The $200K lesson I learned from getting shot

Well, there you go, you've said it yourself. What you are talking about is not universal healthcare. Debate over, closed; we aren't even talking about the same thing. You are in no way, shape or form talking about universal healthcare, don't even delude yourself that you are - in trying to define it you are explicitly defining against it.

> What happens when that medication is fundamentally uncheap, like herceptin, in New Zealand? Sure, herceptin is contrived, because that's a patenting issue. what if it's discodermolide, which doesn't exist in more than ~10 g quantity in the universe and is rediculously expensive to manufacture? Who gets/who doesnt?

Well, let's first look at the other side of the coin. What happens in the US if you want access to this Drug? What happens in Africa? These new monoclonal antibodies are presenting big challenges to health economics everywhere. As far as I can ascertain NZ currently will pay for 52 weeks of Herceptin, as best evidence suggests is most effective, in line with most other countries with universal healthcare. So in these countries, regardless of who you are, how much money you have, how old you are - if you have a HER2+ breast cancer you will receive a year's worth of Herceptin, along with all your other medical treatment. So that's Initial screening mammography , Ultrasound, FNAB, Surgcial resection +- sentinel node biopsy, radiotherapy (if local excision performed) and THEN chemotherapy.

Your cost? In australia, that would be 4.20 per filled prescription of you are a health-care card holder (low income) or $23 if you don't. All that for around $40,000 worth of surgery/Investigations and another $50,000 of chemotherapy.

In the US? I guess it would depend on your insurance but if you don't, I guess you go without.

>>Who gets/who doesnt?

Whatever way you try to spin this, more people have access in countries with universal healthcare. In the US you can either afford to pay or you can't. In other countries with universal healthcare, it is either provided free to all (thereby increasing uptake and availability of care); or, in the case of newer biologic treatments in the tens of thousands of dollars, it may not be approved, and you will then go without or for the top order who can afford to pay for it themselves, get access. So if you want to be really anal you can point and stare at that glaring inequity which occurs in very expensive drugs that have not yet been approved, or you can say that 'the system works! people are getting access to lifesaving medicines!' - which is what is actually happening

>>"why is this person's life subsidized", but not mine?

Again, the scenario you are making doesn't happen in the brutalistic 'death panel' terms you are attempting to cast it in. Yes, some medicines aren't available on government subsidy as mentioned before. But a hyperexpensive drug that prolongs the life is an example of Herceptin; it increases the survival of patients with HER2+ cancers, previously a poor prognisticator, to that of the hormone-receptor positive tumours. The actual decrease of recurrance was approx 13% over 5 years. So here we have a perfect example of a hyperexpensive drug, that improves survival, in a small subset of the population, that was relatively rapidly approved by the government for treatment. "why is this person's life subsidized", but not mine? - This doesn't happen. No-one is making those types of decisions. Anywhere. I don't know why everyone in the US who wants to argue so strongly against universal healthcare believes this is going to be the case. It simply doesn't happen and if your proposed system is looking like these things WILL happen then you should be trying to make your systems more like ours.

Bottom line: Universal Healthcare works. It delivers good outcomes to everyone without imposing a financial burden that will cripple for the remainder of life. It does this without 'death panels' that decide who gets care and who doesn't. If you want to argue differently, then you are not understanding how Universal healthcare actually works in the countries that have had it implemented for over 70 years. Is it perfect? No; but it does seem inherently more just.

You're cherry-picking data. 1950 wasn't a utopia. The military was spreading chlamydia and radioactive materials in black neighborhoods "just to see what would happen". But I think considering the level of social consciousness AND technology that existed at the time, things were in many ways better. More to the point, especially with regards to the discussion: If you went to the hospital, your bills were reasonable - you wouldn't go into debt, the quality of service (relative to what could be provided) was high. If you were poor, you would probably be treated pro bono without hesitation.

If your claim is that the technology to save lives really is that expensive, I think you're wrong. Even the oft-repeated mantra that it's rapacious insurance companies is a flawed narrative: http://biz.yahoo.com/p/5qpmu.html (there are rapacious companies in there but it's not insurance) and I would be deeply suspicious of whoever is selling that narrative.

"the government" as if it is something distinct

It is distinct. If you wrong me, I cannot imprison you in my basement. I cannot hire lackeys to invade your home and threaten you with guns and shoot your dog. There's a categorical difference.

>We, the voting American populace, are responsible for its actions.

No, we're not. If you "voted for the other guy", in what way are you responsible? For not trying hard enough? If you're opposed to the war, are you responsible because you didn't go far enough to stop it? How far would be enough? Saying we are is kind of jingoistic. Ultimately, we're citizens of the planet, and any given person has a finite capacity to change it for the better; and expecting responsibility for more is unreasonable.

>If we wanted real change, there would be real change.

That's true, but to get it we need to understand that government is NOT the solution to everything and think real hard about what it should and should not be a solution for.

>We are a selfish, violent people.

I don't see this at all. I think that perception is really a crazy media narrative caused by desperation from the disruption we're seeing in that industry, and partly from (mostly local) government interest groups seeding that impression to justify increased expenditures for specialized crimefighting units. Crime in the US is down over the last 20 years.

>Besides, the only system under which no one has influence over something I don't want them to is a system in which I am an absolute monarch. Do you want that?

I'm not an galtian individualist - I'm not suggesting that my ideal is one where no one has influence over me. My suggestion that we should make people BETTER is, quite the opposite - crafting a better society is, I think important, but to me, what the means to those ends are, is really worth thinking about.

No, I'm just remembering one piece of data off the top of my head.

> 1950 wasn't a utopia.

Definitely. Whether you could get access to reasonable (or even any) medical care depended on whether you were white. But one doctor has made a questionable decision about your father's care (by the way, you do know you can get second, even third opinions, even within a fully socialized system, right?), so you want to go back to segregated medicine.

> If you "voted for the other guy", in what way are you responsible?

"We" is society, not the individual. Society is responsible, and society is what you want to rely on, just without the "government" label attached. It's the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard.

I personally don't see the "trap" you reference. I'd really like to understand your position there...