That is if we kept spending at current levels. Canada spends much less on healthcare than the united states. Canadian life expectancy is also higher, which leads me to believe that their gasp socialist healthcare system is actually more efficient.

Our government already spends more money on Medicare/Medicaid than most other governments spend on healthcare. I don't see how we could possibly lower our government spending by covering more people.

Friend of mine got charged almost a thousand dollars just for being taken to hospital in an ambulance. The journey lasted about ten minutes.

This kind of massively-overinflated cost is endemic in US healthcare. Getting rid of it would easily allow you to lower spending whilst covering more people.

You're misunderstanding my point. Our public healthcare systems, Medicare and Medicaid, are already more expensive than many national healthcare programs. So forget whatever you friend spends in the private sector. Even if all people not on Medicare/Medicaid spent absolutely nothing on healthcare, we would still be spending more money than these other countries in total. So the idea that we can somehow expand coverage while wildly reducing costs seems silly.

Well if Mitt & CO win, who knows Medicare vouchers might become a reality. Then when people are thrown out of hospitals by the ends of their colostomy bags and IVs, a single payer system might appear to be a bit better solution. All the VA (socialized healthcare for people in the military-industrial complex) and Medi* (socialized healthcare for old people/boomers) are doing is creating an insurance market for people outside these demographics, which constitutes the nations supply of genx/geny workers. If I did not have insurance under obamacare I would have to pay $4068.15 so far this year. This was for one emergency room visit lasting an hour and 2 doctors appointments. If I didn't have insurance I just wouldn't have paid it.

Do like Mitt does, keep your money outside the country where the Government can't get it.