Barnard17

In which case I'll give you an example.

Meet Benjamin. Benjamin is a cleaner. Specifically he cleans restaurant kitchens. It's not a particularly enjoyable job, and it doesn't require many qualifications. As a result it's not very highly paid. Under a pure capitalism this will remain the same as, through lack of protection for the workers rights there's inadequate support should a body wish to unionise and, for example, exercise strike action. Because Benjamins job so lacks a necessity for qualification, and because there will always be people who need money, there will always be a Benjamin. At the same time, there will always be a need for a Benjamin, without him providing such a service you go to a restaurant, eat the food and pick up God only knows what bug and fall ill. Bless him, Benjamin fell in love and married. Now he also has a kid to support! As a result of common social divide, his wife is in a similarly low paid job. Maybe she's working two to help them scrape by, which tends to be what happens.

Bejamin falls ill. He has cancer. Oh noes! Now we see three options:

1. He doesn't have health insurance. He goes to the hospital, pays a gazundle of money for the meeting with the doctor and all the tests that they do (and you know in the US under a mostly privatised system they do a lot of essentially unnecessary tests to "rule out alternatives" that cost a lot of money. Need an MRI? Have five!) has to stay off work and finds his pay lowered for sick leave and then can't pay for his treatment. He dies, sucks for Molly and Jimmy. Maybe they go on benefit, single mother family sort of thing. Jimmy probably gets bullied for getting free school meals, though maybe that's too close to socialism, but it's Ok because RiseAgainst didn't have to wait in line for his treatment, whatever that may be.

2. He has health insurance, his already low wage is munched a sizable amount. He goes to hospital, goes through the same process and the health insurance pays for all that and his treatment. His premiums SKYROCKET, a lack of money causes his marriage to break up (because money issues are amongst the most commonly cited cause for divorce), little Jimmy has a troubled upbringing; grows up to and with bickering and arguing as the norm for a relationship (internal working model, developmental psychology) and probably divorces in his future relationship. He was probably a right little tyke! (read also: bully) because the trials of the break up meant that parenting went to hell in a handbasket. Benjamin continues to scrape a living, but with less of his wage to play with because of raised insurance premiums a bald head and clinical depression caused by chemo therapy and a divorce, but it's ok because RisaAgainst didn't have to wait in line for his treatment, whatever that may be. It'd probably be much similar if he didn't have health insurance and decided to pay for the treatment, he'd just have to mortgage the house in the process.

3. He doesn't have health insurance and won't go to see the doctor, you think a guy in a low wage job trying to support a wife and kid has that sort of money to spend?! You gotta be kidding! He dies, they don't know it was cancer until post mortem, Molly and Jimmy are boned. RiseAgainst didn't have to wait.

The assertion that a system such as the medical one will have prices internally regulated is naive. Even if things aren't to become goliathic monopolies, the tendency is for the CEOs of the companies to meet up and say "you know we can still keep our prices high and get a tidy keeping for ourselves", or the Doctors on the ground level will throw in tests to rule out alternatives (protect themselves from lawsuits and get a tidy sum in their pockets) which boosts the price. The patient either pays or dies. Which is why hospital fees and health insurance can be kept so high. You pay or you die.

Under the British Health System Benjamin would have paid health insurance from his wages as a part of the tax, which really is a pittance for what you get especially considering that drinkers and smokers "sin tax" heavily subsidises the system, and that the high wage earners pay more tax in the gradient system. When he fell ill he would've gone to the doctor without worry, been sent off for tests which he wouldn't have had to wait an incredible length for and get it all paid for by the Government. If waiting lists are massive, there's a chance that the Government will pay for him to go private anyway. And of course he has that option from the start if he has that sort of money to fritter away because private healthcare legally coexists (something which I disagree with, which is another matter).

You may not like the idea of tax subsidising, fully or partially, the healthcare system but as a whole it's massive amounts better for society. Stress is reduced, mental wellbeing increased, life expectancy increased. Nobody expects major illness, they don't plan for it, what if you suddenly become ill? Private health insurance is an expensive thing, and without it the costs are even bigger. National healthcare is so much more beneficial as a whole, to yourself; your family; to wider society, that the only reasons to disagree with it come down to short-sightedness and greed.

P.S. The majority of your first quote from yourself regarding national healthcare boiled down to an elaborate ad hominem attacking Europe as a whole, so I didn't think it justified a constructed response.

You do realise your Government, along with any other constitutional Government, just changes the constitution to suit it's needs right? I can't really fathom why people spend so much time yammering on about why you should or shouldn't do something with the argument "It's (un)constitutional!" because when it boils down to it a constitution is worth less than the paper it's written on.