>>>Although I admit I don't know how the current political parties look at this. Would be interesting to read on this when I have some time.
>
>Interestingly, tort reform is a Republican policy while universal coverage schemes are a Democrat policy. Seems to me that if you look around the world, you need elements of both to hit the spot.
>
>Also FWIW, you can have universal coverage without giving the $ to government to manage. Switzerland manages very well with its private funders. Seems to me the key issue is the extraction of profits, not the precise finding model. Systems that siphon away surpluses rather than investing them to cover predictable future needs, will always fail in the end, no matter who is doing the siphoning.
>
>It's not healthcare, but check out the Australian National Super scheme for an example of a successful universal scheme. It's mandatory, with the $ going to a number of private managers to handle. The managers compete for best returns. In 2011 the scheme had US$1.8T in assets, which is more managed assets per capita than any other nation. (Norway has more oil revenue per capita, but those aren't managed funds coming entirely from pay packets). Assets are expected to rise to over $10T in coming years. A similar scheme begun in the US in 1992 would have $100s or trillions in realizable assets in the same time frame, reducing the current deficit to chump change. The Aussie scheme is so successful that they're about to increase the compulsory contribution rate and everybody is cheering.

But Australia is much smaller in population than USA. And (if my geography is correct) does not have a border with Mexico <g>.