Are brits happy with their healthcare system?

The NHS and other government run services contain costs by capping demand through rationing of services, not by providing a level of supply that lowers costs at the given level of demand. Beyond the problems that stem from that economic reality, the US Constitution gives no power to the federal government to run such a system or carry out the logical limitations on freedom that come with controlling the budget for such a system. The 9th and 10th amendments put the burden of proof on the federal government, not the people, when the federal government seeks to expand the scope of its authority.

The government must prove that the expansion is essential to carry out the enumerated powers of the Constitution. As to your question: 9th - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 10th - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

NOTE: Neither the 9th or 10th amendments gives the federal government the authority to expand its authority whenever they deem it necessary and proper to the general welfare of their political careers and predispositions. The federal government must cite the delegated power involved. There is no Constitutional provision under which the Federal government was given the authority to coerce the purchase of any good or service under threat of fine, imprisonment, or any other penalty.

Unfortunately, few seem to really understand the origins of their freedom, the limitations placed on government in the Constitution, and the long run consequences of perpetual expansion of federal authority. They will resort to Progressive Era interpretations of the General Welfare, Interstate Commerce, and Necessary and Proper Clauses that flatly disagree with every founding document and every record associated with the formation of the US. To them, the 9th and 10th amendments are meaningless statements, not definitive limits as stated by both Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

Their interpretation recognizes no limit to the power of the federal government. Such an interpretation ultimately voids the Constitution. James Madison, a Federalist, said it best: "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." The founders were explicitly clear before, during, and after the Constitutional Convention that the term "General Welfare" specifically reiterated the enumerated powers given to the federal government by the people without relisting them.

The founders saw the general welfare of the nation best served by maintaining the small scope afforded to the federal government because increasing the size and scope of the federal government necessarily limits the freedom of the people and the states. They were equally clear on the "Necessary and Proper" clause. It was strictly limited to giving Congress the leeway necessary to carry out the enumerated powers.

It was never intended to be a blank check to Congress to do whatever it determined was necessary and proper for the nation regardless of their authority to do so. That is why the amendment process exists and is as hard to carry out as it is. The ability to regulate interstate commerce was explicitly defined at the convention as the ability to keep commerce between the states "regular" by eliminating barriers they may set up between themselves.

This was specifically addressing shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation. It was never a blank check to legislate all individual behavior that may or may not have an effect on interstate commerce. Most importantly, the people were not delegating the authority to force them to buy a specific good or service to the federal government.

Because the NHS's quality of care is uneven and suffers for political and administrative reasons. Rationing of care is one reason NHS's costs are rising less rapidly than the US health care system's, and it's the one way that we are pretty sure the government intends to control health care costs here in the United States, because health care is rationed in both the Medicaid and Medicare public health care systems here in the US (didn't know we had government-run health care here, did you? That's what you get for depending on BBC and the Guardian for your view of America.).

And even though these program have a income stream independent of the US general fund and ration care ruthlessly (elderly patients on Medicare get only one month of inpatient medical care per year), both systems are in deep fiscal trouble - so much for government efficiencies in health care. I've lived in England and came down with a bad sinus infection, which took an NHS physician three weeks to cure, because he had to work his way up from the least effective antibiotic available to one which would actually cure my infection. An American physician would have cured the same infection in a week, tops, because he or she is not told by the government how to treat his or her patients.

You guys really ought to see to that before making comments on OUR health care system.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.