Comments on: Is British-Style Health Care The Answer?

Critics Of Public Health Care Point To Problems In Britain, Where Government Has Provided Health Care For Decades

[va3_victis]

What this segment fails to mention is that there isn't a health plan in all of the USA that would cover 'experimental' drugs or treatments. Period. So what this shows us is that the UK's NHS is at least as good as the private insurance here--but still even better, because there is an appeal process.

[cydygitt1]

You're so full of it texassanna, since for-profit insurance companies NEVER cover EXPERIMENTAL drugs or procedures either! The GREEDY for-profit insurance companies don't even cover alternative medicine today!

"If I could chose one system today, I would chose the British system over the American, if I was an average American," Dr. Sikora said. "Having said that, I think there is a huge opportunity for the Obama administration to design something that is completely novel."

Britain spends just over $2,700 per person on health care, compared to an average $6,700 in the U.S. And a recent survey shows 90 percent of British patients rated their NHS care as good to excellent.

It is well past time to find a good health care system for America that costs BETWEEN the two and covers more Americans -- like $4,000.

[toobigtofail]

the reply below makes the mistake of assuming we'd pay 6700 for every american when experience shows the system is price fixed in favor of insurance companies doctors and big pharma in the usa and like in canada and britain and japan national health care knocks down prices

AND

helps usa employers compete with foreign producers who dont have to fund huge benefits programs