Insurance by its nature is inefficient, and much of this inefficiency is blamed on welfare since welfare is basically insurance. People are always trying to rip off insurance fom burning down their houses or factories, cheating on private unemployment insurance, faking injuries in accidents, etc.

So a lot of these inefficiencies remain if it becomes a government health plan, just like they do if worker's compensation is privatised. There are plenty of studies on how efficient it is, and they indicate that the US could cover everyone with the amount it is spending now. Once can argue that this would lessen the amount available for research but pharmaceutical companies are amongst the most profitable already and a lot of that money just goes in dividends not research.

Of course also there are plenty of European companies that also manage to make advances in medicine on the profits they make there. If government health care does come people will moan about it, but they moan now when they don't have health care.

I understand the right has ideological problems with the concept but it does work well in practise in many countries. As Dean pointed out Vermont appears to have it and is able to afford it. I tend to think of health care as a multiplier like state education. By forcing people to become educated they become more successful and pay more taxes. By keeping people healthy you end up with a lot more taxes than if they become disabled.

It also takes an enormous amount of fear out of the economy, where people aren't constantly terrified of getting sick and having their lives ruined. Sometimes the safety net works like in a circus, it doesn't make people fall off the high wire more often but it helps them to concentrate better.