Views as expressed in the profile....

"I agree they are different but both are part of a nationalized healthcare system. The fact is that if we were to give people healthcare the lines would not become ridiculous, France for example does not have absurd waiting times for a hospital." Actually they've over spent on what funds they make available, i.e. the honeymoon period is over and the government is now having to increase taxes due to massive health care inflation. To maintain a semblance of socialised health care they are moving towards a more US style system. That is they are reducing the care available to hold off a system collapse. http://www.businessweek.com... "and without insurance? Your proposed system really doesn't change much except takes the government completely out of it." As is proper. Insurance has a role in catastrophic rare unforseen events much like home insurance. Without government intervention the price of medical care decreases rapidly. Doctors/hospitals are free to accept as they deem, not demanded, enabling them to charge less for services. Patients are able to pay out of hand for services which is currently not allowed, and allows the free trade between customer and service provider to the maximum benefit of both. "When the Health markets compete we will always lose, it is sort of a double bind... Either the quality goes up and the price goes up or the quality goes down and the price goes down. With a Nationalized system the government can afford to have high quality and low price." Under nationalised health neither. The costs are higher - there is no competing drive to reduce costs of the procedures (artificially set to a budget) whereas in the free market there is (that is hospitals compete for the services of patients). Low price is laughable as nationalised healthcare is mandated through non voluntary insurance, forcing the cost of that to increase because all procedures must be subsumed through it. The level of care definitely decreases - state budgeted so the fewer costs the better. That includes lower wages, a mandate against new technology, new procedures, new drugs, better trained staff. "so a person has no responsibility to society? you never know when you may need help paying, what if something goes wrong and you need an expensive operation? Nationalized Healthcare for those that can afford normal healthcare is then a Bulwark against future issues." A society is nothing but individual constituents. There is no moral claim to help another simply because they demand it. If any one individual wishes to help another, great. If under my system those individuals who do not want to save for medical care (specific funds solely for that purpose) they must face the reality of that choice, the responsibility and reality of their actions. They must rely on what private charities there are, and that will include some hospitals no doubt. "is this a right? if so I am not familiar with it... The Doctors get paid, the patients get treated... how is this an abuse of rights?" It's against liberty. The law states that doctors cannot recieve payment directly from patients. Doctors are forced to see whatever patients present. Doctors are forced to enact procedures by law they would not by judgement. "the use of force of government to pay for healthcare is a violation of property rights - those who are deemed productive enough by the government to pay for services of others that had no hand in earning." "They are taxes, you have to pay for public education even if you don't have a child in public education. Does this abuse property rights? It is the same thoery, the person is covered by the government and his tax money goes into the health program. where is the Rights violation?" The same principle applies. The use of force by the government to take ones property (money). Education should additionally be privatised, there is no need for it to be state run. "So essentially only those who are fortunate enough to have a good job, or a job at all in an economic situation such as one we have now, are entitled to healthcare? so If I am unlucky I don't get a doctor?" Fortunate? Skill acquirement is not something one just wakes up with. People earn the right to higher paid jobs through their time applied to learning relevant skills needed in a given market sector. Again, my system has no taxes, use that money for your health fund, buy cheap insurance for the rare unforseen. "I was describing what we have now, and how Nationalized healthcare would solve that problem. under your plan we just turn people away if they don't have the money and leave them to die...." Yes you described slavery, that it happens now doesn't change that fact. You are additionally ignoring the fact that charities will arise in greater number, this will include hospitals, or doctors will feasibly donate time to certain 'low cost' hospitals much like lawyers do. People like to help others - it's just not something that the law has any place enforcing. "and the current Nationalized Healthcare systems??" By its very nature cannot be self sustaining. "The Government is paying, so where is the risk? It gives the Insurance companies customers and the doctors patients, how does this defeat both industries?" Um no. Tax payers pay, not the government - the government is just the tax collector and accountant for the system. Insurance companies don't need claims on every possible medical procedure possible, it goes against the nature of what insurance is for. It forces them to make claims on funds for every time someone thinks they have any minor need to see a doctor. Which means the state must tax more, find more ways to cut spending. Additionally you are ignoring throughout that insurance does not equate to health care itself. It does little good when the services themsleves are limited and of poor quality. See Massachusets for how much failure it can derive. http://www.boston.com... "may I ask how so?" Insurers cannot turn away high risk customers. Premiums must rise to cover that risk. Insurers must insure for all medical services. Premiums must rise to cover the large amount of claims that will be made. People will be covered for everything so they use that option. "The U.S is a different country and those are two of the many examples of Nationalized systems." Same principle, same problems and you have utterly failed to show otherwise. "We have better medical technology." To a degree. That matters little when the government mandates its restriction and further development. "Also that is just how the study made it out to be, the actual reasons are impossible to tell for sure." It's quite simple. X diseases need to be diagnosed before Y treatments are less useful. Y treatments are less useful the longer X diseases progresses before treatment starts. "If there is such a problem open more hospitals, France, Switzerland, denmark, etc havn't collapsed, they don't have massive death rates...." They also tax much much higher and have a generally healthier lifestyle all around. :) "In what way would nationalized Healthcare decrease R&D..." Excess? Hardly. New tech, medicine, procedures and training all cost money it does not have spare to spend. "Um actually the reason so many people are un-insured and don't have access to medical care is they simply can't afford it." As detailed, insurance is not for every medical procedure, health funds are an individual responsibility. Governments massively inflate both insurance coverage and the resultant costs. "Taxes=Government revenue No Taxes=No revenue" There are alternatives; state lottery, citizenship registration amongst other things. The proper role of government is a very reduced one. :)