But that's not where we disagree, Dru. Health care in America wasn't always a free-enterprise based business. At one point in time people actually chose to make it so. Which means you can overturn that choice as well. That's why there are politics. Politicians serve the people. Michael Moore has his flaws, but while that's a fact in Europe, it simply isn't so in the USA.
Obama rightly states that America has to create a better health care system and better social services in general. He also observes that America was built on risk taking. And people are more likely to take risks when there is a safety net. That safety net consists of social services and better education. I might disagree with Obama on a few things, but that statement is why Europe wants him to win.
Everything you are saying is ideally valid and true. Unfortunately politicians aren't here to serve the people, they are here for getting votes from the people so that they can pass statutes and motions to help those that sponsored their campaigns.
And I do believe that the government should take some sort of dominative role in health care. Although I hate to admit this or even compare it but some sort of mild self sustaining approach to what Canada does with free socialized health care would be my suggestion. Unfortunately none of this will ever happen here because the health care industry (all inclusive >> research, treatment, procurement, etc..) is the united states most stable, profitable of all of its industries. Its never-ending in terms of demand for jobs, research, supplies, hospitals, clinics, pharmaceuticals, etc.. It’s a constant giant stream of revenue and endless demand. Thus the government would be morons to cut off that aspect of the economy.
I'm not disagreeing with you dude, its just the way things are over here. Its all about the cash flow