So you think there's no ways to lower costs? Or make sure those that have pre-existing conditions get healthcare?

More or less.   I mean, there is a way to make sure pre-existing condition people get healthcare, but it's going to rapidly increase healthcare costs per capita, since people with a couple prexisting conditions already cost >50% of healthcare services.

So costs will be even more of a hindering bitch that will eventually get too out of control. 

We'd probably end up with things like the fat tax.

Yes, the U.S spends outrageous money for health care and that is without Universal coverage! Canada spends over $200 Billion in health care for 35 million people. Unites States has 313 million. I'd assume at the lowest rate if the U.S could cut costs to equal what Canada spends on the average citizen then it would be minimum $2 Trillion per year, if the rates stay the same there would be a highend of $4 Trillion (which would bankrupt The States at this point). Until the U.S manages it's finances to where there is no longer a substantial deficit, Universal Health Care is not a viable option.

its hard to compare. the rest of the world is living off the advancements made in the US medical field. if we change how we do things, the world will suffer as breakthroughs will come less often, and technology won't be subsidized by the US(not US government but US medical companies) any more . So yes, the US could adopt a style like the rest of the world, and choose not to invest in medical technology and medications, but all that would happen is everyone would be loosing out in medical advancements.

Its basically saying if I cant have it, I dont want others too, even if it helps advance peoples health. Its just not feasible to give everyone life saving extremly costly procedures, so if everyone cant have them, they go away, and with them the advancements that may have filtered down to help others.

Is it really worth it though? I'm not saying medical advancements aren't great, but one needs to realize that we can't continue to be the ones to bear all the costs of these advancements. And if others aren't willing to also bear the cost, then that is a clear indicator that economically, people don't want to pay for the cost of these advancements (ala, they aren't actually worth what they provide).

So you publicly fund research even with no promise that any of that research will be profitable, and phase in the fruits of those researches later when it's financially viable. The financial incentive need not come from the market for the research to occur. If it's really everyone else piggybacking off of American research, then build a global medical research fund.

There is no political problem that lacks a solution, you just have to muster the capital.

in my opion, it is worth it. let people who have the money pay for the advancements that will eventually help everyone. the other option is the slowing of medical advancements and we all get the same treatment, but worse cause the lack of advancements. or one where some people have better care than others, but those others are still better off due to the advancements made by those who can pay for it. So its we all suffer worse treatment, but equal, or we let some have better treatment, but with it they bring up the others as well. People do want to pay for it, those that have money, the problem is this is seen as unfair to those who can't. its not that the advancements aren't worth it, they just cant be given to everybody so they are not seen as equal. Maybe I am not explaining it very well. I'll try for an example, but dont bust my balls if its not good.

Lets say 2 people have a life threatning disease, 1 rich, 1 poor, the rich person can pay a lot of money to research and find a cure for their disease, but the poor man can not so they suffer and pass away, the rich person gets cured. Now that the rich person funded this research and cure, its cheaper for the next person. So although the first poor person did not benifit and was not treated the same, the next will, and so on and so on.

Lets say 2 people have a life threatning disease, 1 rich, 1 poor, the rich person is not allowed to have access to treatments that others cant have, so he doesn't fund the research to cure his ailment and instead is treated by the current methods. No advancement is made, but both people were treated equally.

So in one scenario people are treated equally, but at the sot of advancement, in the other the one with more resources gets better results, but those results filter down to help others.

Its a quick example but i think it works. Basically if there is no profit, no carrot, why will people put effort into it. Yes government will, and some people will, but I think rich people who value their lives will put the most effort and money into it, thus lifting more people to higher standards although not equal. (equaling out the rich and poor can be another thread :) )

which is what is being done in the US. the rich are paying for life saving medical advances that the poor cant, these advances eventually help everyone. The other option is to let some arbitary person decide whats important and what isnt. How is that better?

then hilary clinton-care will kick in :p

We really won't have the money for that if we have universal healthcare.

Medicaid and Medicare costs a ton, and hospitals LOSE money on it.  The cost of a universal healthcare progarm in the US would be catastrophically high to the point of where we'd just be spending to break even and not roll backwards.