>I think a good conservative capitalist arguement could be made that affordable and universal health insurance is in the best interests of the country. I might even call it a national security matter ( since that would probably get the votes it might otherwise lack ) How to structure it or make it possible may be up for debate, but what we are doing in the US is inefficient - basically using our ERs as primary care physicians for the uninsured. Just doesn't make sense. Canada and Britain may not have it perfect either, but I think the idea behind it makes a lot of sense.

And most of the rest of the world.

Look at the last paragraph of message #1272200 - so I wouldn't have to repeat all that. Basically, European lobbyists aren't any less smart and powerful than the US ones, but they can't pass a harmful thing just as easily, because the government is footing the health bill, and if something is about to create a large number of people ill from expensive diseases in the foreseeable future, that something will be banned, and lobbyists can just become closetists if they don't like it. Here, there's always some concern that people will lose jobs. As if they aren't losing them already.