You haven't put much, if any at all, effort into your arguments.
Just a thought since you said you watched Stefan's channel, have you heard his experience that he had with his cancer and Canada's healthcare system? I know it's not NHS, but I think there are people who have had very terrible experiences with universal healthcare.
I don't think we can take anecdotes and apply it to the whole. Some have had negative experiences with universal healthcare and some have had no problems at at. Just like with our private insurance system, some good some bad. My family has had serious health problems (cancer, Crohn's, many surgeries) and the insurance took care of it without much hassle or expense. It wasn't a nightmare. Your experience has obviously been different.
That being said, I think universal healthcare is a terrible idea for the United States. Maybe another government would be more capable of pulling it off successfully, but our government...? I mean, just take a look at our public education system.
We do pay for university. It was subsidised quite heavily, before the crash of 08. Now they have raised tuition fees to £9k. Previously, it was around £3.5k. It's still heavily subsidised, as most students will get grants and bursaries that don't have to be paid back. Loans to help with living expenses, and I think they are quite generous.
The repayment plan is very agreeable. I think it's right that people pay for the education that they receive/ choose for themselves. However, I would hate to see repayments that diminish salaries. So people don't pay anything until they earn over £21,000(?). After that, the loan repayments are like a monthly cellphone bill. After 30 years, the debt is wiped completely.
@Jeff
I definitely made a point about that. The US is known for having some of the best specialised care in the world. But it can be expensive. The US has the highest level of cancer survivors. Though, Europe has far fewer cancer sufferers to begin with.
There's this general give-and-take between the two systems. Where they are geared in different ways to suit people in different ways. Sometimes, each system can be inadequate. I have thought of reasons why that might be, but because I am uncertain of the truth, I will refrain from trying to explain it/ demonstrate it.
My friend has Crohn's, and I admit, the NHS gave him a run-around with his aftercare, for a while. If something doesn't work, they will try other things. They started administering a rather expensive injection, finally, and his Crohn's is just non-existent. It only comes back when he drinks and smokes heavily.
Initially, my friend was rather quiet about his illness, he thought he had cancer and just wanted to disappear. He was rushed to hospital, dying one evening (you know, as you do!). The surgeon rescued him on the operating table. I'll be honest, despite some of its problems, I wouldn't want to have surgery anywhere else. The NHS saves more lives for every pound sterling spent. It can't be that bad. I think some of the austerity measures have been somewhat detrimental to the service, in other ways. But as a rule of thumb; if you require a life saving operation, there's no better place to be. And you won't get an invoice at the end lol.
Final paragraph, definitely said that too. I totally agree. Every issue in the US is so partisan, polarising, only care for manufacturing voting blocks. Issues that are not inherently left-right turn into left-right issues lol. If the healthcare system was changed, for better or worse, the other political opponent would change it again. Changes create quite a mess. I think the UK public education system could do with a shake up. Continental Europe has some good public services.
@Maxtor
Yeah, that's kinda what I was getting at. Not to the extent that Futurama did it lol. We are overcoming many involuntary problems, eliminating many of mankind's worst diseases.
Interesting point about big pharma. In the US, preventative care is not championed. It's strange, as preventative care can stop many problems developing, it's also very cost effective. Whereas, preventative care in Europe is trumped. Though, our dental sucks in comparison, I've been told. So, are these for-profits detrimental in some way? Is a mixed solution best?
Well, I wouldn't worry about identity too much. I know people refer to universal healthcare as socialism, including Michael Moore. However, it is not. While Stefan and others are market anarcho-libertarians; the other side of the libertarian axis is social liberalism, like myself. Social liberalism is still capitalism, but it has a measure of welfare and other things. It's often mistaken for socialism, or even communism. Because those terms are meaningless, nowadays.
Believe me, I got sick of hearing Michael Moore saying the word "socialism" over and over. Again, it just doesn't mean what it used to haha. I'm not sure if his criticism of the US is accurate. I just recommended the movie, so that you would see this other alien world that we have. I do think the US has become somewhat isolationist, and not open to other ideas. It's feudal Japan.
Kinda like the things that spill out of this guy's head:
http://tinyurl.com/o4x9qxb
For someone who was in the marines, he likes to back-off an awful lot. Sorry, but I get annoyed by this sort of person. He's just full of nonsense rhetoric. There's legitimate concerns, but when people make blanket statements, it's just brainwashed propaganda.
While I do listen to Stefan, I don't accept all his ideas. I also listen to people like Noam Chomsky. They actually have a good number of similarities, as both are anarchist thinkers. They often identify the same problems; but Stefan is more pro-market, and Noam is more pro-democracy. I would definitely recommend listening to Chomsky, it does put a twist on things. They are polarising, and yet, they may both be correct. People might prefer one over the other, but they are both like missing puzzle pieces. One will talk about things the other does not, and to listen to both, grants quite a clear picture, I would like to think.
I'm really surprised to hear that about the US tax system. I always thought your tax burden was less, but still measurable. I did wonder why you guys got less services in return for your taxes. Probably that industrial military complex. We both pay sales tax on purchases, tax on fuel, and so on. But perhaps the UK has a better single-payer system. Where, our income tax is the main tax for everything. You'll have to explain to me why you pay state and federal taxes, or rather, how that mounts up and impacts income.
I had a little look at insulin in the UK. It's a prescription only. So, that would require a trip to the doctors, to get what are probably over-the-counter drugs in the states? However, the saving grace of the NHS is that it does appear to be cheaper. Pay a small, fixed fee for any prescription. Which means it is subsidised by society, corporate tax and so on.
It's my understanding that insulin (depending on the type) can cost $$$ a month in the US? In the UK, whatever insulin is prescribed will just be a fixed fee of ~£10 (whatever the prescription fee is these days) for however much you are given. It could be 10ml or 100ml. It's all at the doctor's discretion (type+/amount)
Insulin in a private UK hospital can still cost £££ for a batch.