I know from family experience that in Canada, it's generally easier to have some sort of insurance, offer it up whenever you need something, and then claim the deductible on your tax return for credit that way. You still have to have insurance for the plan to work, but it's much easier in the long run. Many jobs also offer insurance as part of their benefit's package (for example, Loblaws gives it's employees family medical if they worked 400 hours over the last year), so it isn't like all poor people are screwed under this plan.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=334650

Wisconsin is trying it, $510/month per person under 65 in the state.

Yeah, that was sarcasm.

I figured the italics on "wait a few weeks," the use of the word "clearly," and the general insanity of the proposition as phrased were sufficiently identifying, but I guess people (self included) tend to approach discussion threads with their "serious brain" on so these things can end up being less obvious than one might assume.

Next time I'll just put up [SARCASM] tags.

The worst part is that the X-ray and CT are less than like half the bill. The majority of the bill is for the Psychiatrist that came down and talked to me for 10 minutes. He then concluded that I was mentally stable and not depressed but slightly stressed. (Show me one damn working class person anywhere in the world that isn't stressed a little.) For that I was charged like $3000 and that just ain't right.

Here are two methods to find more money for national health insurance.

1) Stop spending money on making shitloads of bombs every year.

A normal bomb can feed and house a family for quite some time.

Smart bombs can feed and house same family more comfortably for several years if managed correctly.

2) Tax the fucking rich.

Seriously, who the hell though a flat% would work? You need sliding %s. Sure with the less money rich people might not invest as much but they also might not "invest" in yachts worth hundreds of millions of dollars, too.

Rich rule this country, doubt me? Last time I checked, everyone in the goverment is rich.

What I dont get is why are they doing all these pay-offs when they can just pay their freakin taxes in the first place.

Well in my little island we have both a public and a private healthcare system.
You can have everything subsidised by the government but wait for ages for treatment or pay lots (or with insurance) and go to the private one. It's a compromise between both worlds, kind of.
I don't know what the American system is like so I can't compare but I haven't died yet.

here is my problem, insurance wont cover a pre-existing condition. I was born with asthma. Now I am lucky, I have an unusually high breathing capacity which offsets it. So I can get by even though its active. But some people have it much more serious and need continual treatment.

They will not cover something you already have, what do they expect, me to have gotten insurance as an embryo. Worse is if you are covered at birth, if for some reason you lose it and go more then six months before getting a new one, its no longer covered.

As per my above link; For Wisconsin to do this they need to bring in a couple billion more than their total income and sales taxes combined. They will be taxing the shit out of everything and drive businesses from their state with the employment taxes that will more be more than the federal rates.

And more support for what I said earlier.
Really? I know for a fact that that is BS. Well not totally, just not in the US or any first world country.

Totally untrue, and again, and one more before I have to go to work. The idea of a transparent tax system appeals to me, everyone paying the same percentage with no exceptions strikes me as pretty darn fair. Especially when you consider that the countries that have adopted this (and New Jersey) are doing well and are exceeding their projected income from taxes.

All your articles don't really address the issue which is that flat taxes are based on the trickle-down effect which was big in the early 90's/late 80's.
Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
Most economists I've talked to don't believe in trickle_down economics anymore, especially with the rise of the "super-rich lifestyle" which sees the new rich spending lots on massive yachts and lots of resorts that are now catering to the super-rich. There are special clubs across the world, mostly in the US, for such super-rich promoting such expenditure which harms trickle-downs. I can get an article on this if someone wants to dispute that last point. I'll just need to do it at uni.