Yes you can.

Why not?

We have several cities that have more people in it then there country. They have twice the tax rate we do (average 60%), and they are not a pure democracy.

If you want to be a truly free country, you need to realize some things just don't work as well. Nothing comes without a price. Giving a very large portion of our money (power) to the Government, and then expecting them to take care of us, is a dangerous road I don't want to go down.

They are the single most democratic country in the world according to that source.

What I see as a plausible way of doing it is having a compulsory state owned health insurance for every citizen. It certainly works in New Zealand with ACC.

Your city argument is unfounded, per capita comparisons are what matters when comparing countries.  Claiming that Sweden is not a democracy is il-informed, I'd go as far as to argue that they are more democratic that the United States. 

My main concern is your opinion on being 'truly free.'  I just dont get your claim that paying a democratically elected government that is under your control is less free than paying a private corporation whose only goal is to make as much money off of you as possible.  I trust democratic governments over corporations and dictatorships, because a democratic government answers to me.

Nice link Rath, Sweden is the most democratic county in the world.  The United States is 17th, which I think is great considering we are following a 200 year old document.

OP, how "libertarian" of you to suggest the private hospital.

I do agree that preventable healthcare is the cheapest and most effective, however.

Under our current US system, if you work at a good enough place, you will automatically get healthcare, no?

For those who don't have insurance, I'm not quite sure what can be done. Perhaps the government can hand out insurance vouchers so that the poor can use it on insurance. the insurance vouchers will at least force competition among insurance companies and hospitals.

I think vouchers would go a long way for schools too (then parents will can choose to send their kid to a different school if their school sucks), but that's an entirely different argument.

 The US is not even close to a pure democracy either. We are a constitutional republic. Ad as for going down that road, well we are already quite a ways down it. The police and fire department are both government controlled and fairly powerful and expensive operations. I assume you would not been in favor of privatized law enforcement would you?

From dealing with the Canadian system, my personal belief is that the government can be involved in healthcare but they should try to stay fairly limited in scope and focus on getting the largest impact for the smallest investment. My personal suggestion would be for the government to fully fund emergency care as well as to fully fund check-ups with family doctors.

You don't think corporations answer to you? I have very little control over my government (1 vote). I have massive control over my corporations (I give them my business, or I don't).

And yes, the US is not the Deomcracy I want it to be. Not because we have never been there, but because we keep moving away from what made it great. National heathcare is one step farther away from what it once was.

When has the US government ever done this?