I just watched a PBS (Proletariat Broadcasting System) special in a class I Subbed for. It was on “Government health Care” Basically socialized health care. It explored the socialized health care in several systems, touting that there are “real market solutions” to the problems critics of a socialized health care have raised.
I can’t speak to all of the information they put in it, but it was somewhat dated (from around the time of the election), had some seriously dated information. Only glowing reviews of the English system were shown, however there were several parts that were inaccurate at best. It stated that England has a longer life expectancy than the U.S. This is true. It’s about a year longer, and it just counts age at death rates. That means that the serious problems the U.S. has in the inner cities with a murder rate that leaves a male born in certain areas a life expectancy of 18 years is counted in the U.S. figures. England has a serious gang problem, but the murder rate is no where near ours. This skews our life expectancy lower. No matter the medical system, murder it isn't going to help murder.
The other problem was that nearly every country surveyed, mandated that everyone had to purchase health insurance. While I find the idea flat out chilling in any case, and it was clearly before the court decision was handed down stating that such is unconstitutional, there was no mention of the potential constitutional problems with such an arrangement. This from a supposedly reputable journalist. He didn't even think of it.
It's clear that the progressives see the constitution, not as something to guide and restrain government, thus keeping it from becoming tyrannical, but rather an obstacle to their goal of total government. They only think of it when it gets in their way.