Do you want America to have a NHS?

I think in a modern, wealthy, developed country, a certain level of medical care should be seen as a human right (not a civil right). And though people don't admit it, we in the US tend to believe that. Anyone who shows up at an Emergency Room must be treated, to a certain level, regardless of their ability to pay. We delude ourselves into thinking we don't ALL pay for the medical care of those who don't have insurance.

But I don't think most Americans want an NHS. What most of us want is a 'Canadian style' single payer system, where the doctors and hospitals and clinics remain private, competitive, for-profit, but the govt. handles the insurance, and everyone is covered. Countries that do this spend much less than we do here, but get the same or better care. In fact we have a single payer system here in the US, the Medicare system. By all accounts it works as well as the private system but costs much less. If we simply expanded Medicare to cover everyone in the country we would save literally billions of dollars a year for the same care, the same outcomes.

We also have something like the NHS, a separate system we designed for military veterans, hospitals run by the federal govt. This system has suffered from chronic underfunding since it began, and it's not as good as our vets deserve.

Every modern developed country has some combination of capitalism and socialism. Capitalism has the advantage of building wealth faster, socialism has the advantage of fostering social harmony ('domestic tranquility' as our Constitution puts it), driving out fear, making people relaxed and happy. A single payer system uses both socialism and capitalism where they both can do the most good. There are still profits, return on investment, but everyone can relax and not worry about getting cancer or a heart attack and not having access to medical care.

without question - our equipment is incorrect, whether that's the intervention of government that has made it the main incorrect. One stable element relating to the British equipment is which you are able to be a citizen with a view to take part and get carry of reward. Our well being care equipment, colleges, and so on are over-run with non-voters who're receiving reward at taxpayer cost or for no charge in any respect, as a effect employing up expenses around the board to each physique. If government needs to intrude, that is one stable place to commence via slicing off all those reward (such as anchor babies) and an unlawful alien receiving in basic terms quite emergent guard a existence threatening ailment (on a similar time as handcuffed to the mattress via INS) - one way cost tag domicile, whilst greater suitable. Your NHS has been under scrutiny for years and a few radical alterations are approximately to take place. i might quite see the loose industry corporation equipment proceed to maintain medical care in the US the suitable and maximum inventive in the international, incorrect as our equipment could be, there is not any perfect equipment.

I believe the national health care bill is a treasonous act against the Constitution of America. The United States Government is not allowed by the Constitution to force Americans to buy anything. Obama first said the penalty for not having health-care insurance did not equal a tax on the uninsured. His exact words were "it is absolutely not a tax". Now Obama realizes how unconstitutional that is and is now saying it is a tax. When is Obama going to be impeached is the real question. How long are we going to let the libs in office rip this country apart piece by piece?

No I don't want NHC and here is why, the health, financial, and political regions in the US vary dramatically between regions, so each plan would need to be curtailed to the specified region in order to become efficient. A blanket policy would be inefficient.

Also geographically, there are more states that don't want a NHC, and including them will not please them. So why make this a battle of wills? I think states should be able to set up a plan for themselves if they want one, it would be similar to how each EU country has/had it's own independent NHC, but with more freedom in regards to dissenters.

Hell, NO! but 0baama just appointed a dedicated NHS lover to run 0baamacare...

Can you take a wild guess what HE wants to do?

Do you like the service from the IRS, Post Office? How about the twin fiascoes of Cash for Clunkers and Home tax credit, or $250,000 Jobs "Saved or created" and MONEY LOST or sent to non existent districts?

I can't wait for these incompetent twits to get control of healthcare.

Yes.

We should learn from nations that have NHS, if we did than we would know its a failing model and to stay far away from it.

80% of Americans are satisfied with the quality of their health care.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/03/poll-most-ameri...

85% of Britain's are dissatisfied with the quality of their health care.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/162/12/1721-a

We need to learn from reality, not ignore it and go down the same road of failure.

Hell No.

I have learned through friends in GB that the treatments for my condition are not deemed necessary by the NHS. I want to live, therefore I do not wish for anything remotely like the NHS to darken our shores.

They aren't actually going to give you any logical, thought out reasons.

They are merely going to go ad hominem, insult the President by spelling his name incorrectly somehow, or then call all nationalized healthcare Communist.