KenH said:
In a representative democracy, if nationalized health care is as bad as conservatives claim it is, you don't think that this would lead to massive dissatisfaction with the health system and to people voting in representatives to change the system towards a free market type such as the United States has?
This does not support your original supposition. This is the same speculation on your part simply rephrased.
And I have already provided you with a valid explanation...
In any industrialized country the number of persons in relative good health that are not in dire immediate need of medical attention vastly out weigh the lesser number of those who are suffering under the limited or slow care of such a system.
It is human nature that people want something for nothing. So the larger number of healthy people are not uprising because they want to continue in what they believe is the free lunch of national healthcare. Unfortunately for them the bill comes due as part of a larger tax bill or when they ultimately find themselves in need of health care which they then find the national system not able to deliver.
I also find it interesting that we don't see other industrialized representative democracies attempting to install a United States-style health care system in their countries.
Again, the larger segment of the population that thinks that they are getting something for nothing have no incentive to pay for a US style health care system. Especially when persons of means can travel to the US or other countries and simply pay for the care they need.
Your supposition is flawed.
BTW - would any of this be of interest to you if you did not pay a portion of your employer provided medical insurance? As I said it is human nature to want something for nothing.
