959]

Cancer Survival Rates Vary by Country

now compare survival rates for cancer.....yea our health care really sucks ....idiots......

 

[Diuretic]

Yes, the doctors would not work for no payment, so the taxpayers would become the slaves. 50% tax = 50% slavery. If you have to work until August to pay your taxes, then you are a slave for half the year. If you don't want/don't use a single payer system, but are forced to pay for it, then you are a slave.

Tax doesn't have to be that high I would think. Taxes are a fact of life and that's that and it's important that governments are held to account for the beneficial use of tax money. I would think funding universal health care is a beneficial use of tax money.

If it really is true that we'll be adding 46 million people into the risk pool (many of whom are high risk, which is why they are not covered now) and that, since we will have the referee playing in the game, many insurance companies will not be able to compete anymore and will be forced to shutdown, then I argue that the tax will be at least that high (it is in the UK) because the 46 million who are uninsured and the millions of others who are forced onto the government plan because their insurance company went out of business, their coverage was deemed insufficient by the legislation (read the house bill if you don't believe me) or their employer decides that it's cheaper just to pay the 8% payroll tax will suddenly be subsidized by tax dollars. Also, for someone opposed to government run health care (i.e. someone who doesn't believe that they will benefit from it) the collective action (bridge building) argument that you are making-which I have already addressed in earlier posts actually-doesn't work. That is, unless you believe that our government knows best when it comes to health care and the critics should all just be dismissed. Unfortunately, that is a tiptoe in the direction of fascism.

Here's something to consider: If this massive bureaucratic apparatus is put into place, how many people will thereafter be 'voting for a living?' That is, if a candidate for elected office were to oppose the system that is being proposed once it is in place, how many people would be voting for their own livelihoods? The UK Health Service is the third largest employer in the world. Second only to the PRC and the India Railroad Company. Now that's a lot of votes. This would permanently shift the political climate in our country to the left and completely change the game. Now doesn't that sound like something that the average politician would actually care about? Republican, democrat, socialist, libertarian, it doesn't matter: politicians want to keep their jobs at all costs (Arlen Specter proved that). Single payer health care is job security for Democrats and a giant leap toward socialism.

"Voting for a living". Even the conservatives in countries where there is a universal health care system don't suggest dismantling it, so the idea of "voting for a living" is moot. In those countries the concept of health care isn't part of the ideological battlefield. The fact that it is in the US informs me of the power of vested interests to fool the people all of the time.

 

[Diuretic]

I see Iceland is listed. What high standard of living can you have being bankrupt?

Iceland goes bankrupt - BusinessWeek

Oh please, Iceland suffered as a result of the Wall Street fuckup. Find something relevant.

 

[Diuretic]

Cancer Survival Rates Vary by Country

now compare survival rates for cancer.....yea our health care really sucks ....idiots......

Whoop de ******* do! This has been analysed in other threads. And using a single metric?

 

[rubberhead]

Tax doesn't have to be that high I would think. Taxes are a fact of life and that's that and it's important that governments are held to account for the beneficial use of tax money. I would think funding universal health care is a beneficial use of tax money.

If it really is true that we'll be adding 46 million people into the risk pool (many of whom are high risk, which is why they are not covered now) and that, since we will have the referee playing in the game, many insurance companies will not be able to compete anymore and will be forced to shutdown, then I argue that the tax will be at least that high (it is in the UK) because the 46 million who are uninsured and the millions of others who are forced onto the government plan because their insurance company went out of business, their coverage was deemed insufficient by the legislation (read the house bill if you don't believe me) or their employer decides that it's cheaper just to pay the 8% payroll tax will suddenly be subsidized by tax dollars. Also, for someone opposed to government run health care (i.e. someone who doesn't believe that they will benefit from it) the collective action (bridge building) argument that you are making-which I have already addressed in earlier posts actually-doesn't work. That is, unless you believe that our government knows best when it comes to health care and the critics should all just be dismissed. Unfortunately, that is a tiptoe in the direction of fascism.

Here's something to consider: If this massive bureaucratic apparatus is put into place, how many people will thereafter be 'voting for a living?' That is, if a candidate for elected office were to oppose the system that is being proposed once it is in place, how many people would be voting for their own livelihoods? The UK Health Service is the third largest employer in the world. Second only to the PRC and the India Railroad Company. Now that's a lot of votes. This would permanently shift the political climate in our country to the left and completely change the game. Now doesn't that sound like something that the average politician would actually care about? Republican, democrat, socialist, libertarian, it doesn't matter: politicians want to keep their jobs at all costs (Arlen Specter proved that). Single payer health care is job security for Democrats and a giant leap toward socialism.

"Voting for a living". Even the conservatives in countries where there is a universal health care system don't suggest dismantling it, so the idea of "voting for a living" is moot. In those countries the concept of health care isn't part of the ideological battlefield. The fact that it is in the US informs me of the power of vested interests to fool the people all of the time.

You missed the point. They don't suggest dismantling it because they have to compete for the voting block of people who depend on it. Here's the point again (in bold):

If they suggest dismantling it, then they get voted out by the people who depend on it financially.

This is what is meant by "voting for a living." Say you have 300 million people (about a third of that are voters), and even 5 million of them work for the bloated government health care system (the UK Health Service employs 3 million out of 61 million people - probably about 20 million voters). That's 5% of the voting population who will vote against anyone who threatens their livelihood. And 5 million out of 100 million is a conservative estimate, given the proportion in the UK. Please think about what I say before you respond. I know that the internet is where you go to splatter your brain diarrhea, but this is important and the outcome could forever change our country for the worse.

 

[Diuretic]

If it really is true that we'll be adding 46 million people into the risk pool (many of whom are high risk, which is why they are not covered now) and that, since we will have the referee playing in the game, many insurance companies will not be able to compete anymore and will be forced to shutdown, then I argue that the tax will be at least that high (it is in the UK) because the 46 million who are uninsured and the millions of others who are forced onto the government plan because their insurance company went out of business, their coverage was deemed insufficient by the legislation (read the house bill if you don't believe me) or their employer decides that it's cheaper just to pay the 8% payroll tax will suddenly be subsidized by tax dollars. Also, for someone opposed to government run health care (i.e. someone who doesn't believe that they will benefit from it) the collective action (bridge building) argument that you are making-which I have already addressed in earlier posts actually-doesn't work. That is, unless you believe that our government knows best when it comes to health care and the critics should all just be dismissed. Unfortunately, that is a tiptoe in the direction of fascism.

Here's something to consider: If this massive bureaucratic apparatus is put into place, how many people will thereafter be 'voting for a living?' That is, if a candidate for elected office were to oppose the system that is being proposed once it is in place, how many people would be voting for their own livelihoods? The UK Health Service is the third largest employer in the world. Second only to the PRC and the India Railroad Company. Now that's a lot of votes. This would permanently shift the political climate in our country to the left and completely change the game. Now doesn't that sound like something that the average politician would actually care about? Republican, democrat, socialist, libertarian, it doesn't matter: politicians want to keep their jobs at all costs (Arlen Specter proved that). Single payer health care is job security for Democrats and a giant leap toward socialism.

"Voting for a living". Even the conservatives in countries where there is a universal health care system don't suggest dismantling it, so the idea of "voting for a living" is moot. In those countries the concept of health care isn't part of the ideological battlefield. The fact that it is in the US informs me of the power of vested interests to fool the people all of the time.

You missed the point. They don't suggest dismantling it because they have to compete for the voting block of people who depend on it. Here's the point again (in bold):

If they suggest dismantling it, then they get voted out by the people who depend on it financially.

I don't think I did miss the point because that's how I took it. But it seems to me that the point isn't valid. Those who make a living from the universal heath care system are.....doctors, nurses, associated clinicians and service providers.....administrators and associated workers. There could be more. If a government were to dismantle a universal heath care system the demand for these services wouldn't disappear. So I don't see how your point is valid.

Governments don't dare dismantle universal health care because it would be electoral suicide to do so. It's not just the workers in the system that would throw them out, the rest of the electorate would be lining up eager to help out.

 

[Oddball]

High Living Standard Countries

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?

Then you have a nice selection of places to move to, so you can live off the prosperity of others.

Now, pick one and get the **** out.

 

[rubberhead]

"Voting for a living". Even the conservatives in countries where there is a universal health care system don't suggest dismantling it, so the idea of "voting for a living" is moot. In those countries the concept of health care isn't part of the ideological battlefield. The fact that it is in the US informs me of the power of vested interests to fool the people all of the time.

You missed the point. They don't suggest dismantling it because they have to compete for the voting block of people who depend on it. Here's the point again (in bold):

If they suggest dismantling it, then they get voted out by the people who depend on it financially.

I don't think I did miss the point because that's how I took it. But it seems to me that the point isn't valid. Those who make a living from the universal heath care system are.....doctors, nurses, associated clinicians and service providers.....administrators and associated workers. There could be more. If a government were to dismantle a universal heath care system the demand for these services wouldn't disappear. So I don't see how your point is valid.

Governments don't dare dismantle universal health care because it would be electoral suicide to do so. It's not just the workers in the system that would throw them out, the rest of the electorate would be lining up eager to help out.

The demand wouldn't disappear, but government control would disappear and the market would restore optimality. Doctors and nurses wages decrease under a government run system, and it becomes difficult to make a living as a doctor. This is what causes the shortages and rationing that we see in the UK and Canada and it's why it's difficult to find a doctor that accepts Medicare in many places. Yes, some portion of the general electorate who are not dependent on the system for a paycheck will certainly be happy with it. Let me propose one segment: those who are dependent on the system for their health care. These to segments of the population will be thereafter quite literally 'voting for a living'.

My point still stands and, ironically, you seem to agree with me even though you believe that you don't. What about the people that are unhappy with the system? These people certainly exist, because we've heard from them in Canada and the UK. They tend to be people who don't need the government's help and remember the good ol' days when they had the freedom to choose how they used the money that they earned. Actually, some provinces in Canada have seen a revival of the free market where the problems of socialism can be avoided, but the Canadian government is in the process of outlawing that. And with the increase in taxes and subsequent withering economy will grow the population of those who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford health care. Those are just more people voting for a living. In this way, welfare is an insidious way of exploiting the underclass. Thanks for agreeing with me by the way, it's good to know that there's still some common sense out there!

 

[Chris]

You missed the point. They don't suggest dismantling it because they have to compete for the voting block of people who depend on it. Here's the point again (in bold):

If they suggest dismantling it, then they get voted out by the people who depend on it financially.

I don't think I did miss the point because that's how I took it. But it seems to me that the point isn't valid. Those who make a living from the universal heath care system are.....doctors, nurses, associated clinicians and service providers.....administrators and associated workers. There could be more. If a government were to dismantle a universal heath care system the demand for these services wouldn't disappear. So I don't see how your point is valid.

Governments don't dare dismantle universal health care because it would be electoral suicide to do so. It's not just the workers in the system that would throw them out, the rest of the electorate would be lining up eager to help out.

The demand wouldn't disappear, but government control would disappear and the market would restore optimality. Doctors and nurses wages decrease under a government run system, and it becomes difficult to make a living as a doctor. This is what causes the shortages and rationing that we see in the UK and Canada and it's why it's difficult to find a doctor that accepts Medicare in many places. Yes, some portion of the general electorate who are not dependent on the system for a paycheck will certainly be happy with it. Let me propose one segment: those who are dependent on the system for their health care. These to segments of the population will be thereafter quite literally 'voting for a living'.

My point still stands and, ironically, you seem to agree with me even though you believe that you don't. What about the people that are unhappy with the system? These people certainly exist, because we've heard from them in Canada and the UK. They tend to be people who don't need the government's help and remember the good ol' days when they had the freedom to do that. Actually, some provinces in Canada have seen a revival of the free market where the problems of socialism can be avoided, but the Canadian government is in the process of outlawing that. And with the increase in taxes and subsequent withering economy will grow the population of those who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford health care. Those are just more people voting for a living. In this way, welfare is an insidious way of exploiting the underclass. Thanks for agreeing with me by the way, it's good to know that there's still some common sense out there!

Actually the French have many more doctors per capita than we do.

And do you know what happens when you increase the supply of something?

The price goes down! So they have more doctors and cheaper healthcare!

 

[Diuretic]

You missed the point. They don't suggest dismantling it because they have to compete for the voting block of people who depend on it. Here's the point again (in bold):

If they suggest dismantling it, then they get voted out by the people who depend on it financially.

I don't think I did miss the point because that's how I took it. But it seems to me that the point isn't valid. Those who make a living from the universal heath care system are.....doctors, nurses, associated clinicians and service providers.....administrators and associated workers. There could be more. If a government were to dismantle a universal heath care system the demand for these services wouldn't disappear. So I don't see how your point is valid.

Governments don't dare dismantle universal health care because it would be electoral suicide to do so. It's not just the workers in the system that would throw them out, the rest of the electorate would be lining up eager to help out.

The demand wouldn't disappear, but government control would disappear and the market would restore optimality. Doctors and nurses wages decrease under a government run system, and it becomes difficult to make a living as a doctor. This is what causes the shortages and rationing that we see in the UK and Canada and it's why it's difficult to find a doctor that accepts Medicare in many places. Yes, some portion of the general electorate who are not dependent on the system for a paycheck will certainly be happy with it. Let me propose one segment: those who are dependent on the system for their health care. These to segments of the population will be thereafter quite literally 'voting for a living'.

My point still stands and, ironically, you seem to agree with me even though you believe that you don't. What about the people that are unhappy with the system? These people certainly exist, because we've heard from them in Canada and the UK. They tend to be people who don't need the government's help and remember the good ol' days when they had the freedom to choose how they used the money that they earned. Actually, some provinces in Canada have seen a revival of the free market where the problems of socialism can be avoided, but the Canadian government is in the process of outlawing that. And with the increase in taxes and subsequent withering economy will grow the population of those who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford health care. Those are just more people voting for a living. In this way, welfare is an insidious way of exploiting the underclass. Thanks for agreeing with me by the way, it's good to know that there's still some common sense out there!

I don't know if I can lay a claim to common sense but I'm always happy to do so if someone suggests it.

I have to admit that the idea of the market operating in health care is alien to me and it's a deeply ingrained distrust that I feel, it's almost visceral so I don't profess to be as objective as I could be about the topic.

Now, doctors here in Australia make a pretty good living but I will admit that the average GP isn't extremely wealthy. They work long hours, they work hard and while they do well they're not earning anything like the sums that various captains of industry will get. I can tell you I'd be quite okay with GPs getting a bit more. But I can tell you that their earnings haven't been reduced since the inception of universal health care in this country back in the early 1970s. Nurses are earning more now than they ever have, but now they have to be educated at university and gain a degree before they can practice so that has to be borne in mind. But again, they aren't going backwards in money terms. Specialists here are able to work in both the public and private sectors and are quite well off.

The Canadian system I'm not that familiar with. I have had to see a GP a couple of times when in Toronto and did so easily. I paid cash because we don't have a reciprocal agreement with Canada (partly I think because the system is provincially and not nationally based). If I go to the UK I get free health care the moment I step off the plane. In the US I make sure I'm loaded up with private travel insurance before I get on the plane to travel there.

Canada's provincial systems need to allow private and public systems to work in a hybrid fashion. It might irritate the purists but it works.

An increase in taxes to make a system work will not with an economy. Other factors will do so long before an increase in taxes. I don't know how much it would take for the US in terms of individual taxation rates but I pay 1.5% of my taxable income for our public health care system. I pay for private insurance because I can.

 

[rubberhead]

I don't think I did miss the point because that's how I took it. But it seems to me that the point isn't valid. Those who make a living from the universal heath care system are.....doctors, nurses, associated clinicians and service providers.....administrators and associated workers. There could be more. If a government were to dismantle a universal heath care system the demand for these services wouldn't disappear. So I don't see how your point is valid.

Governments don't dare dismantle universal health care because it would be electoral suicide to do so. It's not just the workers in the system that would throw them out, the rest of the electorate would be lining up eager to help out.

The demand wouldn't disappear, but government control would disappear and the market would restore optimality. Doctors and nurses wages decrease under a government run system, and it becomes difficult to make a living as a doctor. This is what causes the shortages and rationing that we see in the UK and Canada and it's why it's difficult to find a doctor that accepts Medicare in many places. Yes, some portion of the general electorate who are not dependent on the system for a paycheck will certainly be happy with it. Let me propose one segment: those who are dependent on the system for their health care. These to segments of the population will be thereafter quite literally 'voting for a living'.

My point still stands and, ironically, you seem to agree with me even though you believe that you don't. What about the people that are unhappy with the system? These people certainly exist, because we've heard from them in Canada and the UK. They tend to be people who don't need the government's help and remember the good ol' days when they had the freedom to choose how they used the money that they earned. Actually, some provinces in Canada have seen a revival of the free market where the problems of socialism can be avoided, but the Canadian government is in the process of outlawing that. And with the increase in taxes and subsequent withering economy will grow the population of those who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford health care. Those are just more people voting for a living. In this way, welfare is an insidious way of exploiting the underclass. Thanks for agreeing with me by the way, it's good to know that there's still some common sense out there!

I don't know if I can lay a claim to common sense but I'm always happy to do so if someone suggests it.

I have to admit that the idea of the market operating in health care is alien to me and it's a deeply ingrained distrust that I feel, it's almost visceral so I don't profess to be as objective as I could be about the topic.

Now, doctors here in Australia make a pretty good living but I will admit that the average GP isn't extremely wealthy. They work long hours, they work hard and while they do well they're not earning anything like the sums that various captains of industry will get. I can tell you I'd be quite okay with GPs getting a bit more. But I can tell you that their earnings haven't been reduced since the inception of universal health care in this country back in the early 1970s. Nurses are earning more now than they ever have, but now they have to be educated at university and gain a degree before they can practice so that has to be borne in mind. But again, they aren't going backwards in money terms. Specialists here are able to work in both the public and private sectors and are quite well off.

The Canadian system I'm not that familiar with. I have had to see a GP a couple of times when in Toronto and did so easily. I paid cash because we don't have a reciprocal agreement with Canada (partly I think because the system is provincially and not nationally based). If I go to the UK I get free health care the moment I step off the plane. In the US I make sure I'm loaded up with private travel insurance before I get on the plane to travel there.

Canada's provincial systems need to allow private and public systems to work in a hybrid fashion. It might irritate the purists but it works.

An increase in taxes to make a system work will not with an economy. Other factors will do so long before an increase in taxes. I don't know how much it would take for the US in terms of individual taxation rates but I pay 1.5% of my taxable income for our public health care system. I pay for private insurance because I can.

I don't have a problem with hybrid systems, that's what we have now and 80% of Americans are reasonably happy with it. The public "option" is not a hybrid, it's a Trojan horse for single payer, and if you don't believe me watch Jacob Hacker's presentation of his "Health Care for America" proposal at the Tides Foundation (Hacker wrote the proposal that Obama is now selling) where he explicitly says so and more. The reason we need a hybrid system is because of the rigidity of demand with respect to price when it comes to health care and the consequent moral hazard. A moral hazard which I believe lies with the provider of the care because they have the most influence over the price. So why would the government start an insurance company whose intention is to put all others out of business? Why not just directly subsidize those Americans who cannot afford health care but are seeking it? The public plan, on its own seems innocuous, but under the current legislation being debated if a person's coverage is deemed 'insufficient' then they are forced on to the public plan.
nough.

Was the doctor you visited in Canada a public or private institution? I know that certain provinces in Canada still allow people to pay cash at private institutions.

Australia is a success story based on what I've read and your testimony, but Australia is a far cry from America. Though I have noticed that your tax rates are going up, so we have that in common. The population of Australia is less than half that of the estimated number of people who are uninsured (and would be forced on to the public plan), and that's not to mention the people who would lose their coverage because it is nebulously classified as insufficient or their employer decides that it's more cost effective to pay the 8% payroll tax instead of providing health care coverage for their employees.

There's more at stake here then there was in Australia in the 70s. This move would represent a permanent political shift in one of the most powerful countries in the world. You better believe that there is more to this than just kicking in to help out the poor.

 

[Diuretic]

The politics of it are not for me to comment on, well perhaps lightly, but certainly not in a partisan manner. The US is a vastly more complicated nation than ours, I fully appreciate that. And that's why I want to be at pains to point out that the programme that we developed in the 1970s was easy to put in place. This is an easy country to run, trust me, there's nothing sparkling about most of our politicians (one or two are pretty good, most are simply hacks) but even they can't stuff it up.

I wouldn't suggest our model be transplanted to the US. I do think though that some consideration might be given to how health care is looked at. I know I sound like a broken record (believe it or not music used to be produced and sold on vinyl discs, sometimes they would get damaged and the needle stuck so whatever was playing just repeated itself - this was before cd technology - j/k) but if health care is seen as a basic human right and not something to be purchased by an individual consumer then the possibilities of its management start to look a bit different.

 

[OneWorld]

I see Iceland is listed. What high standard of living can you have being bankrupt?

Iceland goes bankrupt - BusinessWeek

It almost makes me cry to read all of this stupidity... really.

If the US was smart, it would also go through bankruptcy restructuring (many intelligent economist have suggested this).

You do realize the US has many times over the debt of Iceland correct?

 

[Sidestreamer]

The buffoonery is Bern80's drivel.

If the Europeans have done it right, we will do it even better.

Bern buddy, look at me, look me in the eyes, look at me. That's better. It will be OK, buddy, it will be OK.

Bern's not entirely off. I won't pretend I know all the "variables" as Bern80 calls it but over here we have an FDA that really, REALLY clamps down new drugs and regulates them far beyond any other country, and the legal system alone adds to that 18 percent of our GDP I'm sure. Nationalizing our healthcare system alone isn't going to drop us to that 8 percent seen by the other 10 countries.

 

[Dr Grump]

It also has a more population and many more ways of creating/obtaining wealth....

 

[rubberhead]

The politics of it are not for me to comment on, well perhaps lightly, but certainly not in a partisan manner. The US is a vastly more complicated nation than ours, I fully appreciate that. And that's why I want to be at pains to point out that the programme that we developed in the 1970s was easy to put in place. This is an easy country to run, trust me, there's nothing sparkling about most of our politicians (one or two are pretty good, most are simply hacks) but even they can't stuff it up.

I wouldn't suggest our model be transplanted to the US. I do think though that some consideration might be given to how health care is looked at. I know I sound like a broken record (believe it or not music used to be produced and sold on vinyl discs, sometimes they would get damaged and the needle stuck so whatever was playing just repeated itself - this was before cd technology - j/k) but if health care is seen as a basic human right and not something to be purchased by an individual consumer then the possibilities of its management start to look a bit different.

This is where you, FDR and Teddy Kennedy are wrong. Health care is not a natural right. You don't spend money for natural rights, because you naturally have them. Natural rights are things like freedom, the right to own property, habeas corpus, etc. These are rights that if you deny them, people revolt. Health care does not fall into this category. Yes, someone certainly has the right not to be deprived of life, but you cannot classify the withholding of a scarce resource as a murder. Is it murder if you are in a desert and don't give up the rest of your water to save someone dying of dehydration? It's an extreme example, but the principle is not different when you scale the scenario to 300 million people. I don't deny that there is a significant moral hazard for health care providers when setting prices and the consumer must be protected (by the government) from unfair practices. It also seems to be the case that, in medicine, advances in technology raise costs rather than lower them as innovation does in other markets. Health care is definitely not a normal market, but it is a market. To demonstrate, say all doctors decided in unison that they no longer wanted to take patients (stay with me, it's a thought experiment), could you force them to see patients? No because they are free to choose not to help people.

What we are experiencing now is a symptom of the major flaw of a democratic republic masquerading as a revolution. Our leaders are taking advantage of the class war which, during times of financial crisis, galvanizes the underclass (not to mention grows their numbers). These people are then led to believe by one group of ambitious rich people that some other group of less ambitious rich people are the enemy and the cause of their suffering. There may be several politicians that are actually interested in helping the little guy, but I guarantee that the "redistribution of wealth" that's being sold here basically amounts to a massive kick-back.