A personal example. I was sued for $1.3 million by a patient who claimed "failure to diagnose". The case lasted 7 years for technical reasons. The day before it was to go to trial the presiding judge told the plaintiff's lawyer during a pretrial conference that he had no case.

The next morning the plaintiff asked for $5,000 to settle. We said no. They then dropped the case "with prejudice" meaning that it can never be reopened.

The crux was that my name never appeared on the report where the error was made (and there was an error). By this time the statute of limitations had run out and the plaintiff was left out in the cold.

Thought about suing the plaintiff's lawyer, but was dissuaded by my attorney.

I'm sure there were thousands of dollars in legal fees, but my Insurance Company did not want to settle such an outlandish claim.

Like most lefties, you are at the very least being deceptive or lying by omission. You conveniently leave out the FACT that one of the most significant contributors to our high health care cost is the LACK of tort reform. Why do you leave that out? People can come to their on conclusions but I am sure it has something to do with YOUR deceptive agenda. You seem to say that making our system more like the VA healthcare system would solve many problems. That is rich. The VA system is awful. If you like the VA system we have then you will love a single payer government sponsored health care system. I think most would not choose that if given the choice. You imply that the reason we do not have a national health care system for all is because we spend so much on our military and defense. That is rubbish and at the end yet another lie pushed by the left.

You say most countries have healthcare for all their citizens. That for the most part is true. But again, what you conspicuously and probably purposely leave out is that not one of those countries has the gauntlet of lawyers standing just outside the door of the doctor's office waiting for their cut. Not one. You also seem to imply that because another country has national health care that is superior care to ours. Not so, and I know that first hand. If you want to take a quick, albeit unscientific measure of the quality AND availability of other nation's healthcare just go to M.D. Anderson, Sloan Kettering, Emory or the Mayo Clinic and take a poll of the throngs of foreigners that are coming here to get their health care needs. It is stunning.

If you are going to push one of your agenda filled, deceptive and biased opinions at least try and be a little bit intellectually honest. For a change.

Have you ever used this VA system? Are you even eligible to use the VA? I could be wrong but I am guessing you have never used it.

Like every other institution in this country, some are poor and some are outstanding. I am eligible to use the VA medical system. The one I go to is outstanding. Wait times for appointments are no longer than the private healthcare organizations and maybe quicker.

I recently wanted to go to Mayo Clinic in Rochester. I was told I would have to wait until the end of May or early June (they will call me). This is very similar to the wait times for VA appointments that were so widely critized in the media and were centered on the Phenoix VA. Certain VA centers have seasonal problems due to the influx of retired "snowbirds" veterans. The VA can't maintain a staffing level all year long based on the winter work load.

Bottom line. The VA is a great healthcare system and does not deserve the blanket mud bath it received. Get your facts straight instead getting it from sensationalized fox fake news.

It turns out that those countries that have universal healthcare have better and cheaper healthcare. You can see how the US ranks by reading the following from Forbes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/amp/

(Group 1) of 30 people with cancer who smoked their whole life stand to your left
(Group 2) of 30 middle class people who never smoked and are healthy stand to your right.
Group 1 has no insurance. They never worked or quit work or whatever.
Group 2 has insurance they worked.
A group of 10 judges stand before you.
These judges are divided in half.
Half of the Judges will force group 2 to pay for group 1 insurance. (The judges of force)
The other half will not force group 2 to pay for group 1 insurance. (The judges of morality)
The judges inform you that forcing group 2 to pay for group 1 will raise the cost of group 2 insurance.
Which half of the judges will you allow to have power?

You see...The fundament concept of Christianity is making individual moral choices. You have free will.
By selecting the Judges of force you are in fact using an immoral means to achieve a perceived moral ends.
This concept is foreign to the modern left.
The lefts concept of morality is to obscure force by using a collective....aka congress.

There is not one individual that I know that would force a rich man to pay for a poor woman. when the individuals are not obscured by a collective.
Could you find someone on the street that is poor and force another person on the street that is rich to pay for them...and if they don't imprison them?
How can you vote for a collective to do what you as an individual cannot do and call that morality?

I love the people who use the Royal "WE". Those people are the very people that depend on the "WE" which usually means someone else must pay for them.

Whenever a service in our society is funded by government, commercial institutions will always extract as much funding as they can get.
ACA did just that. Once the funding happened the regulator of cost was removed.
It is a simple fact that when a service is less affordable by some it drives down the cost and produces more options.
You inject funds and the cost will rise.
This is what happened with college education as well. You make student loans easy to get the universities suck that (Seemingly) free money out of the students.
The debt attributed to the "Right of an Education" works exactly as the ACA. Student get degrees in fields where the amount they have borrowed can never be paid back. Many students will be in servitude though debt to our government backed student loans for the rest of their life.(Or much of it.)
Bankruptcy cannot even remove student loan debt.

The next time you think that someone else ought to pay for someone else's health insurance. Go buy yourself a gun and go to your neighbors house that has money, Declare yourself Robin hood, and go steal the guys money and drop it off at the nearest cancer center. Let me know if you feel good about yourself after you do that.

Nonsense comparison.

If someone is in desparate need of medical services who is it that will deny it even if they did smoke cirarettes?

The ACA REQUIRES everyone to have their own insurance so that they at least pay a portion themselves.

This "free choice" to not purchase insurance is not really a free choice for others. If someone is very sick or in an accident and is taken be ambulance to the ER room and "choose" not to obtain healthi insurance, they won't set out on the street. They will receive care. Who pays for it? Well, the patient will pay if able, or they may go bankrupt leaving the bank with a loss. The hospital will charge others more for services to make up for the loss. Insurance companies will be charged more for the same reason. One thing for sure....the people providing the healthcare won't be doing it for free because the patient decided the exercise their free will and not get insurance.

One persons "free choice" becomes someone else's burden.

Nonsense comparison.

If someone is in desparate need of medical services who is it that will deny it even if they did smoke cirarettes?

The ACA REQUIRES everyone to have their own insurance so that they at least pay a portion themselves.

This "free choice" to not purchase insurance is not really a free choice for others. If someone is very sick or in an accident and is taken be ambulance to the ER room and "choose" not to obtain healthi insurance, they won't set out on the street. They will receive care. Who pays for it? Well, the patient will pay if able, or they may go bankrupt leaving the bank with a loss. The hospital will charge others more for services to make up for the loss. Insurance companies will be charged more for the same reason. One thing for sure....the people providing the healthcare won't be doing it for free because the patient decided the exercise their free will and not get insurance.

One persons "free choice" becomes someone else's burden.