>>>>>>>>>>>>>In case you're wondering, the girls and I do have health insurance, paid for out of my pocket. It costs about $400 a month, which is $400 more than I am making at the moment. I am happier paying it, even though we hardly use it, because this way I can sleep at night. For a while we had no coverage and I passed more than one 3 a.m. worrying what would happen if some catastrophic medical situation arose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Health insurange should be pay by employers. We don't pay money for that there. I can go any public hospital or %95 of private hospitals (at private hospitals I should be pay a bit money).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Just if you want to a really speacial health insurange you pay money there. Some employers pay that too...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I believe that health care should be available for all and more importantly, affordable for all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>However, I do not think that the cost should be born solely by employers. One of the great things about this country is the ability for anyone to start their own business and succeed at it. The cost of medical insurance for small businesses would be too prohibitive for small companies. I think it should be a shared expense: a percentage paid by employers and the remainder paid by individual taxes. The percentage paid by employers should also be stepped up or down based on net profit. The working would carry the unworking of course just as they do now but those in lower income brackets would be able to have affordable medical care.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Is that socialized medical care? Yes. I am ok with that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Do you agree that everyone should receive the same treatment, with no payment?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>William makes a good point. There are services already that operate that way. Police for example, military. Why not health? Although, I do think (in spite of that fact that in Canada there are no such critera) that people with glaring self destructive tendencies (smokers, drinkers, gluttons, parachutists, bungee jumpers etc) who cause their own health issues, should not be allowed to receive free health care indefinitely. First time, ok, after that if they don't learn, then maybe they should be on their own.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Don't rush; you are looking for an argument that didn't start yet. I don't say that it is bad, I just try to rectify points before starting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ok, then I'll answer the question. Yes. I realise that even with regard to police services, not everybody truly gets the same level of service, but in the ideal, they should. So it should be in the health arena. Like policing, it would be unlikely to attain the ideal situation, but that's kind of beside the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why is it unlikely to attain? If everyone has the same policy and pay (i.e. zero) is the same then it is exactly the ideal situation. Do you agree?
>>>>>
>>>>>I think it is as likely as getting equal and non-discriminatory police services. The system would not be administered by robots, but by people. People have emotions and biases. Those emotions and biases will assuredly get in the way of administering an ideal system. The question is purely hypothetical in that sense. Some places will move blacks or moslems to the end of the line, some places will move them to the front. It's human nature and human nature is generally insurmountable when something is being administered by bureaucrats (biases, bribery etc). If the system were being administered strictly by computer and robots, then maybe we could get a truly ideal system. Until then, it won't happen. In the event of such an ideal system, though, I repeat. Yes. Everyone should get the same service at no point of entry cost.
>>>>
>>>>Very good. I don't think that biases are really relevant to our discussion.
>>>>I apologize for the next question. It would be more relevant to direct this question to an American, because you may not be aware of specifics. Anyway, try answer my following question in theoretical way, if it is possible for you.
>>>>As you probably know, US low-income residents receive free medical service called medicaid. Would you agree that in case of the ideal universal system they should receive the same service as anyone else? I could try explaining you what medicaid covers, if it is required to help you with the answer.
>>>
>>>PMJI, the ideal system would cover everything including cosmetic surgery when it is used to correct deformities or physical changes due to illness or disease or the correction of those...
>>>
>>>You reffering to an 'ideal system' correct?
>>
>>So far, I refer to 'ideal system' existing in the opinions of its supporters. My purpose is to figure out what is this exactly. It could include 'cosmetic surgery' issue, but it would be too premature, imho. I prefer to concentrate on more pressing issues.
>
>Unfortunately, I have to repeat that an ideal system is strictly hypothetical. It can never be achieved as long as human beings are involved in it.
>
>I believe that the "ideal" system is kind of a pointless discussion.

I used the word just to make it simpler. You could phrase it differently, e.g. 'universal healthcare proposed by...'.