It's a pretty fundamental difference: in one system the individual is sovereign,
This is the socialist health care system, right? At least, that's the way I feel about the Finnish one. I'd never trade it for the American third world insurance system you have there.
in the other system the collective is treated as the most important entity and individuals are treated as interchangeable parts.
I'd say this was the American crappy one, but really, a more correct description would be "individuals are treated as slaves whose money is for the insurance companies to plunder without returning anything in return".
In case you are wondering why there is so much anger over the health care bill in the US, it is because we seem to going further down the road toward losing that concept and a lot of people consider it to be a very valuable thing.
If only someone would remind them about the exorbitant price of freedom in this case. You guys are so worried about having to pay for your uninsured neighbor's health care you forget that you are already paying a very high price for the uninsured, vastly higher than if you had collectively insured everyone in the first place. The cost of health care cannot be escaped, either you pay for it for everyone or you pay even more for the aftereffects of the lack of universal coverage. In fact American's are in many ways a slave to their health insurance system. They actually lack freedoms the socialist health care system provides. Have a pre-existing condition that makes it impossible for you to buy an affordable health insurance but is covered by your employers package? You're a slave to your employer, never able to leave for fear of death (literally). In socialist health care system, you can quit and start your own business without such a worry. Freedom, sweet freedom. Maybe you American's will someday have a taste of it.
