Like Animeniax, I've always had decent insurance here in the US. At first from Medicaid, which is goverment subsidized health insurance for low income people, and afterwards through an employers. My health insurance has been pretty good overall, as in, one way or another, my ailments were treated...for the most part

Now, I have to say that I notice some very significant differences in how I was treated when paying for treatment with Medicaid, and when paying for treatment with employer provided health insurance. I have a condition that causes me to have to see a doctor periodically. Or so I thought.When I used employer provided health insurance, a number of tests were run, a discussion with several doctors of varying specialties were involved in devising a treatment regimen for me. "High quality, name brand" medication that were innovative in either chemistry or dispensing method were prescribed to me and paid for. You'd think I had cancer and the doctors were saints who had my best interest at heart. It was very comforting. Also, that treatment was nearly a half year ago, and the recurring condition has not recurred. The doctor told me it very well may never recur.

Fantastic, right? I had previously seen doctors for the same condition when I had Medicaid. I was in and out in 20 minutes, just long enough to run some basic tests like blood pressure and temperature. Nothing pertaining to the condition I was in at the time. He basically told me the condition I had, which was correct, but the medication was ineffective. I returned to him several times letting him know that nothing changed, and he kept throwing medications at me, and it seemed random. I then changed doctors, several times, and the treatment was always the same: dismissive attitude, no tests done, the condition persisting.

That's probably the most radical example of the difference between government subsidized health insurance and private health insurance that I have, but there are others. I've had bones in my hand broken both with medicaid and with private health insurance. The treatment was vastly different also. With medicaid, a cast was used, twice. The physical therapist I went to afterwards told me "That's not how they treat this type of fracture..." the first time I went. It healed up just fine though. With private health insurance, a specialized splint was used and they discussed the injury with me in detail, right down to the measurements (which they didn't when I medicaid). In the case of the broken bones, I went to the same hospital all three times.

Now all this is just a preface for the arguments I hear concerning privatized vs. goverment sponsored health care. The argument I most often hear against private health insurance is that a lot of unnecessary care is dispensed in the name of profit. The argument against government sponsored health care is that in the name of profit, inadequate care is often given. So the solution should be, to take profit out of the equation. The fear is that, should profit be taken out of the equation, no one is to get adequate health care. I should mention, all of the tests that were given to me to treat the "chronic" condition were supposedly covered by Medicaid. I don't know where I stand on the issue. At this point in time, I'm grateful for private insurance. My co-pay is tiny and the care I receive is better in every aspect I can observe than when I use Medicaid. However, insurance is expensive for employers to provide, and while I don't know if the treatment I've received thus far is "wasteful", I have no doubt that a lot of waste does occur. It's consistent with what I already know and believe about the profit motive.

Maybe I'll have a more definitive opinion in the near future.