Because you are ingorant.   60% of poor people = the top 60%.

As in... our poorest can get healthcare.

You stated they could not.

You were wrong.  Accept it and own it rather then throwing a tantrum.

But you do not like the NHS right?

You could make it work well though... Medicaid sounds like a good program, how come you guys don't pull it out in debates more often?

They have been doing this for nearly a decade now IMO. It's really paying off for them now, within the year the pound will dissapear into nothing. But I'm all for the euro in theory.

no, the article says 60% of the POOR, not 60% of the population, can you not read?

more arrogance and flamebait, well done, you continue to ingore what your own link says, it also says that certain groups still dont qulaify (of that 40%) its not my fault you cant read.

Medicade, like the NHS, doesn't work too well. That's why we don't bring it up in debates that often. Medicare is the same way. We have multiple governmental programs for healthcare for the poor in our society...They're very expensive, and the results really aren't that great. That's why some of us dislike the way the system is handled.

Yeah, for really only three reasons.

1) How it's paid for.

2) There is no mechanism(to my knowledge) that rewards/penalizes those who take care of themselves... giving no incentives to live a healthy life outside of wanted to feel good, which honestly isn't enough for a lot of people.  

If there was some sort of penalty that made people pay extra for healthcare problems they caused, or a tax rebate given to people who say go to 2 checkups a year and get credit for so many heatlhy activites....  I think it would make a lot of sense.  Private company insurance companys have been doing this and getting great results.

3) I think it covers some elective stuff it shouldn't.  For example things like Plastic Surgery based soley on psychological reasons are abused quite readily.

Really in the US though I think something like Healthcare would have to be managed on a state to state basis based on how freaking huge the country is.  Otherwise the orginzational costs would be far too big.

Did you really not understand that?

60% of the poor = the top 60% of the poor.

That 60% is richer then the 40% on Medicaid.

Therefore that 40% on medicad is "The poorest of the Poor"

So our poorest do have access to healthcare.

Also... I've actually afforded heatlhcare when I qualfied in that "poor range" by making under the poverty line.

Healthcare isn't impossible for people above that line.  They just don't get it because they'd rather spend their money on other things rather then bank on the chance they're going to be sick.

i DID get that, i said it in a previous post, you really dont read my posts do you?

the point i raised based on that, is why does that 60% not qualify, if they are still classified as POOR, then surely they deserve FREE healthcare too?

if you think they dont, then your saying they shouldnt get help if there ill? how do they work and help your precious economy if theyre ill?

I agree with you about the NHS, people do like to talk about how great it is. but that thing needs a radical reform; especially in current times. Too much money is lost in it (and that could be avoided), and some hospitals for example still remain in bad condition (well the one near me is one of the worst in the country). They could try too privatise stuff like plastic surgery or even catering or cleaning services for startes.

So i'm guessing you ignored where i've said i'm for universal  healthcare?

Besides that your entire post is irrelvent. (Well actually including that.)

You were wrong.  Just admit it.  The poorest Americans can get healthcare.