ki6amd, I didn't agree with all of your ideas but hell, I'd vote for you. That's better than anything I have heard by the candidates. Covering the basics is better than what we have now and a two-tier system might actually be a "healthy" compromise between the American public and private health sector. They are trying to implement something like that in Canada to offer some health services at private hospitals while keeping the universal health care system. I don't think he supported Hillary Clinton in the film. I had the impression that he was saying that she sold out to the health industry.

Skyler, I'm curious as to how other countries are being fiscally irresponsible when they pay half what we do for health care...Thanks for the semi-review, I'm planning on seeing it in the theaters, though.

Tom, I have a problem with allowing people to "opt out" and get private care.  I have no problem if they want to obtain private care *IN ADDITION TO* participation in national health care.  In fact, I think many will.

.

But the problem with the current national health care is that it's way overbalanced with people who need lots of care and way underbalanced with those who don't.  And that's not good for the nation's health, or the health of its citizens.   If everyone in the country were part of the insurance pool for national health care it would give the essential stability that's absolutely vital. 

Funny, I was thinking of health care costs the other night when talking with a friend about all the medical problems in their family.

When it comes down to it, some people are, well, lemons.  They are forever in need of repair.

Then there are millions of others like myself [knock on wood] who have never seen the inside of a hospital room in any greater capacity than as a visitor or tourist.  And considering the lack of lemons in my immediate family (which now consists entirely of in-laws), even visiting a hospital is a very rare event.

An opt-out system would send all the well-built folks to private insurance, leaving national health care to deal with the lemons.  That would all the greater incentive for private insurance companies to scruw people over.

As a member of the National Association of Health Underwriters, I disagree with the Single-Payer Health Care Delivery System.  Personally, I do not want to pay a more in taxes and also pay a premium for "private care".   Socialized health care is a dangerous possibility in our near future and our citizens need to be aware of the consequences.  Here is a quote about one of those consequences, listed in this website http://www.onthefencefilms....: 

 "Officially, Canada spends less on health care than the U.S. However, costs are controlled by arbitrarily limiting the number and availability of doctors, specialists, operating room hours, high-tech equipment, diagnostic tests, drugs and expensive treatments. In short, the government limits the supply of health care in order to hold costs down. The result: shortages, rationing, and long wait lists."

We need reform in our current health care system but this is not the answer!

Know who currently limits the supply of health care?

Health Underwriters.

Know who currently limits the availability of testing?  Insurance companies.

So six of one; half a dozen of the other.

If single payer is not the answer, what is?

Surprised to see that, Dusty.  I did see a survey where Canada and the US were tied at the bottom for neonatal survival rates.

You have to wonder what kind of health-care system we could have if we had Canada's system and split the difference between their spending level and ours.  We'd still save about 20 percent and probably have the health care the Canadians *DREAM* of.

.

We spend three times what the Canadians do on processing paperwork.