For all of you concerned that a national health care system in the U.S. is a bad idea, then here is some extra support for your view.
According to www.dailycaller.com, "This Saturday, one of Greece's most respected newspapers, To Vima, reported that the nation's largest government health insurance provider would no longer pay for special footwear for diabetes patients. Amputation is cheaper, says the Benefits Division of the state insurance provider."
Why is this an argument against national health rather than an argument against bureaucracies and insensitivity? It sounds to me that the national health insurance of Greece has been listening to American insurance corporations where the same kind of decision could easily be made.
What kind of care has been denied by American insurance corporations? Perhaps you should report on those things as an argument against national health.
Good point Billy! And I have to wonder if it really is cheaper…amputees are disabled!