US Health Care Plan

Given the various entrenched vested interests, and the current (comparative) state of the US health "system", I am sure outside observers probably don't hold great hopes for a miraculous recovery.

But what us staunch critics seem to agree on is that the criticism of "our" systems as being socialist, and non-free enterprise etc etc (and therefore automatically condemned) just don't hold water when you look at the actual situation.

But in their blind defense of "capitalism" and "free enterprise" and "freedom of choice", the conservative (read - reactionary) critics are quite happy to overlook both the failures in their own system, and the successes in other systems (ie those who are a lot closer to getting it "right").

I guess the other thing we (the staunch critics) agree on is that we are very happy we don't have to live under the US system.

As I have said before, there is much to be admired about the USA. It's Health System (before, or after these 'reforms') just is not one of them.
Nearly all of the better off nations have problems with Immigration - legal & illegal. Read any English (or Australian newspaper) & that fact will quickly leap off the page. It is certainly not a problem unique to USA.
However this is about the system of health in America. The system costs more per head (even before this bill) & delivers a worse end result. Why does America persist with such a system when every other country abandoned it years & years ago?? If it is (as some appear to portray here) because the country does not wish to venture down a dreaded Socialist path, then OK, up to you. But don't complain about the cost if you are unwilling to explore the alternatives.

No & I can understand that LL.
If I was American I certainly would NOT be voting for these reforms, or suggesting that anyone else did.
I would be demanding that my representatives explained to me.
1. Why is Health Care so expensive in America when compared to anyone else in the world.
2. Why is life expectancy in 49 other countries longer than in America.
3. How can every other OECD nations offer universal health care for, in some cases, less than 50% of the American cost which leaves millions uncovered.
4. How were Health costs going to be reduced by up to 50% over the next few years.

Throwing money at any problem is a poor method of resolving it - especially if you do not even understand the root causes of it!!

A late clarification (having been unable to get into UM for some time).

My reference to the "US system" was clearly within the context of the health system - please read the entire post.

Is it even possible to sue an NHS Doctor for example?

Yes it is possible and has been done successfully. It is normal to sue the doctor, the Hospital and the Health Authority (or Private Company) that controls it. The claimant has to prove actual malpractice though, so if the doctor could show that he did exactly what any other doctor would do in similar circumstances to an acceptable level of skill then it is highly unlikely that the case would succeed. Also the amounts awarded in a successful UK case is liable to be considerably smaller in the UK. The judge will automatically take into account if the claimant in any way contributed to the problem & reduce any damages accordingly.

Also, are there any systems in place that have some personal liability involved.

This is a far harder question to answer. Even the European schemes vary wildly in the Government approach to health. However improved health means reduced costs and because the person who pays for the costs is the same person who provides the treatment there is not the 'profit' motive that exists in a 'free market' system....To put it another way...What incentive does a doctor who is being paid for the treatment he is giving to :
A. Only provide treatment that is absolutely necessary, rather than financially beneficial ?
B. Get his patient to such a state of health that treatment is no longer necessary ?
In the UK the Government run a huge amount of health awareness programs. They try/are trying to restrict smoking (for example) by limiting where it can be done & also by providing free advice/support groups/medication for any one that wants to stop.
There has been much discussion over the years as to whether Doctors should treat people who are contributing to their own ill health. These discussions are usually fueled by the popular press when a former, fallen, sportsman is involved. I think the general consensus is that every method should be utilised to try & alter the behaviour of the individual, he is still entitled to treatment.

I have a friend in Oz who is a heart surgeon, operating within both the public and private systems.

Smokers who come for surgery within both systems are told that resources are severely limited, and that if they wish to continue smoking after the initial surgery, they must bear the risk, and will not be operated on a second time.