>>I'd prefer a system like the British or Canadian - and would actually like to know how does it work in Scandinavian countries. I'd simply prefer to have a one payer system, where the insurance is a common fund arranged and maintained by state (or a state-run agency, under all and any controls people want) and not a for-profit business, which will inevitably try to skim. As seen above.
>
>For Norway, check "American Health Care System vs Norwegian Health Care System" at http://www.daria.no/skole/?tekst=4876

Interesting piece of fiction... I mean, it mentions "Health Care System in the United States of America" - and we know there's no system in place, there's programs and programs, but no system ;).

A nice point in case is the ease with which the Norwegian system is described - it's just flat and simple, with a few principles which apply across the board. To differ with whatever the "n$ over m$ of coverage" which is for some reason different for each member of the family... and what if one member of the family gets sufficiently ill that they need $n*1.8 while another needs only 20% of their allocated quota, and the other two are just healthy for the given year?

A special feature about the US health insurance market is that they aren't selling health - they're selling protection from particular groups of diseases. They cover the regular bunch of flues and stretched tendons, and when you think you're covered, they offer additional coverage against this or that... waidaminnit... this WASN'T included in the regular package??? So WHAT IS?

The simplicity of the flat, single-payer system also means tremendous savings in paperwork - there's no need to check everything against everything else for coverage or co-pay or whatever. Given that any such clerical task costs about $25/hr at least (that's what a repair shop will charge to just look under your car), we're talking nice billions in paper pushing alone.

(Also, had a bit of trouble understanding some of the comments... is "fikk" what I think it is?)