Within six months the NHS will be operating at an annual 20 - 32 billion dollar deficit.

Indeed.

Britain spends 9.1% of their GDP on health care, or $3185 per person. The US spends 16%, or $7380 per person.

Their budget deficits are irrelevant. If they doubled what they collect, they'd still be spending less than us and would be running a massive surplus.

We ARE being bankrupted by healthcare costs. It shares a large part of the blame for our inability to compete in trade. Simply because a large portion of it doesn't show up in a government budget doesn't make it any less onerous.

But NHS isn't single-payer, it's nationalized medicine.

Wow! The entire health care system of Great Britain functions at a 20 - 32 billion dollar deficit? Not bad.

Isn't that about a month in Iraq?

If you want to account for population differences that would be between 100 to 160 billion for the US.

That's a lot of money for you and me. But, it seems like a bargain for the nation.

Except many are admitting that it's not sustainable.

More people in the UK are buying PMI each year. Why would they spend the extra money on top of outrageously high taxes if the single payer system is so wonderful?

And 90% of the population in France also carries private health insurance.

We have some serious, serious problems in our system.
And so do single payer systems.
It's fantasy to think otherwise.

Did I say single payer had NO problems? Where did I say that?

I said single payer had problems but was more efficient and cheaper than the profit-based model, not to mention more humane--and in a way, moral. The health of our fellow humans should not be treated as a commodity.

Thinking that our current system is superior to single-payer is a fantasy.

Where did I say that you said that?



I disagree and cite the interview I posted.
The NHS is considering not performing any surgical procedures on anyone 70 or older - period - as a cost cutting measure. Is that moral and humane?

.

Look, there is no less expensive manner of providing health insurance to all than a single payer system. It seems to me that the provision of health care to all at the lowest cost certainly fulfills one of the purposes for which our forebears created our government, to "promote the public welfare".

Under a single payer system the only difference between the current system would be that there would be no profits to pay, no advertising costs, no corporate jets and etc., and no excessive executive compensations and bonuses. The same folks who now work in the insurance industry would still be doing what they now do, except they would not focus there efforts to cancel folks' coverage when they get sick or to exclude those with pre-existing conditions. The focus would be on providing quality care at reasonable costs, not on generating more profits.

A single payer system ain't going to happen immediately as Congress is essentially bought and paid for by the medical/pharmaceutical/insurance combine. But a "public option" seems attainable, so let's at least give it a try.

I notice Sen. Specter has announced his support for a public option.