And? Isn't that what insurance companies are being accused of now? So you are saying we need an alternative or no?

Here's the UK article:

"More than 1,000 cancer patients have been refused drugs in the past three years because the medication was not licensed for their disease, new figures suggest."

This is equivalent to our FDA saying "this drug is only approved to treat X condition". By using it otherwise would break federal law. has nothing to do with universal health care.

It also goes on to say:

"The Rarer Cancers Forum, who obtained the figures, said that patients in France were up to 55 per cent more likely to get so-called “near-label” treatment, drugs licensed for a similar disease, than those in Britain."
btw France is well known for its excellent universal health insurance.

"A total of three Primary Care Trusts, North Staffordshire PCT, Oldham PCT and Western Cheshire PCT, turned down all applications.

In contrast, another 11 funded them all. "
Sounds like some bad apples in the very large NHS.

Pretty much equates to the hot coffee in the lap McD's suit being used to remove all citizens right to sue.

The second article is complete hogwash and seems to make the assumption that our entire FDA will be replaced and run by politicians as if it isn't now.