Eh. I'm going by what has happened this century.

And with the way Obama is spending, he's sure to beat Bush's record.

So am I.  Democrats have issues when it comes to 1st and 2nd ammendment rights... and despite the support of homosexuals are still against things such as gay marriage.

Democrats just tried to pass a law to bring back the "fairness doctrine" that would be able to charge media that the government deems biased.

I mean, it doesn't take a genius to see why that's a bad idea. 

Additionally things like videogames get attacked by both parties. 

Size does not matter in terms of healthcare (and many other economic factors), the only things that matters in that regard is urban verse rural.  Obvioulsy, a country like Luxembourg or Singapore is urban and cannot be compared with a country like the United States or the United Kingdom, but countries that have similar urban and rural characteristics can be compared with each other.

Though you can compare Luxembourg to New York City, and not suprisingly they are similar in many regards.

About healthcare size doesn't mean as much as price. And the fact is the price in the US is out of control. And as far as quality is concerned just look at the numbers. Countries like england and France have a higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality rate, and overall a healthier populous.

That link did not state the price difference between government healthcare and private healthcare. Only the difference between countries.

I asked for data concerning the cost of government healthcare and private healthcare. Your trying to make the (horribly false) argument that because government healtcare in one country is cheaper than public healtchare in our country, that government healthcare in America is cheaper. This is wrong, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Horribly false?  The numbers dont lie, and any rational person should be able to look at them and come to a reasonable conclusion.  There are two things wrong with American healthcare system, private and public healthcare.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_pub_per_cap-care-funding-public-per-capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_pri_per_cap-care-funding-private-per-capita

Manus -

I can't believe your using such a poorly-thought out argument.

Nationmaster is only aggregating per capita expenditures, and not actual coverage.

When it comes to expenditures, you can see that total per-capita expenses are valuated at (G+P)=T (Government + Private) = Total. The problem with this argument is that the $2,000 for government healthcare in America is covering far, far less people than the same $2,000 is in Germany.

To make a real apples to apples comparison, you HAVE to use data concerning enrollees on a specific system, and nothing less. Otherwise, your going to compare expenditures in countries that spend less, and have far less coverage. Otherwise, according to your data, Mexico has the best government healtcare system as it spends 1/10th that of Germany. Of course, the issue is that Mexico covers far less people with their $250 than Germany does for their $2000. And that's the same even with the countries that spend the same - the US government covers far less people with it's government system (Medicare) than Germany does with it's system.

Here's the actual data:

For the $2,060 per capita, Germany covers 90% of the population with their healthcare system. You can find that info here: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/bb3Germany.php

For $2,050 per capita, the United States covers approximately 16% of the population. You can find that info here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-01-medicaid_x.htm

So how is it that government healthcare is universally better, when the American federal government spends 6 times as much per enrollment as Germany?

The ad hominems from you only show how poor your argument is and how little you understand healthcare.  Its obvious that socialized healthcare is better than America's system because, as you stated yourself, Germany can cover 90% of its population at a fraction of the cost of America's healthcare.

The government needs to own and operate healthcare facitilites.  Currently, America pays private hospitals to cover people, which essentially means they are writing doctors a blank check.  Private hospitals routinely charge the government for unnecessary tests and for tests they never ran.  If the hospital was government owned it would not have the same incentives, and if doctors were on a government salary they would have no incentive to run unnecessary tests, charge for tests they never ran, and so forth.

Government doesn't own all hospitals in Germany. Roughly half are privately owned. Read the article I provided about German healthcare.

If you really believe that the government most own and operate the facilities, I suggest you look at the Veterans Administration (VA). They own 100% of facilities. Although they are better than medicare recipents (which are $8,000 per enrollment), they are still well above private insurance ($4,400) at approximately $7,300 per recipent in 2008.

So I am not really understanding how socalized medicine is better when it's much worse in America.

Again, to make an absolute statement based entirely on actual enrollment data:

• Germany's socialized system is very good, costing $2,060 per capita, and covers 90% of the population, or $2,300 per enrollment
• America's socialized system is very bad, costing $2,050 per capita, and covers 18% of the population, or $11,300 per enrollment
• Breaking America's socialized medicine down, using only government facilities for veterans, enrollment costs drop significantly to $7,200 per enrollment, but is still well above private insurance which is $4,400 per enrollment.

That doesn't make socialized medicine good. That makes the American system very bad.

Thank you.

Some of these VGCers that think they know politics are idiots.