How national health care can be both good and bad.
You Americans are arguing whether or not the government should provide general health care. Well, the French social security system is said to be one of the most effective in the world. Certainly one of the most costly too, I mean it's all funded by taxpayers' money. Besides it's been running a huge deficit over the past few years: a few billion Euros this year alone. The government is currently looking into ways of mopping up that deficit. So far, our topnotch brains have been unable to find a suitable solution. I wish them good luck and more inspiration and common sense than they ever had!
In this country, many (if not all) of our social policies (ranging from unemployment and so-called "return-to-employment" measures to health care coverage depend on what we, in France (inappropriately) call "solidarité" : you give part of what you earn to those who earn little or nothing at all through taxes and more compulsory deductions . In exchange for your "solidarité" you, too ,can expect society to foot your medical bill, especially when it runs high. So far so good. The problem is that too many people have understood they can abuse the system while getting a lot more than they contribute (nothing in most cases). In other words, we have a system that provides totally free health care to people who not only do not pay any dues nor any income tax but who take advantage of whatever rights they're granted by law to express their absolute disrespect of public money.
I am very much attached to our system though, because I think "solidarité" is fundamentally a good thing. But the people who benefit from it at no expense should at least be grateful and public-spirited; and therefore use the Nation's generosity discriminately.
Last but not least, doctors in France are not playing with the full deck: a patient is often worth more than a responsible citizen!