National healthcare debate?

[Silly Rabbit]

I really, really, really don't understand this debate. The main argument seems to be 'national healthcare will be shit'. But, why can't you have both state, and private health care? Meaning, no one has to die because they can't afford/get insurance, and those who want a premium service can pay for insurance.

This is the system we have in the uk, and it's excellent. I've never had any problems with the nhs; I can phone my doctor at any time, and get a house call if the symptoms warrant it. I can get an appointment the same day if I phone up in the morning, no matter the symptoms. And, I can get full treatment, and drugs whenever I need them, and very quickly.

Basically, I don;t understand the 'national health service would be slow and shit, and not as good as private...' argument for two reasons:

1. It wouldn't be, if it was anything like the uk's. And, the uk's lags far behind many others.
2. Private health care would still exist for those that wanted it.

What's the problem with national healthcare? If it's taxes, why can't you route them from your military budget?

[Inspired]

If you do your homework on the countries that have national health care, people die because of the govt run healthcare.

I have read numerous articles on govt rationing at the end of life care. Also, people denied certain cancer treatments. People dying of heart problems while waiting for certain procedures.

Obviously, there has to be a better solution. Too bad conrads co-op idea didn't get much attention because other democrats want to ram this through before the 2010 elections!