Among other reasons....
You can have a rational soul like Laura provide a comparison of her personal experience with the U.S. and Canadian health care systems, like this:
Let's cut the crap and put it this way:
System #1: When I worked in the US, patients would come in and present their insurance cards; we would call the insurance company and wait on hold for 30 minutes (if we didn't get disconnected) to verify that they had officially chosen me as their primary care physician. They might pay a copay, or they might pay a percentage of the fee, for which they would be billed after the insurance had done its part. I had to write notes that described a certain number of body parts, or a certain number of aspects of a particular body part, or a certain number of descriptive terms for the symptoms of the one or more body parts, all of which would be added up to determine how much the visit was worth. The bill would go to my billing service which took 8% of receipts, since the hardware and software for electronic billing with dozens of different boxes to be filled in, but filled in differently for each of the dozens of different insurance plans which my office participated in, was too onerous to be handled by a solo practice. Then the "explanation of benefits" would arrive, and I might be told that the insurance had paid, say 80% of the charge that the insurance said they would pay (as opposed to 80% of the charge I was actually charging), and I had to bill the patient for the 20% which, even though it might at this point cost more in staff time and postage to send the bill than the bill was worth, had to be done or I would be accused of fraud, since not billing the balance would mean that my charges weren't really what I said they were, although the insurance wasn't paying what I said the charges were anyway. Or maybe the insurance company would say that they wouldn't pay because it was a pre-existing condition, or it wasn't a covered benefit, or we hadn't received prior authorization. Or they might want copies of the records before they would decide whether to pay. Or they might decide that I was no longer one of their participating providers, and the patient would have to go find another doctor, and I would have to copy the chart to send to the new doctor, for which I would not be paid. If I needed to send the patient to a specialist, we would have to look up which specialist were participating providers for that particular insurance, and get prior authorization. Certain tests also required prior authorization. All of this required hours on the phone. And sometimes the specialist would be a participating provider, but the specialist would be in a non-participating hospital, or would send the patient for xrays which ended up being read by a non-participating radiologist, or sometime the radiologist was participating but the xray machine was not.
And then there were the patients who did not have insurance.
System #2: Now I work in British Columbia, where everyone has a "care card." When they come in, we take down the number on the care card. I can send the patient to any specialist. There is one form to fill out for billing, and the fees are negotiated between the government and the medical society. There are no copays, no deductibles, no percents. I don't have to employ an army of people to sit on hold with insurance companies.
And everyone is insured.
And you're telling me that tinkering with System #1 (let's make it MORE complicated!) is preferable to System #2.
And you will still get this kind of nutter response from those who have been brainwashed by the rightwing wackaloons into fearing socialism and Obamacare and who think that the fucked up system we have now is somehow The Best Health Insurance in the World!TM
Giving me you take on your personal experiences in "system 1" and "system 2" is fine Laura, but cannot be confirmed. Let's work with facts that can be knowable, Ok?
But...I read both system 1 and 2, and after all your rambling you're just telling me that system 2 is "easier" so we should do it that way. NOTHING that is worth doing right is "easy" And throwing money at a government program is the "easy way out".
Yes, dining room table, let's by all means work with facts that can be knowable. Not that a real person's actual lived experience in two different healthcare systems would be anything like a knowable fact, now would it? Oh no. Not when your fevered brain can still toss out pithy statements like "nothing that is worth doing right is 'easy' ", in lieu of actually grappling with the information in front of you.
What the hell is wrong with you people?
It's a pity we can't just seriously divide the country in two. On one side, all you people who don't want "socialism" can go and live without Medicare, municpal sewer systems, roads that are maintained by government funds, running water, fire departments, police departments, national/state/city parks, public libraries, and other such disgusting features of life under brownshirt Obamcare socialism. The rest of us commies will hunker down together in our socialist nightmare and finally craft a universal health care system to go along with the rest of evil socialist empire.