pr0f3n

UHC systems offer the opportunity for a centralized, comprehensive approach to dealing with problems like obesity and smoking. I'm surprised that you can link those articles on UK/Euro obesity for their stats and not notice that they're all talking about how to solve the problem through their UHC systems. The UK is the heaviest population in Europe, projecting to have 25-30% obese or overweight by 2010. The US reached that level in 2000. What national program do we have to address such a problem, and why didn't we begin dealing with it before 1/3 of our people were fatasses?

What unique challenges does America have to deal with in health care that make UHC inviable? It works in dozens of industrialized nations, and has for decades. America has no unique characteristics or problems that prevent it from doing so as well.

It's a bad idea to allow the states to institute disparate systems in various states due to portability conflicts, their diminished stance in both contract negotiations and risk pooling.

I appreciate your trepidation in regards to government spending, but the US already spends more per capita than every UHC nation and our health indicators are falling or are already behind these same nations. Medicare works, the VA works, Tricare works.

http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/default.a...setCode=HEALTH
http://www.who.int/whosis/database/c...indicators=nha

You haven't offered any evidence for a UHC system that doesn't work, you haven't offered any real evidence for your cynical dismissals of UHC.
Frankly, fear-mongering about unprecedented hypotheticals is the last refuge of ideologues and fools. If you look at the data and have a scintilla of commons sense, you'll realize there's no debate to be had. UHC is the optimal moral and economic choice.

__________________
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
Friedrich Nietzsche