So then why argue for a universal system that does nothing unless you are dying? Given the very minimal difference in life expectancies between the US and other developed nations, it would seem that universal health care should only be used in a way to control costs here, which we've seen will not be the case, as is with the VA - the cost issues are elsewhere in the system.

And having said that, I cannot believe the amount of time other nations have for many procedures. When I was bleeding out of my inner intestines (which didn't require hospitalization, which I'd assume is one of those 'only get care if your dying' situations), it took just 12hrs to schedule a colonoscopy and CT scan for me.....Compared to weeks in Canada or other universal comparables.

Such a case also does not seem to suggest rising healthcare costs are related to private healthcare at all, but the United States expectations of care vs Europes.  If anything one would think that govenrment mandated healthcare would only RAISE costs as those expectations for preventative and proactive care would still exist.

One only need to look at our other social programs that have been found to not be workable anymore being met with complete refusal to change by the public even though both sides admit SOMETHING needs to be done.

I am a firm believer that government-mandated health care will raise costs, because we aren't controling the costs in any way, shape, or form in the US. Costs per person on Medicare ($7,000 USD per person) and VA ($8,000 per person) prove this, as well as the mandatory plan in Massachusettes ($10,000 per person). Therefore, if a system is enacted to force people even to private plans ($4,900 USD per person), you will see a massive increase in health care expenditures.

As I said, we could implement cost-cutting measures that would help the system, but these arguments are either seen as being too entrenched in lobyists (insurance companies and their tax credits for businesses, as well as forcing more market competition), unions (the AMA's stranglehold on licensure requirements which are far in excess of other countries, thereby increasing cost of care), and of course regulations (I worked for a medicare provider that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars per year just on their compliance & billing department to ensure they got their money....such costs are far lower with private providers).

But as you said, consumer expectations in the market play a huge part. My wife is pregnant, and we're learning about the wonderful hospital-industrial complex for babies in America. Simply put, our expectations are radically different in the US than Europe. In the US, 98% of all births are in the hospital vs. 30% or less in Europe....That plays a significant part in health care costs, as having a baby in the hospital vs. at home or a birthing center is incredibly cheaper ($4,000 for my child from start to finish vs. my brother's child at $10,000). If the US had the same expectations of care as Europeans, you'd likely save the industry approximately $50 billion/yr by that one procedure alone. We have a bunch of 50-billion-dollar-problems in US health care, and no trillion-dollar-problems like the government wants to mandate and expect to ratify the problem (aka Obamacare).

Sadly companies aren't thinking of the negative effect these practices are having on their imployees.

That's why unions exist.  People just never saw the need for non "hard" labor unions because demand for employees was always high.  (Outside of teaching.  Which, while demand for good teachers is hight... so is supply because a LOT of people want to be teachers.  Well teaching and actors.)

Degree inflation due to more people going to college, a large number who really probably shouldn't is another one of those "Things that are opposite to what most think."

And singers. Don't you see how many people audition for American Idol every year?

Regarding your last paragraph, isn't it really just a symptom of the inability to maintain a certain standard of living in modern society if the population is too big?

Well you can still get private, fast care here if you are rich. But it is a luxury, as it should be. The US's economy cannot support the quality of healthcare that the average American recieves now, and there is no incentive for either doctors or patients to avoid extra cost since the insurance is either there or not.

So, yes, universal health care to control costs by lowering care quality but no so much that if affects ability to work. That's exactly why it's good.

From what I could find the percentage for births in hospital is similar to the US's in the UK (as well as Belgium, Australia, Japan)

Also the Netherlands seems to be a bit of an exception in the developed world with home births still at 30%

What if he spent more than 20 years in that company serving gracefuly no matter what? Then suddenly his wife had cancer but even despite that fact he said that he would still work. I know this is buisness and work has to be done but I also think they should give him a chance and take some pity on him. It's only fair