@Kasz216:

Health care in the U.S. is ALREADY RATIONED.   That's how those vampiric bastards make (not earn) their money.

Here's just one example

The horrible truth behind HMOs:

Hell is too good for those bastards.

I don't see how that information is relevant, actually. Three key facts remain:

1. The mortality rates remain very comparable, including during an eight- year period when there were no prostate cancer-related deaths reported as pneumonia in the UK.

2. The appearance of high survival rates in the US is an illusion caused by early detection more than a result of treatment outcomes. Not that anybody would argue that early detection isn't a good thing.

3. A spokesman for the American Urological Association states that you cannot draw the conclusion that the United States has better prostate cancer outcomes than other developed countries.

As to medical research, even America's substantial spending amounts to less than 1% of GDP, and almost half of that is public money. If the United States coud bring its health spending in line with the second biggest health spender in the world, it could quadruple research spending and still save money.

In the specific matter of cancer research, just today I stumbled across a promising, publicly funded research project using "nanobees" to target cancerous tumors. If you look at their paper published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation, they cite the NIH as a source of funding:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/11/cancer_nanotech_bees/

A) You enjoy taking things I've said out of context don't you? It's not this first time you've done it by far. I mean what direct costs do muslims incur for the government? Shall I start making tenuous arguements based on taking things you've said out of context? Hey everyone, Kasz says that if you don't smoke you should die at an earlier age anyway because it is cheaper for the government.

B) No they are not. Not by any means

C) You don't seem to understand that Holland and UK are different places. You can't deny that the government make a net gain of smokers at any rate. Whether they cost more or less than old people. And old people are supported by numerous other taxes, mostly national insurance though like rest f the NHS. And besides you don't seem acknowledge the fact that NHS is a humanitarian organisation and even though they get taxes of smokers and old people costs money it's part of their ethics to try to get people to live longer and more comfortably, which this tax on cigarettes allows them to do.

@Ninjaguy, Thank you to America for michael moore.

A) I took exactly what you said in the context you said it.

B) Yes they are.  Those costs are personal costs only.  Sick days and the like.

C)  You are suggseting here that the government makes money off those who smoke to give others healthcare.   So.  In this situatation... your healthcare is being paid by someone who makes the same money as you but smokes.  Is this fair?  Or even someone who makes less money then you!

Because you know.  Smoking taxes are actutually some of the most regressive taxes out there since the poor smoke in much greater numbers then the rich.  People aren't being forced to pay for their treatment.  They're being forced to pay for EVERYBODYs treatment.

These people would be better off with no cigarrette tax and be excluded from NHS from smoking related situations.

A) Muslims != smokers. Sorry but they really are not the same thing.

B) Sick days are not personal costs. They are huge costs to the economy of the country.

C) I think that taxing cigarettes decreases the number of users (especially the number of people starting the habit) and has the happy side effect of putting a lot of money into the health system. Plus, smoking and alcohol both have negative effects outside of the person consuming them - smoking through second hand smoke and alcohol through drunkeness along with the monetary cost to society at large of both. Hence I believe taxation of both (despite the fact that I enjoy alcohol) to be fair.

A) Both are choices people make and something that should be up to them.

B) That in my opinion is facist thinking.  Someone losing sick time due to the effects of smoking is no different then someone "losing" time because they decide to not go into work in a day.  The government has no "right" to any time I don't go to work, no matter the reason.  Penalizing me for not working is at best light facism.  I mean why not tax people more who go on vacation?

C) Yeah that's... social engineering.  Which is wrong.  Your telling people "You arent responsible enough to stop smoking and drinking.  So we the government are going to stop you... or make you damn well feel it anyway! 

This is immoral.  If someone wants to do something unhealthy they should have every right to do it.

We should treat adults... like adults.

Also i'm simply not responding to Michael Moore since he's basically the Democrats Rush Limbaugh.

If two things he's ever said in a row were true it was likely an accident.

If you took all of the money currently paid in health insurance, and cut out duplication of services [having ambulances compete], commercial functions [marketing department, a lot of admin work], profit margins, use of a lot of non-generic drugs, cosmetic operations [e.g. braces aren't medically necessary in the vast majority of cases], and the money lost through treating people who have no insurance, you would have more than enough money to cover state-run health care provision for everyone in the US, without paying a penny more if you were rich or poor.

Obama's not being radical enough. He's keeping the existing, money-consuming commercial infrastructure. He should nationalise health insurers and providers too. Then he could achieve universal healthcare at no cost to the taxpayer.

If you need to save any more money you could ditch drug patents altogether. That would save hundreds of billions, and the argument that drug companies wouldn't innovate [Personally I doubt that would happen] could be resolved by using public money to research unprofitable drugs that are nevertheless in the public interest. The drug market gives incentive for drug companies to put you on expensive treatments for life, rather than one-shot cures, but I think we all know which is more popular.

A) What really is the point you're trying to make?

B) Seriously? I think you'll find that his opinion is simply capitalist.

C) Social engineering is everywhere, get over it.

Overall, I think you need to understand that if you treat adults like adults, then any country would go to complete shit because large proportions of any adult population are complete and utter idiots. Hell, America managed to vote Bush in for 2 terms. Goverments and leaders manipulate the masses, its simply the way of the world.