The question is... is this true?  Or do they generally pay more... just through taxes with lots of it wasted away through bueracracy.

If I pay 20 dollars in taxes a week and get 20 dollars of groceries a week i'm not actually being paid more.

Also another issue in favor of capitalism is it's basically what made Europe and America what it is today.

Ask just about any historian... the individualistic, capitalistic, crass and firecly independent "nature" of people was born in Europe in the Germanic Tribes... which led to the defeat of Rome and the Dark ages... yet said attitudes and nature eventually sprung Europe into the superpower it is today.  Suprassing other more traditional nations that had vast empires.

One could argue philosophically that socialism dulls this a bit, and possible at prolonging future breakthroughs which spurr the general quality of living higher.

Yes, it does cost more.  We spend a much higher percentage of our GDP on healthcare than any other country in the world and we aren't even ranked in the top 30 healthcare systems in the world:

And this is the World Health Organization's ranking of the world's healthcare systems:

Yet... when people need important surgeries they seem to head to #37 more often.

Also #37 oddly seems to lead in medical breakthroughs.

Could it be that some people are paying more for superior cutting edge treatments throwing off the averages?

Socialising the US healthcare system may be a giant blow to the international medical welfare honestly as it will cut off a lot of funding into medical research.  Since there won't be anywhere where rich people will pay exsorbent for cutting edge drugs.

It's kinda similar with the argument for war profiteering actually.

Don't you think that the expendatures per country are worse on the US due to correlating factors outside of national healthcare? Our citizens are more obese than other countries, and we also have a pretty low per-capita number of nurses (ranked #14th, whereas your #1, Ireland, has 50% more nurses per capita, thus increasing competition for nurses pay, thereby lowering costs).

Oh, also, the US isn't on the top 30 for physicians, either.

according to that graph we spend less of our GDP in the UK on healthcare (we have the NHS) than the US does?

I am not attempting to be an ass, but did you mean exorbitant for the bolded/underlined word? 

I agree. Our subsidized medical breakthroughs are excellent.

Yeah.  Was in a rush.

Like i said it's the same arguement in a way for getting rid of profiteering laws.  Not war profiteering though....

That by people willing to pay absorbant amounts for products, products will be diverted to those areas.  Therefore they will get to where they are needed to quicker in addition to charitable donations.   Furthermore stocks of supplies will be kept in larger money because instead of a product that always sells for the same profit margin you may be able to sell it for a lot more in an emergency and don't want to miss out on it, which you would if you didn't have greater stores... since you can't just start cranking them out.

In the same way you could say America by being both rich and not having a socialized healthcare that fixes prices at "reasonable" levels we greatly spurr growth.  People are more and more willing to pour money into medical technology because they know the payoffs can be be amazing in the United States. 

Additionally more people will become medical reserachers instead of other similar fields.  While we like to pretend everyone goes to college for what they want to do... a lot of people go to college for what they think will pay a lot... as such perhaps less talented and intellegent researchers would invariably come out of this.

Of course offset by this also is a tendency to treat rather then cure... though cures do take substantionally more capital to create to my knowledge anyway.

I think it raises an interesting point and something overlooked.  A "better" healthcare system for the US may stunt medical research and in the long term lower the healthcare of the world... and even the US once projected out far enough.

So, your theory is the more people want to earn money, the more of it you can take away from them?

If people are of an extreme level of greed, they will do what they can to maximize there return on investment. Save it, move it offshore, create tax shelters, whatever it takes.

Maximum greed means raising taxes 2.5% is very destructive. If the rich didn't care about money, you could make the tax rate whatever you wanted.

But the tax rate in the end is really not the problem. The government collects close to 90c on every dollar spent. So they are getting almost all of it already. What you want to do is spark the market. If you are already getting a vast amount of every dollar spent, the solution to increasing money collected for government is to increase the number of dollars people spend. You don't do that in a socialistic economy. You do that in a capitalistic economy.

P.S. Why do you take offense to me calling you a socialist? Are you claiming you're not one? I didn't say it in a negative way. I strictly use it to define someone who feels economic redistribution is the right way to run a country.

You can't be for that, and not for socialism. Obama is for it, and you're for it.