A) You have a pesky little way of not presenting any facts except sources you didn't bother to cite and the rhetoric of not being able to know unless you've spent time in other countries. So NOBODY in America can know about anything because we haven't gone over to another country to catch a tourist-style glimpse of what a small amount of that country's citizens (the people you come into contact with) think about a particular issue. REAL solid argument there, can't refute that logic . (Like I said, I hope your bridge is constructed a little more soundly)
B) I have checked out hard data. That's why I made a judgment, based on what citizens from many other countries with national healthcare, read extensive data on Britain's national healthcare and some on Canada's. That's the reason I used Britain in specific because I read about it in the past, from both an American perspective and British. There are some countries where it works somewhat, I will admit to that, but just because it works in some places in the world through cooperation of singular cultures (America is a huge melting pot of cultural notions, most other places are not) does not mean that it will work here or that our government officials have thought through it and planned as well as in those nations.
C) If knowing is half the battle, then I win twice.
D) I don't get my information from televised American news sources, I'm not that r-tarded. I haven't even had cable in five years. Feels wonderful to not be fed a bunch of shit by people who only want to shock you into buying Chevys, as my terrorism professor says.
So that bridge, how much we talkin' here?