I am not american as you know. However, I think he is trying to create a system similar to ours and the reason for opposition as I understand is purely idealistic.

Republicans believe in small government and Liberals believe in large government. As I see it there are two major differences between america and other western countries. One is the anti communist slant left over from the cold war and the other is the idea of meritocracy (the belief that everyone can be successful no matter what their circumstances in life.)

I think that because large govt equates to socialism in their eyes and the idea that if you can not afford healthcare it is because you have allowed yourself to fail, have lead to the current opposition you see toward something that seem's quite rational from the outside.

However I could be wrong.

---

Please support us and post a [Link to www.digitalartsfront.com] on your website.

On US forums, what originally were intended to be simple dialog about the new bill always turn into heated arguments. I don't think that will happen here, so...

The true hypothetical socialist plan: If all working US Americans had a payroll tax that covered ALL healthcare related expenses it would cost a flat 30% across the board (2007 data).
This would cause all of our wealthy to move out of the country because it would just be cheaper to move whole companies than to pay this fee.
If there was a slope to charge the poor a higher percentage than the rich, I think a pure socialist version of the bill might work. But, this could mean that low income earners would have to pay 45% to 50% payroll taxes.
On the other hand, debt would decrease and allow the overall medical cost, of the USA, to decrease. Meaning those bad securities made by the medical system, which don't trade well, will go away. This is not the bill that was passed.

The other end of the spectrum, or the capitalist way, would mean getting government regulation out of the way of insurance companies to allow harder competition across state lines. This would allow small upstarts to compete with cheap plans that covered basic necessities, thus causing big companies to compete even harder. The overall cost would go down and produce better securities for the global market to trade, unlike the plan mentioned above which simply gets rid of them.

Which is better? It all depends on how fast the USA can arrive at one of these systems with out doing too much damage. However, my government is not doing either of these things. They believe a gray middle ground is the best choice, which, in fact, only causes more taxes for the worker and more regulation for the private sector, limiting competition and upstarts; the worst of both worlds from both ends of the spectrum. Both parties agree that amendments will have to be made.

---

So are you saying the problem is that the private health insurance companies will be forced out of the country if you were to go to a govt subsidized health care system?

In Australia we have Private and Medicare. On Medicare you generally have to wait longer for treatment and the quality of that treatment can sometimes be poor. We also often have to pay a gap fee as the govt might only pay for 80% of the treatment. Private is optional but provides a better service generally.

Ideally I think that health care and education should be free or at-least almost free, just so you know where I stand on the issue.

---

Please support us and post a [Link to www.digitalartsfront.com] on your website.

No no no...
I'm saying the payroll tax will drive the wealthy out, unless it's done on a slope.

---

Right, I understand you now. Well then yes it need to be introduced slowly, but I think it still should be introduced.

---

Please support us and post a [Link to www.digitalartsfront.com] on your website.

I agree, but my point is, there are two opposite known ways to do healthcare correctly. I'm for either one; the capitalist or the socialist way are both in use and work in different places to this day. The United States, with the best intentions, is more worried about getting a bipartisan sounding system in place, rather than actually thinking of a system that would work efficiently. It's not all bad. Now there's a bill that can be amended easily and grow in the correct direction. However, I believe, if the Republican party got their way it wouldn't be death and destruction, which my liberal party seems to enjoy saying. A pure capitalist medical system could work if we allowed more competition against the unrivaled insurance giants.

---

Personally I favor the idea of having a fully govt subsidized health care system, over a competitive insurance based one. How it does need to be either or and not a mix of the two which is what we have in this country. I have no problem paying more tax for free and better health care. We are all going to need it at some point and it is often the poor who get sick due to bad living conditions and lifestyle habits.

---

Please support us and post a [Link to www.digitalartsfront.com] on your website.

Medicaid Medicare and Social Security already amount to about 15 % of the United States payroll tax. The system will be overwhelmed with the current aging population and poverty levels.
Allowing a capitalist system to take over these jobs is possible, but the government would have to buy accounts from these different companies, using tax dollars, in order to transition, so that recipients would get the same care. This would only occur during the transition.
The ineligible, working class, would simply have these services included into their normal insurance plans, whose rates would drop because of the pro-business environment.

There are issues with this idea, which include how children's coverage is done, but the money is there to do this sort of thing. And the United States prefer individualistic ideals over progressive ideals. Personally, one doesn't bother me more than the other. And, the selling of the securities produced by this system would trade in the world market like wild fire. The world needs more AAA rated securities.

---

Well I'm slightly less confused than before, so thanks guys

---

[Link to www.3dprevis.com]

So am I. I still need to go over the bill myself.

---