I would like to see details from the pro-national HC people about how they would avoid the mistakes of other systems. Citing some vague "cost savings down the road" I'd like to see concrete projections based on something other than wishful thinking. The pattern seems to indicate that government-run health care whether on the sate or national level always costs much more than its proponents predicted.

I seriously doubt the 46 million uninsured figure--the actual number is something less than half that. Still a significant number.
The debate has become confused ( purposefully, in my mind) by the proponents) by having too many objectives. If we argue against one pont, they switch to another of their objectives. Might be a good debate technique, but it makes for lousy communication, and even worse policy.
Aree we debating health care, or the payment for health care?
Again, those WHO ratings are bogus--many of the questions reflect a political, rather than a health care position--We lose many more soldiers in war than high-rated countries. That lowers our rating, but that does't affect your health care. War deaths should not have any place in a rating of health care.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags