I've read a fair amount, really.
We also have had roughly half of all our health care expenditures made by the government since 1964, and that number has only increased. We haven't had a "free market" health care system by any means.
The mixed system in place at present is kinda .. awful. Corporate monopolies of any kind totally rape competition, and having minimum wage put into law makes things more difficult for small businesses, and when the government helps subsidize large businesses (effectively eliminating the risks they are taking as entrepreneurs), well fuck (pardon the French), that's just socialism for the rich, isn't it? :\
Insurance, whether private or 'free', doesn't cover everything, only what it deems 'necessary.' Well.. perhaps if health care was left to the free market (and anti-trust laws were strong to prevent monopolies), there would be insurance available with such options. That's mostly wishful thinking, since we really don't know for sure.
I would guess that if conditions were freer, hospitals -might- not be so expensive. Again, as examples of such are basically zero, we can't be sure. In my right (lol pun!) mind, I can't honestly support completely government-run health care--it's unaffordable and just adds to our debt (something we really don't need more of). Also, massive shortages in supply. Changing the price of health care doesn't change the inescapable variable that is cost.
BTW, I can't honestly say I support either the Republican or Democratic Parties. Just.. no. Often you see overspending by the Democrats and hilarious amounts of borrowing and bigotry by the Republicans. They've both bastardized the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' beyond belief.
I also find it interesting that France offers universal health care to all, yet over 90% of the French also have private insurance on top of that. What does that tell you about the government's free health care?
Life expectancy =/= quality of health care. Are you trying to imply that health care is the ONLY factor affecting life expectancy? For example, Americans are often more likely to die in accidents or homicides. Also, men in their 20s have a ~50% higher mortality rate. Americans are also more likely to be obese. 31% of men and 33% of women have a BMI of 30+, vs. 17/19% for men and women in, say, Canada. Of course, here there are more people and we're able to produce high calorie foods relatively cheap (they're often cheaper than their healthy counterparts!). Also, the government deciding we should use high fructose corn syrup a lot more isn't helping us either.
There is quite the prevalence of infants having low birth weight here in the United States, which is strongly correlated with teenage motherhood (Yes, I know correlation =/= causation). Whatever our health care system is provided by, I'm doubtful it will influence the country's overall sex drive.
Is it a 'moral' thing to not pay for something and leave the debts for someone else? I wouldn't say so. Yes, morals are relative, and not everyone bases their morals on their religion (even the religious, often) .. one thing to ask yourself when deciding if something is 'right' or 'wrong' is 'Would I want this to be done to me?' and 'Would I support this being a law for EVERYONE?' 'Would I treat other people in this way?' etc. No matter how you look at it, price controls lead to shortages. There is no avoiding that glaring, obvious fact. Do you want a shortage of health care? Should we have to suffer unnecessarily in the meantime? Even our dilapidated and disgusting mixed system is better than NHS.
Seeing the consequences of universal health care alone is enough reason not to support it. Many countries with government-run medical systems have much longer wait times for surgeries. In some cases, that can mean life or death. Also, in countries with NHS, you'll find that modern technologies are much rarer, i.e. MRIs and CAT scans (in another area, specifically airlines, we have very outdated technology in our planes.. vacuum tubes, for example. In Canada, when they removed nearly all the restrictions/regulations for their airplanes, delays went down ridiculously.).
This isn't some phenomenon exclusive to health care. There were waiting lines for food, clothing, and all sorts of other things in the Communist bloc countries in eastern Europe before Communism collapsed over there. Why would anyone support this kind of thing in medical care? Back then, to buy a car, you had to get on a waiting list to buy a poorly made car from India.
Let's look at the waiting lists. According to an OECDstudy, the percentage of patients waiting more than 4 months for elective surgery in English speaking countries is in single digits..only in the United States. In Canada that number is 27%, while in Britain it's 38%. 'Elective surgery' includes some heart surgeries. Comforting. Longer waits can cost a life. I'd say a life is more importantthan monetary savings under price controls or government subsidies, wouldn't you?
But wait, there's more fantastic news about waiting and NHS! Waiting for new medicines to be developed is a bit of a bummer isn't it, especially if those future medicines could help people with cancer, Alzheimer's or AIDS patients. There's an interesting trend in countries with price controls on pharmaceutical drugs and fewer creation of pharmaceuticals. But that can't possibly be the cause, can it?
Maybe this statistic will sober your thoughts. A year after 'universal health care' was instituted in Canada, R&D for pharmaceuticals went down by over half. Ten or twenty percent would be significant, but more than fifty percent? Disgusting...
What many people don't seem to realize is the difference between prices and costs. Prices are what pay for costs (and a little profit, too.). I hear people complain about the cost of drugs all the time. Do you have any idea how much it costs to get a -single- pharmaceutical on the shelf? It costs over one billion dollars. The profit margins for drug companies are pretty slim, especially compared to how much money they spend trying to create drugs to improve our quality of life. If companies do not pay enough to cover the costs, history has shown us that there supply will decline in quantity, quality, or both, and again, in the case of health care, that can mean life or death (and/or needless suffering). Also consider that it costs over $100 to run an office for a single hour, and that the average medical student graduates with a debt of nearly $200,000.
Likewise, a large reason why premiums and copays are so high is because of all the frivolous lawsuits against doctors. They've got to protect themselves.
Why not instead attack the bureaucracy that is the FDA, and have them reduce the amount of requirements for a drug to be approved for sale to the public? The approval process can -easily- drag on for over a decade, cost millions of dollars, and cost the lives of those who die while waiting for the drug to be approved. Businesses tend to love repeat customers. If their product is killing their customers, they're not going to have that steady flow of income that they enjoy so much. Yes, sometimes businesses take shortcuts and make horrible mistakes. Does that mean they're evil? And is the government omnibenevolent or something?
If, after NHS is applied, the bureaucratic hoops that doctors have to jump through to make their huge investment of time and money going to medical school don't seem worthwhile with, they can retire early or maybe take jobs that don't involve treating patients. Either way, the supply of medical care will likely decline, even in the short run. I don't know about you, but that makes medical school look like a horrible future investment.
Let's take a look at Britain, which has had NHS for over a half-century. They have to import doctors straight from third world countries, where medical school standards are lower. So, as long as we have warm bodies with "M.D." after their names, there is no decline in supply, right? Only we, the patients, will find out how great is it to have a decline in quality.
I understand that health care is about the patients, not the money or economic efficiency. But how can I, in my right mind, support a health care system which is full of shortages, unnecessary suffering, and lower quality care? As a humanist, I find the nightmare that is NHS ridiculous.
The great thing about the evil *snicker* private sector of things is that, in a free market, profits and losses tell businesses what they're doing right and wrong. If people don't like the prices of things, they won't buy them. As such, businesses won't be making as much money, so they either improve their product or lower their prices. Power to the people!
Long waiting times for seeing medical specialists in Canada is rather unsurprising. I understand that they don't have nearly the population we do, but seriously, 1 in 3 doctors sending their patients to the United States for treatment? You're kidding, right?
Irony at its finest: Michael Moore, a strong advocate for NHS, was looking to lose weight, so he went to a private clinic in Florida. His movies are okay, but full of half-truths. Not anything to rely on for facts by any means.
According to 2008 statistics, the Mayo Clinic treats 7,000+ foreign patients each year, 5,000+ for the Cleveland Clinic, and Johns Hopkins Hospital treats around 6,000 foreigners. If NHS is so amazing, why do Canadian physicians spend $1 billion+ annually to send their patients to the United States for treatment? That same year, in September, there were ~750,000 Brits awaiting hospital admission. That's not just inconvenient, it's fucking deadly. By what reasoning am I supposed to support Nationalized Health Care? Many of the health problems these people have are curable at the time of diagnosis, but by the time they are able to get their surgery, they're either dead or their problems are too far along to be stopped.
Many people also die on the waiting list for organs - even here in the United States. In Iran, the only country in the world where you're allowed to sell your organs for money, there is literally -no- waiting list for kidneys.
More than 100,000 Britons travel as far as India, Malaysia, and South Africa for major health operations.
Over 50% of all health care expenditures in the United States are made by the government. I am, quite frankly, amazed that you, someone who I see as intelligent, would be asking for more of what's caused the problem. Critical thinking would suit you well.