I'm going to go through Blind Guardian's post because I don't think it really makes much sense

"The only arguments in favor of socialized medical care are based upon ignorance and the desire for God to be ever-present to take care of all of an incompetent person's needs."

Ignorance? Where? God? Who mentioned him? By an ignorant incompetent person, do you mean someone who is ill but does not have medical training or access to drugs or equipment to look after themselves? If you do, then yes, you would be right. If not, then what are you on about?

"Actual levels of care are disregarded in favor of the claim that all are given care."

In all this thread I have to talk about the UK NHS because it is the system I am most familiar with. One of the important principles of the aims of the NHS is "justice" by which it is meant that everybody should have access to the same levels of care. So in that respect you are right, everybody is given care. Is this a bad thing? There is also a conception which has been stated a few times (and repeasted by you) that the NHS does not offer the same quality of care as the private sector. Is this actually based on anything or is it just (as I suspect) people who don't know what they are talking about making stuff up? Personally I do not know if the level of care offered by the NHS is equivalent to say private health care services in the USA (but I suspect neither does anyone else). I do know one person who had an operation done in the private sector here in London. The only reason he got it privately was that his Dad works for the Brazilian Air Force or something and gets health insurance covering the whole family as part of the deal. It sounded to me like the only difference he experienced from an NHS hospital was posher food while he stayed there and a nice, private room. The level of treatment he had was exactly the same, in fact most surgeons doing private sector work in the UK do it as a sideline from their work in the NHS to earn a bit more money so if you have an operation in the private sector you are probably being operated on by an NHS surgeon. That being the case, how could it be claimed that the operation is better in the private sector?

"Forget the restrictions on benefits every taxpayer will pay for but not receive."

Pay for but not receive? Are you really making the claim that anybody goes through life without needing medical care? For that to be the case you would have to be immortal...

"Forget the waiting lists that result from reduced supply and increased demand."

There are often significant waiting lists in the NHS I agree, but things have got better in that respect in the last ten years. What is the comparison between NHS waiting lists and USA waiting lists? I wouldn't be surprised if the NHS came out worse, but like I have said before the NHS is by no means perfect. By not producing any figures or sources to state your claim that NHS waiting times are worse than the USA private health care system you are also not backing up your claim in any way. Can someone really just walk into a hospital in the USA and get a liver transplant that afternoon? Of course they can't, which shows that waiting lists exist in the USA too! Or is it the case that if you can pay for it you jump the queue? Meaning the rich have a right to life greater than the poor? If that is the alternative then sounds like a pretty bad system to me.

"Forget the loss of quality resulting from pay incentives being erased."
What? A doctor doesn't become a worse doctor if you pay him/her less money. Doctors are also very well paid by the NHS anyway.

"Forget the loss of advances in medical techniques and technology that result when there is only regulated, if any, profit to be made from superior medical care."

A lot of medical research goes on in the NHS and papers are constantly being published by NHS doctors. Research also goes on in university settings and private industry such as pharmaceutical companies. The institute oc cancer research is an example of a top quality UK research institution that I am familiar with

http://www.icr.ac.uk/

"Embrace the claim and stop thinking."

You certainly have stopped thinking, well that is to say if you started in the first place.

Time for the next argument.

Walmart

In Europe there has been huge subsidies on prescription medicines. This has kept the apparent cost down. However in reality the costs never moved an inch except at renegotiation time when a few medicines would be lowered if they entered generic status to a usual rate.

In the United States free market capitalism actually did more success than all the subsidies ever did. Walmart was able to make an offer of $5 prescriptions for most generics and then they forced others to do the same or lose. Before in Oregon, when there was less competition, most stores just made prices that were based upon how much they thought they could get from the uninsured. I had 3 stores offer wildly different prices once for a prescription of generic anti-biotics (not penicillin since I am allergic) when I had no 'coverage'. I got it for $10 but was asked to pay $15 and $25 at the other stores.

This was because an uneducated public was seen by these stores, and they calculated that a certain number would never price shop, or would conclude that the price was unimportant due to a number of plausible reasons. This was essentially price gouging writ legal.

However Walmarts actions made it all public, and loudly. It was a slap across the face of all the price gougers out there, who now have to offer better prices, service, or something to get people to buy from them. It also lowered the profit margins to levels that put some of the over-priced places out of business until a cheaper pharmacy moved into the store.

This one action by Walmart single handedly started a price war in the United States lowering the prices of medicines for all Americans. No other action at all had even a 5% impact prior to this. Europe with it's subsidies and a population base just as significant did not have as large as an impact as Walmart did.

Capitalism works if it is allowed to. Socialism does not work, even if everyone is altruistic to a point like most Europeans.

Now to read responses in a lil, must drive another 310 miles to the current destination, as soon as I can... sigh...

Don't socalize it. Instead we hsould look at the reasons WHY healthcare is so costly and work to reduce those costs on the average person. I don't think ANYONE should be denied healthcare just because they can't afford it. But we should make it affordable to begin with. There are many underlying reasons for this (insurance costs for one) and those need to be addressed. Once done costs will fall to reasonable levels and people won't have to worry so much.

@Flint
your argumentation is always only supported by isolated examples, an x-ray here, an aspirin there and not to forget Walmart (do you get money from them?). these are individual problems and needs, that have no impact on the issue. we talk about a health care system that works with standarts for a great nation and not of a city in the snow of alaska (or where ever you live atm). you completely missunderstand the complexity of a health care system. e. g. many people cannot look around for the best price, things must be fast and efficient in health care. a national health care system has to work in New York, Miami, LA or Honolulu the same way. If you live in a small town, you have a good overview of the local available medical&health services. In a great city that overview is lost. if people get sick, they need help and not a quest for the best price. would you search for the cheapest treatment with a broken leg or if you are with pig-flu? so there must be basic standarts for the whole US. that means all types of medical treatment, pharmaceutical articles etc.
the mere complexity of a health care system prevents to find a solution here. we must wait until the bill is in the senate. while the republicans are working on their own disintegration, the bill will pass the senate smoothly.

bla bla bla

Ants do what they do better. Those who do not die. If ants received a greater portion of the group's food when they FAILED to perform their duties (because clearly, those are the ants that need it the most!), production would decrease and ants would die. Ants aren't dumb enough for this.