I experienced government-run health care during the years I lived and worked in a European nation, and I'd be happy to tell you a thing or two about it.

1. I was never made to wait.
2. I was never denied care.
3. I never filled out one piece of paperwork.
4. I never spoke with a bureaucrat, government or otherwise.
5. All of my health care choices were between my doctor and me.
6. I never got a bill.
7. Prescriptions were heavily subsidized (ie: easily affordable).
8. Vision, dental, physical therapy, mental health care, emergency room care, and ambulance service were all covered.
9. One only had to pay out-of-pocket for non-essentials (ie: I had to pay for contact lenses; glasse...

I experienced government-run health care during the years I lived and worked in a European nation, and I'd be happy to tell you a thing or two about it.

1. I was never made to wait.
2. I was never denied care.
3. I never filled out one piece of paperwork.
4. I never spoke with a bureaucrat, government or otherwise.
5. All of my health care choices were between my doctor and me.
6. I never got a bill.
7. Prescriptions were heavily subsidized (ie: easily affordable).
8. Vision, dental, physical therapy, mental health care, emergency room care, and ambulance service were all covered.
9. One only had to pay out-of-pocket for non-essentials (ie: I had to pay for contact lenses; glasses would have been covered).
10. There were no allotted "sick days". If you were under doctor's orders, be it for one week, one month, or one year, you received 80% of your pay.
11. New mothers (or fathers, if they so chose) got 1 year paid maternity (paternity) leave, with job security.
12. No family or individual ever had to dip into their retirement, go bankrupt, or become homeless to pay a medical bill (and again, had paid leave from work).

Single-payer, government-run health care was the most humane, stress-free system I've ever paid into. I was happy to pay into it. I would be happy to pay into such a system here in the U.S.

Citing the continued mistreatment of a group which has been subject to gross mistreatment for two centuries and more does not a valid criticism of potential govenment performance make.

Interesting. Therefore the continued battering of a wife by an abusive husband surely does not speak to the ethics or morals of said husband. Surely the continued pattern of abuse by said government of other people groups surely must point to a systemic problem don't you think? Or is it that an abusive husband really is not an abusive husband but simply married to a bad spouse? Therefore the abuse of one people group not withstanding the evidence of other abusive patterns would not indicate an a...

Citing the continued mistreatment of a group which has been subject to gross mistreatment for two centuries and more does not a valid criticism of potential govenment performance make.

Interesting. Therefore the continued battering of a wife by an abusive husband surely does not speak to the ethics or morals of said husband. Surely the continued pattern of abuse by said government of other people groups surely must point to a systemic problem don't you think? Or is it that an abusive husband really is not an abusive husband but simply married to a bad spouse? Therefore the abuse of one people group not withstanding the evidence of other abusive patterns would not indicate an abusive government but rather a bad client?

I think not! I think there is amble evidence to not only convict the husband of abuse but there is even more evidence to convict the government of GROSS misconduct in most, if not all, of their endeavors.

I paid a marginal tax rate of 20%. The rate was 30% for the moderately wealthy, and 40% for the super-rich.

As I described above, I paid very little out of pocket. Prescription medication cost about US$2.00.

Somebody therefore paid the difference who was it? Was it the doctors who are forced to work paupers wages? Is it corporate taxes that make up the shortfall? Or is it that the total take by the government is more than the 40% you cited?

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Does the government over regulate health care and therefore the whole industry is operating at a loss? But if it is as wonderful as you make it out to be I would think that you would...

I paid a marginal tax rate of 20%. The rate was 30% for the moderately wealthy, and 40% for the super-rich.

As I described above, I paid very little out of pocket. Prescription medication cost about US$2.00.

Somebody therefore paid the difference who was it? Was it the doctors who are forced to work paupers wages? Is it corporate taxes that make up the shortfall? Or is it that the total take by the government is more than the 40% you cited?

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Does the government over regulate health care and therefore the whole industry is operating at a loss? But if it is as wonderful as you make it out to be I would think that you would much rather live in that country and not want to live here. But yet you do. And I think the last time I looked we were paying more than 40% for taxes in this great land of ours so therefore we could expect to pay even more because anyone who has lived here for any period of time knows the GOVERNMENT never does with LESS!

I am a disabled veteran and I have experienced both systems. I have Meniere's Disease. It is very hard to diagnose and involves vertigo attacks, hearing loss, tinnitus, among other symptoms.

The differences are this. I was diagnosed under civilian care. I was just treated under government care (prior to being diagnosed). When I was diagnosed the appointments were about a week apart (about as long as the prescription they were trying out would last). When I was rediagnosed at the VA (they wanted to confirm what the civilian doctors already found), appointments were months apart and I wasn't taking any drugs. My civilian specialist had me back withing days of having an MRI to see the results....

I am a disabled veteran and I have experienced both systems. I have Meniere's Disease. It is very hard to diagnose and involves vertigo attacks, hearing loss, tinnitus, among other symptoms.

The differences are this. I was diagnosed under civilian care. I was just treated under government care (prior to being diagnosed). When I was diagnosed the appointments were about a week apart (about as long as the prescription they were trying out would last). When I was rediagnosed at the VA (they wanted to confirm what the civilian doctors already found), appointments were months apart and I wasn't taking any drugs. My civilian specialist had me back withing days of having an MRI to see the results. With the VA it was more like a month. When my wife or kids are sick, we call the doctor and are usually in the same or next day by appointment. When I am sick I go to the VA (want to get there as early as possible if you can find a parking place), and sign up to wait for whatever doctor can see me. It's basically an emergency room for sick people. You don't call the doctor appointed to you for your regular checkups because they are booked months in advance.

cjartists say what?

I know I am not the smartest bird in the nest but I have no idea what you said in your comment. Can anyone decipher what cjar said?

This is an entire article about the results of decades of lobbying to cripple and reduce the limited government programs in existence in the US. And you actually consider this evidence of how a system not under constant attack would run?

Limited government programs in existence in AMERICA. Is this an oxymoron or what? I do not see the GOVERNMENT limiting any PROGRAM. I do see them LIMITING the benefits of said programs as they continue to increase spending on same.

The only one crippling and limiting government programs are...

cjartists say what?

I know I am not the smartest bird in the nest but I have no idea what you said in your comment. Can anyone decipher what cjar said?

This is an entire article about the results of decades of lobbying to cripple and reduce the limited government programs in existence in the US. And you actually consider this evidence of how a system not under constant attack would run?

Limited government programs in existence in AMERICA. Is this an oxymoron or what? I do not see the GOVERNMENT limiting any PROGRAM. I do see them LIMITING the benefits of said programs as they continue to increase spending on same.

The only one crippling and limiting government programs are the very same government bureaucracies that run them. Government run programs are a sham at worst and inefficient at the very best. Not to mention WASTEFUL! But what do I know I am simply a feather butt bird brain.

He/She is basically saying that socialism can only work if everyone relents or is subjugated.

Go block someone else for disagreeing with you. Or did you get everyone already?

Limited government programs in existence in AMERICA. Is this an oxymoron or what? I do not see the GOVERNMENT limiting any PROGRAM.

It may help if you look up a definition of the word "lobbying". It's a basic point of fact that the insurance industry is one of the most expensive and expansive lobbying efforts in Washington, and it's primary goal has always been to reduce government involvement in any form of medical care. In the last administration, it has even wormed its way into m...

He/She is basically saying that socialism can only work if everyone relents or is subjugated.

Go block someone else for disagreeing with you. Or did you get everyone already?

Limited government programs in existence in AMERICA. Is this an oxymoron or what? I do not see the GOVERNMENT limiting any PROGRAM.

It may help if you look up a definition of the word "lobbying". It's a basic point of fact that the insurance industry is one of the most expensive and expansive lobbying efforts in Washington, and it's primary goal has always been to reduce government involvement in any form of medical care. In the last administration, it has even wormed its way into military care, producing debacles like Walter Reed.

By pointing out flaws in programs that have been hamstringed by several decades of such assaults, you are using circular reasoning. That was my oh-so-hard-to-decipher point. You might try an objective analysis first of how similar programs function in countries where the insurance lobby isn't quite so powerful or effective.

You might try an objective analysis first of how similar programs function in countries where the insurance lobby isn't quite so powerful or effective.

Okay, let us do just that, shall we start with the Indian Health System or IHS for short? This government run program has been in operation for a long time and it is in shambles. You say it is because INSURANCE lobbyists are fighting to keep it that way? What proof do you have of this assertion? Show me from whence your facts were taken.

You say I use circular logic when I did no such thing all I simply pointed out was that Native Americans are not happy with their government run health care program and have not been for quit...

You might try an objective analysis first of how similar programs function in countries where the insurance lobby isn't quite so powerful or effective.

Okay, let us do just that, shall we start with the Indian Health System or IHS for short? This government run program has been in operation for a long time and it is in shambles. You say it is because INSURANCE lobbyists are fighting to keep it that way? What proof do you have of this assertion? Show me from whence your facts were taken.

You say I use circular logic when I did no such thing all I simply pointed out was that Native Americans are not happy with their government run health care program and have not been for quite some time. Instead they are opting to run their own programs which work. Is that some kind of coincidence considering like you say insurance companies are doing their darnest to make sure that health care is kept from those who need it the most?

And besides if like you say those darn lobbyists are ruining it for everyone what makes you think that A NEW GOVERNMENT RUN PROGRAM would work any different from the ones that are already in place if those same lobbyists are still well lobbying?

I may use circular logic but you use none at all. And now as far as other SOCIALIST countries are concerned I really do not give a rats behind what any other country is doing to their citizens but I am surely concerned about what our government is trying to do to ours. WE have a CONSTITUTION that this administration seems to think is toilet paper. And again I say if you enjoy the benefits of these other countries so much MOVE THERE and LIVE THERE do not turn AMERICA into another EUROPEAN nation! We fought EUROPE to get away from Europe's tyranny only to have it show up under this current administration.

KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY HEALTH CARE. STOP forcing everyone else to take care of you because you are too damn irresponsible to do so yourself. Now if you need help ASK FOR IT DON'T DEMAND it!