>>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.09affc88c9815310300a92378aed0564.2f1&show_article=1
>>
>>I don't think nationalized medicine will look so enticing to everyone if this was widely publicized. It certainly has not been in the mass media (yet).
>
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/06/MNG71OG4NQ1.DTL
>
>but then I guess these people weren't paying either.


Interesting that you have just done something that folks here are accused of doing. I have read numerous posts complaining that whenever something in the U.S. or some action here is criticized by non-Americans the first thing an American will do is say that it happens elsewhere or it is not as bad as this over there, and essentially not address the issue but try to deflect attention...

But you are right: the Walter Reed example only supports an argument against nationalized health care. People like to dismiss that since it is a military hospital (one I have personally been treated at by the way) and often the military are not given the same 'cushy' care as the public. I'm not saying it isn't wrong or shouldn't be fixed, but rather that the public tends to see the 'military' in a different category than the general public at times and the military suffers for it.