>>>>>>Ah ha. So you admit we have a "good private system". ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When have I ever indicated otherwise? ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>It's pretty good. However 15,000,000 US citizens cannot afford to visit a doctor and experience your 'greatest health care in the world' in 'the greatest country in the world' because somehow, in spite of the astounding and never ending greatness, those Americans slipped through the cracks. That's the issue and "the greatest government in the world" wants to make sure every American may visit a doctor whenever needed by providing insurance for all while not providing health care, which will remain 'the greatest health care system the world has ever known').
>>>>
>>>>I have never once claimed that we have the "greatest government in the world". For Christ's sake I rail against our government daily. ;)
>>>>
>>>>In any system, people are going to "slip through the cracks" for various reasons. I have yet to hear or see in practice a system approaching perfect. What we can hope to achieve is a reasonable balance. History and my experience tells me that balance will be best found by allowing the creativity of capitalists operating in a free market to flourish. We've tried regulating and restricting supply for decades, other countries have done a whole host of implementations, and while satisfying to many, none has achieved what I would consider a successful balance between cost and care. When you add in the longer lifespans, declining birthrates and higher costs many of the current systems are simply unsustainable. Modeling American care after failing models does not make sense. There is a better way.
>>>
>>>First, let me say regarding 'The greatest______" that it is a general comment on what the rest of the world gets crammed in their ears by American media and even here on the UT from time to time. It does get tiresome. On the other issue - Back to the 1900 era with the Vanderbilts and Fords et al. Free capitalism without government intervention is what they had. It worked for most people, and some became multi-millionaires. Instead of socialism there was what they called 'Christian charity' to handle the poor. Furthermore, evidence supports the statement that socialism will ultimately fail. The more socialism there is, the faster it will die. But, when people begin to prosper, it is done at the expense of others. Therefore, the poor will always be with you. What will you do with them?
>>
>>I will not "do" anything "with them", as they are perfectly capable of "doing" for themselves. Now, before I'm once again accused of being a heartless SOB who doesn't care whether or not people die, let me once again attempt to be clear. In a free society people must be free to make bad decisions. We must allow people to make mistakes so that they may learn and grow from their own experiences. Similarly, we must allow people to take risks and enjoy the rewards of those risks. If you attempt to remove the consequences from risky behavior then you encourage more risky behavior. If you remove the rewards from success you encourage failure. This nation was founded upon the notion of individual liberty within a governing structure meant to provide security for that individual freedom to be expressed. Regardless the system, the poor will always be with us. I prefer a system which gives them the opportunity to remove themselves from poverty through their own efforts to one which perpetually keeps them slightly better off.
>
>So a perfect society would have no government? Complete and total freedom.

See highlighted above.