I think the debate about whether a private health care system is "good" v. a national health system has to be refined with a "good for who" qualification. If you're poor and out of work, then a national health system is going to be better for you than the alternative (nothing). If you're a highly paid professional (with correspondingly high quality insurance) then it's likely a national health system is going to provide a lower level of care for you. Just my opinion based upon my own observations in my life.
As is the case in many national health countries, the higher paid folks engage supplemental (private) health plans to improve the quality/availability of care for themselves. I haven't heard of Brits, for example, travelling to the US for important health care procedures because the level of care in the UK is allegedly falling short (as suggested by Damian). At least none of my Brit family and friends do that - they would think that's a crazy idea.
On the topic of political partisanship, my crude response to that is to vote against the incumbent in any/all elections. Send a message to Washington that such partisan BS won't be tolerated.
As is the case in many national health countries, the higher paid folks engage supplemental (private) health plans to improve the quality/availability of care for themselves. I haven't heard of Brits, for example, travelling to the US for important health care procedures because the level of care in the UK is allegedly falling short (as suggested by Damian). At least none of my Brit family and friends do that - they would think that's a crazy idea.
On the topic of political partisanship, my crude response to that is to vote against the incumbent in any/all elections. Send a message to Washington that such partisan BS won't be tolerated.