Al Frankin lays it out pretty well in the video above. As does this, an interesting health care discussion from Economist.com (hardly a left-wing propaganda site) about who pays for what where.
"So, where would you rather get cancer? In America, you have a modestly better chance of surviving most cancers for 5 years. But there's a 1 in 4 chance you will lose your life savings and a 1 in 10 chance you will have to beg for food or rent, while in France, the whole thing will cost you nothing.
What'll it be?
But wait: why are we even asking this question?
Why don't we just change our insurance system to fix the payment problem, but keep our great treatment system? We could eliminate rescission and lifetime caps on coverage, mandate that insurers have to ignore pre-existing conditions so that a cancer diagnosis doesn't mean you can never get insurance again even if you're cured, and use government subsidies so people who are too rich for Medicaid can still afford insurance, and nobody has to blow their kids' college fund on chemotherapy. In other words, we could do what the House health-insurance reform bill does!
How is insuring everyone, and making sure that "insurance" actually means insurance, going to make cancer treatment in America worse? Are cancer-treatment centres all eager to preserve a situation in which their patients may abruptly lose insurance coverage and have to mortgage their house to afford drugs?
Is someone really going to argue that in order to have the world's best cancer-treatment system, we need to arbitrarily bankrupt a million or so unsuspecting saps every year? That our treatment outcomes are so great because of our fine insurance system? Surely no one could take that claim seriously."