What, the mentality that we are fucked either way (don't pay and you are fucked medically, pay and you are fucked financially)? Our system works brilliantly if you are wealthy. Unfortunately, the majority of the citizens in this country aren't wealthy. The idea that another system wouldn't work is absurd. The reality is, it's going to take a very long time to change the system. It's one thing to score political points by talking about changing things and it's another to actually implement them.
No, I'm not saying you're fucked either way at all, I'm just saying that Americans are probably going to have to look at things a lot differently in order for universal health coverage to come into effect and actually be effective in any way. Most countries that have beneficial health care systems are far more social-welfare oriented than America, and while it is true that you do have public education and services, look at the state of your public education. It's fucked and not because of a lack of resources (look at the American GDP and the american GDP per capita), it's fucked because of the allocation of the resources and mismanagement. Now multiply that by a thousand and throw in a ton of lobby groups.
I say it's hard in America because of the socio-political culture that doesn't put a strong social safety net as high on the priority list as many other countries do. Hospitals didn't
start here as for profit businesses. They started as private or public institutions who's entire purpose was to provide medical care to those who could not otherwise obtain it through private doctors. Because of that change wasn't necessary for many years, and when it was there were no major objections because it just made sense.
It should, however, be pointed out that 'public' (technically it's not) care here was implemented rapidly because it was done so by province before the federal government got involved in any way. I don't know about most federal countries with universal health care, but chances are it worked the same way. Talking about it is all good and fine, but there's really not all that much to discuss, public funds are either allocated towards a regulated health care system or they're not. Once that's covered, the specifics of it are most likely pretty complicated but should be able to be worked out quickly. The fact is that you're going to piss a lot of people off doing it rapidly, but the less time you give special interests to corrupt the system before it even starts up the better. All you need is a politician with the balls to say "fuck you, all your taxes are going up a bit, we're cutting spending in this unnecessary area (military) and reallocating it here, and you may have to pay a small yearly or quarterly fee. This government agency is now regulating all health care practices and pricing and this one over here is acting as one giant medical insurance company...without the profit."
That's why I say a system such as ours might not work out so well there. I'm not saying you're fucked either way, I'm saying that there's probably a different and more suitable (for your country) way to actually implement any sort of government funded medicare in the US.
The thing to keep in mind is that medical spending takes up over 10% of our GDP here. Not only are you ten times the population, you also have a far far far higher obesity rate and over twice the percentage we have of people 'overweight'. Any sort of universal coverage opens up the doorway to new sin taxes, not those based on elasticity (booze, gas), but those based on deterrence.
