I consider that a national health service as we have in the UK is the best and cheapest way to achieve decent health care for all but I'd be interested in hearing opinions on how the US one may differ and possibly be an improvement. The massive inefficiencies of the US system in terms of bureaucracy have been well documented but I recently saw a film starring Denzil Washington called 'John Q'. In it, his young son is refused a new heart, essentially, because his father isn't rich enough to buy one for him although it's 'dressed up' as being that he has insufficient health insurance. I also intend watching this programme tonight... others might do likewise if they're in the UK or have access to any of it's programmes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/4038375.stm 'But that, as I was to discover, was central to the choice of location and subjects, because to be free in New York City (America?), you need money.' This appears to show that multi-million dollar pharmaceutical companies are experimenting on poor children in New York with the connivance of the local authorities child protection dept. I feel this sort of thing is inevitable when you introduce the profit motive into an area such as health care at the point of consumption. I can't tell from the brief description on the BBC website if the local authorities are receiving any money for allowing the drug companies to carry out these experiments on poor children - I'll know more after the programme.