If there is anything I'm still confused about is this debate because I do not know who is right or wrong, we have the USA saying universal socialized healthcare which in some way canada and europe have is bad and their healthcare system is better and even more confusing is there are proponants saying the healthcare system in the USA the worst and would be better if the USA have universal healthcare. Right now I don't know who to believe, those saying canadian and european healthcare is good or bad or those saying the healthcare sytem in the US is good or bad

Healthcare in Canada (more specifically in Quebec, this is where my experience lays) is decent.

95% of the stuff is covered and the quality of the care given is modern and adequate provided that you don't get a case that could interest Dr House (state of the art care is really south of the border, but then only the rich there can afford it anyways).

If you don't have a life threatening ailment, they'll make you wait (can be a couple of months for an appointment and several hours of you show up at the emergency without one), but if you fractured your skull or have cancer, you'll receive prompt treatment.

Some of the medication isn't free, but sold at a greatly reduced cost (affordable) and dental isn't covered at all unless you are insured by the private sector.

I'd know, I'm self-employed and don't have dental insurance so I only go to the dentist once every 1.5 years instead of the recommended semi-yearly visit.

HOWEVER, I won't sugar coat it: there are some gross inefficiencies in the system.

Anything that is public domain greatly benefits from transparency and more direct democracy, but unfortunately, our state provided services are often quite opaque.

For example: If a state department asks for less money from the government on a quarter, the government will be reluctant about giving them more money in the next thinking they don't need it. So as a result, many state departments will find a way to "squander" money if they have a surplus so that they never have to report having spent less money.

In essence, they are as democratic as a private company, but without much of the financial accountability.

This can cause a problem with unions as well.

In private companies, unions that are overly powerful and make demands that are not substainable will bankrupt the company and that will be the end of it.

But in public companies, the company won't go bankrupt, because the state will just inject more money into it until the state itself is bankrupt.

To counter this, the state will sometimes use it's power to force a resolution between union and employer instead of letting due process take it's course.

It's messy.

Depends on which country in Europe since each country has its own flavor of national healthcare.

I'll give you a few observations from my neck of the woods.

Our NHS is constantly underfunded and you have to wait for just about everything unless you shove a white envelope full of cash money under the doctor's nose. I am not sure about whether you have to wait if you have something serious such as cancer but I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case. Depending on the hospital you go to, the medical equipment might not be the best in the world. Doctors here also pull several shifts in a row so might get one that is tired as hell and he might not exactly be able to help you out other than saying "You're alive. Next!"

Not too long ago there were some changes made to the list of refundable medicines and such. The changes were made almost off the cuff meaning that someone who needs medicine to keep their transplant from being rejected or other serious ailments now had to pay 3 times or more than the usual price for the same medicine. For a while people were stockpiling medicine because they never knew if the price was going to go up drastically and whether the medicine would even be in stock. This list is in constant flux although I guess the issue has settled down some since I don't see any news articles about it.

Every year we have the Great Christmas Orchestra that raises money for medical equipment such as incubators for premature babies amongst other things. Now, call me crazy but I don't remember such funding drives in the US since apparently most hospitals have this kind of thing by default. This Orchestra helps out a lot but it also sends me a message that our hospitals either don't have the money to spend on this kind of equipment or they squander whatver money they have.

So based on what I have read our healthcare is a right sorry mess unless you get privately funded healthcare which is supposed to be a hundred times better.

why is it that how I see it a majority of people does not like government run healthcare whats wrong with the idea of the government taking care of your health.

You misunderstand me.

I think state run healthcare is the way to go (you don't want corporate monopoly or oligarchy running your healthcare).

I just wish it was run more transparently and more democratically.

In a sense, have the best of both worlds: the financial accountability of the private sector, but with the sense of community and human values of the public sector.

so what you are saying is that government does not have the money to back up healthcare but the financial sector does? (this is only a question I am not accusing you or proving you wrong)

No, our healthcare is funded by taxer payers' dollars and that's the way it should be.

What I'm saying is that the government (or more specifically, it's departments and facilities) need to be more financially accountable.

That means keeping efficiency in mind more often then they do and having to be accountable to someone (in this case, tax payers) and keeping them in the loop as to what is happening with the system their money paid for.

The government doesn't need more capital (at least not in Quebec, we are the most taxed province in Canada), it needs to use the capital that it has better.

Because the financial sector isn't charged with maintaining an army, paying out retirement, building roads, feeding the ruling class(at least not directly), and all the other things that the government has to spend money on in order to say that they are running a country.

The problem with public health systems isn't government control, in my opinion, it's lack of it.

A lot of our Yankee friends bemoan government control as a central aspect of public health systems, but if they had experience with them they would know that the government is little more than a glorified cheque writer. You see a private doctor, you get prescribed privately manufactured drugs, you pay for it, and then the government pays the doctor/clinic/pharmacy the cost (or a portion of it) which in turn refunds you the patient.

Where all the money goes, of course, is because the government cannot properly control the prices of medicines and technologies, and also extremely high pay-rates of medical professionals, administrators, surgeons, and the like, who could easily go work outside the public system if the government don't pay them enough.

That is not actually the way it works in Canada for government subsidized healthcare. Any drugs which are covered by government funding you never see the cost of. Some are only partially covered, and then you pay the difference and if you have private healthcare you can get another portion or all of that refunded back to you (pharmacies and health care facilities used to bill private health care companies directly, but that seems to be less common nowadays). I'm not entirely sure making direct payment for everything actually helps them lower costs, but we do have something in Canada we call "Brain drain." Essentially, many of our doctors (and other professionals) go to the U.S. because they can make more money there...

Here in Sweden it is, for the most part, pretty decent. Like any huge governmental machine, it is inefficient, and could really do with some proper re-structuring and better communication, but people who really need medical care will almost always get it, at a price that they can afford, and very few are actually left out of the system (though there are from time to time reports of it happening).
And even when you don't have to have medical care NOW you will usually get it within a reasonable timeframe. I had to deal with the system last year when I hurt my foot quite badly, and while I would not call the experience "pleasant" (it hurt, darn it, also sitting in a waiting room for 3h is boring), I got the help I needed, and a price even a college student could afford.

As example for really, really bad "healthcare" you have to go to the border of Europe (or rather beyond). In my time in Georgia I learned how privileged we are in europe.

In Georgia it's simple. You are sick, you are poor, you die. That corresponds with how retirement age works in Georgia. You either have a family, you go begging or you die.

In my opinion, the NHS in the UK is pretty good. Personally I think the main reason it hasn't been maintained as an excellent quality service is because our own politicians and business men don't have to use it. In allowing private practice to continue (and worse for NHS doctors to also engage in private work), we have mean't that the NHS is something that can be discarded or allowed to deteriorate.

It's tricky thing though, you either have to prevent someone getting the best treatment, even though they could afford it, or allow them to have no buy-in to the NHS.

The most logical explanation I've heard from US opponents to socialised healthcare is that their government simply isn't up to the task and would bugger it up spectacularly.