What they deliver comes after the election - right now they're trying to get voters who can't, don't, or won't think to vote for them based on promises.

Because they think its free and that the government should take care of them. In other words lazy bums

My first question is why let government be so inefficient at every aspect of government with your money. This needs to change first before anything else.

Our health is the most important aspect of our lives and we should make sure we and our neighbors are provided with the care they need.

Private Insurance is too expensive for the average worker.

I'm a US citizen and I agree with everything that you have stated. First, the majority of working Americans do not rely on the government for health insurance. In the US,most working people have private insurance through their jobs. In the US you cannot buy health insurance if you are age 65 or over because it is provided by the government. (You can buy supplemental insurance to cover the costs that are not paid by Medicare.) People who are classified as legally disabled also receive Medicare insurance, which is provided by the government. Also, poor people receive free health insurance, which is called Medicaid.

bcos 85 % falls in to the hands of adminstrators who ar egovt employees
some govt hospitals are themselves sick .
some fall sick after visiting Govt hospitals and are rushed to appolo hospital for masking drugs

some of the people are scared. some want more health care, but can't afford it and therefore want someone else to pay.

they've lost touch with the brutal realities of the real world long since — in the old tribal days before Western civilization came along with its incessant improvements, nearly every part of earth had either seasonal food shortages or irregular harvest failures. In tribal societies in those times, elders did not eat. [In Inuit villages, folk who were too old or infirm walked out onto the ice and did not return.]

there is a myth to the extent that humanity has come so far that we must be able to support all of our elderly in middle class style by now — meaning both income and health care — whether that elder was ever middle class or not.

reality is that human progress is gradual and thus the resources that can be expended on those who no longer produce more than they consume can only increase gradually.

nearly every third world country knows this deep in their bones. they aren't so far from the days when unproductive people starved.

it is only the first world affluent classes who've forgotten.

***
so they try to substitute compulsory charity for family thrift and investment. alas, family thrift and investment make the whole economy bigger as more tools are built and employed which drives worker productivity upward while compulsory charity [taxation on everybody] retards growth in output and worker productivity.

so the usual law of unintended consequences of political acts continues to hold — the side effects of good ideas are frequently worse than the problem you're trying to solve.

You have a totally different system to what we have in the U.K. which is a National Health Service, founded in 1945.

Our system is supposedly funded by national insurance contributions, deducted from our monthly salaries along with income tax. Although the government also put in billions of pounds.

For all its faults it is a system of which most Britons are proud.

Irrespective of your financial position, you are entitled to free health care in the U.K.

Last new year my friend had a massive anaphylactic reaction to nuts which nearly killed him. Along with my neighbour, who is a nurse, the paramedics brought him back to life 4 times and he was rushed to Accident & Emergency, who stabilised him.

At no time was he asked for his national insurance details or if he had healthcare insurance and he was discharged 2 days later. This in a brand new hospital which had been opened 2 weeks.

With all its faults, and even though it is treated as a political football by the political parties, the National Health Service was a wonderful innovation of which most of us are justifiably proud.

All it is ,is an issue they talk about to get elected. I've heard it for so many years and so many elections,and nothing has been done about it and nothing will be done! As a tax payer who's taxes pays for health insurence for them, I think I should have affordable health insurence.How about people who end up with huge hospital bills and lose there homes because of it. Our government can get treated for a hang nail for free. We pay them to provide a service, I still haven't seen anything.

Because they are democrats

It is a lot more efficient in other countries.

I live in the UK and work in the NHS (our universal health care system). It has problems, but not as many as the US healthcare system has. Despite spending much more per head of population than other developed countries, the US has worse health outcomes. Life expectancy and infant mortality figures in the US are worse than in other developed countries, despite more money being spent (and wasted) in the USA.

In the UK there are waiting lists for routine problems. Problems that can not wait are treated as emergencies. Also, in the UK, people can also have private health care. If you have suspected cancer for example, you are see within two weeks, or if appropriate, the same day.

I can understand Americans being proud of living in the richest and most powerful country in the world. What I can not understand is why Amercians settle for a more expensive healthcare system where babies die that would have a better chance of life if born in another developed country.

Beware loosing your job in the USA if you get healthcare through that. ,,2167865,00.html Or retiring if you have become ill when covered by work based insurance. At present you have a system that takes money away from healthcare by trying to work out which claims to deny, and also by paying shareholders. One that you can see from the figures I have quoted, is more inefficient than any system in the western world.