> The UK has private health pension companies alongside our national health service. <br> <br>> Why do you think that this is absolutely impossible in America and will destroy your entire way of healthcare? <br> <br>Nobody thinks it will entirely destroy the U.S. health care system. There will always be the private option for those who can afford it. What some think is that a nationalized system will result in care for the "average person" that, while not terrible, is inferior to what they enjoy now. <br> <br>The main complaint, though, is expense. Such a system would clearly improve the lot of those who absolutely can't afford health care right now, even if the care they receive under the new plan is sub-standard. Sub-standard beats non-existent. But the plan will be financed out of the pockets of everyone else, necessarily reducing their standard of living, purchasing power, etc. etc. <br> <br>It may also be "more expensive" than similar plans implemented in Europe, since the U.S. citizenry is more stratified, i.e. a larger percentage of poor folks who would need to be cared for under such a plan. <br> <br>> Prothero, you've yet to explain why you are happy to pay for socialised military/police/fire support yet are unwilling to pay for health. <br> <br>This is a red herring. Police and fire are handled at the state and local level and are funded by property tax. Everybody who isn't homeless (including renters) pays property tax in some form or another (possibly indirectly in the form of higher rent). The only exception would be those who live in federally subsidized housing, but then Pro probably doesn't support that either. (Which would be consistent). <br> <br>Military protection must necessarily be national in order to be effective, and it's provided for in the U.S. Constitution as a power of the federal government. If poor people and rich people are living in the same locale, you can't selectively protect one and not the other from foreign aggression.