"exray" wrote in message
...

From my perspective the biggest stumbling block to any sort of national
health care program is the cost of the services themselves. A national
"insurance" validates an already 'too expensive' medical system and I
can't see that as workable. On the other hand I see no reason why the
gubmint cannot become involved with providing direct services for the
less fortunate. That may sound socialistic but at least is the humane
thing to do. If they can get that obligation functional then maybe it
can be expanded accordingly as needed.

Indeed, the cost of medical services is the fundamental problem. At the end
of WWII, businesses began giving their employees free or low-cost medical
insurance, because medical treatment was (then) relatively cheap. It no
longer is.

The issue with all legislation is whether it works the way it's supposed to,
and does not produce unintended effects. We forget that we live in a world
governed almost solely by economics * (the production & exchange of goods &
services), and laws unavoidably interact with our economic system, whether
or not we "intend" them to. This is one of the reasons it's essentially
impossible to get rid of poverty, because poverty benefits the wealthy.

* This was not true before the invention of agriculture and the ability of
people to produce more food than they needed.