Why should the vast majority of Americans, who are perfectly satisfied with our health care, have to have our system turned upside down and collectivized by Uncle Sam because a small minority either doesn’t want to, or can’t purchase similar health care.

At some point, this is going to fall into the “Life Isn’t Fair” category. It’s either going to be unfair to 90% of us or 10% of us. And that 10% may not even get any better care than they get now. Right now, if a typical uninsured broke person gets hurt or sick, they go to the hospital and get fixed. Wait until the gov’t fixes that. I think the cure will be worse than the disease.

2. “…MRI scanners are used more intensively in Canada than either the U.S. or Great Britain. This disparity in the availability of technology, some believe, results in longer wait times…. according to more recent official statistics (2007), all emergency patients receive MRIs within 24 hours, those classified as urgent receive them in under 3 weeks and the maximum elective wait time is 19 weeks in Regina and 26 weeks in Saskatoon, the province’s two largest metropolitan areas.”

This doesn’t even make sense. If they have more, how can the ‘disparity in the availability of technology’ result in longer wait times for them? If they have more, their technology is superior to ours and therefore they would have less wait time.

And a living (formerly) example is Natasha Richardson. She didn’t get an MRI ordered at her first hospital, even though she had all the classic symptoms of brain damage. And they didn’t even have the capacity to life flight her to a capable facility. They had to take the two hour drive. In every little hick town here in MO, we would get better care than that, but her gov’t run program was unable to provide her with life giving care, even though a very simple procedure would have saved her life.

3. The 45 million figure is demogogued. It includes illegal immigrants, people in transition between occupations or insurances, people eligible for Medicare or Medicaid who have not signed up and the self insured (for example I have three wealthy friends who have all chosen not to purchase insurance as they are capable of easily paying for their own care and they think they will beat the odds.)

Here is a link to an article that explains it (if I can pull the link off)

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx

2. I don’t know if the Canadian system is a straw-man or not but I still don’t understand why a private doctor couldn’t opt out of OUR public system. If patients are willing to pay extra for top talent, why couldn’t a doctor charge more? Its just like FedEx vs. USPS: If I want to pay more for better service I can still do it.

As far as Canadian MRI’s go … this is from wikipedia so take it FWIW:

“…MRI scanners are used more intensively in Canada than either the U.S. or Great Britain. This disparity in the availability of technology, some believe, results in longer wait times…. according to more recent official statistics (2007), all emergency patients receive MRIs within 24 hours, those classified as urgent receive them in under 3 weeks and the maximum elective wait time is 19 weeks in Regina and 26 weeks in Saskatoon, the province’s two largest metropolitan areas.”

I dont know if that proves anything or not. But there you go. I have heard that although Canadians do come over here from time to time for elective care, it really is not widespread.

Even if we do have better doctors, I don’t see how we can draw the conclusion that we have higher quality of care because of our private system. Maybe we just have superior medical schools that produce better doctors. Just as our superior engineering schools produce better rocket scientists, and our superior business schools produce better CEOs. So now we have a better space program, more profitable corporations, and higher quality of health care than other countries.

As you can see I am really struggling with this. There are what 45 million people who are uninsured? So that’s around 15% of all Americans. If 15% of our country’s roads and highways were unusable, wouldn’t we have to do something about it?

1. The government will use force to take what money I have to pay for YOUR government run health care. This will leave me with not enough money to pay for my own health care.

2. Many of the government run (AKA single payer) health care programs do not allow a private care to coexist with the government run system. When they say Single Payer they mean in. The Canadian system which is most often used as the model for proposals in the US, is structured this way. If you want private care you have to leave the country to get it.

Item 2 leads back into the other problem with a government run health care. One of the prime measures Canada uses to measure success of it’s system is the number of people who die while on waiting lists to receive care. They ration services because the system even with a 50% tax rate (non-progressive) the Canadians can’t provide the level of services we have here. Canadians currently can come across the border to get treatment they REALLY need (and often do). That avenue would be shut off from them if WE shifted to their model of health care.

In contrast, our system of health care, though expensive, is generally able to provide services on demand. A couple of years ago (when I researched it) there were more MRI machines and CT scanners in Peoria, IL than there were in entire provinces of Canada. And Peoria isn’t exactly a major metropolitan area. Medicine is practiced differently there. A Canadian doctor won’t even consider asking for an MRI when he suspects tendon damage because he knows the waiting list is too long. Instead he’ll use older, less accurate techniques. The medicines the doctor prescribes aren’t the most current because they aren’t as available. In essence, the Canadian system is a dumbed down version of ours.

As for you not being able to afford the level of health care you want…. someone has to pay for it. It isn’t free. Insurance (when done properly) is priced for individuals based on the expected payouts for the group of individuals insured. If you are in a low risk group, your premiums will be small. If you are high risk, you will be placed in a high risk group and the premium will reflect the expected costs. If you choose not to pay for health insurance (I still don’t believe your “I’m healthy but can’t get insurance” story), you take on the risk that you will be directly financially responsible if you or your children get sick and use medical services. Yes this could bankrupt you, but in many states, bankruptcy doesn’t include losing your house.

>>”your preference when coupled with the power of the US Government becomes force to those of us who don’t want to have nationalized health care.”

Sorry I dont get this …why wouldnt you be able to buy your own insurance and opt out of the nationalized health care system? You can choose to use FedEx instead of the post office, or go to a private university rather than a State college.

Good little dictator aren’t you?

And you always have the choice to pay for your doctor visits yourself. If as you stated you are generally healthy, it would probably be cheaper to pay your own doctor visits anyway.

Your choice isn’t nationalize or nothing. That’s a falsehood. You will always be able to get treatment in this country.

My problem with our privatized system is that we rely on insurance companies to decide who gets coverage and who does not.

Insurance companies are naturally motivated by profit, so it makes sense that they would deny anyone that looks like they might be at risk. That leaves a lot of people unable to get anything but emergency care.

I would definitely take nationalized health care over no health care at all.

Take a look at how such programs are run in other countries. Either the specific drug/procedure/equipment is not at all available or is severely rationed.

In the case of YOUR example, you claim to have been denied coverage from one company because of having taken 2 prescriptions the previous year. While I doubt your story, even if it were true, you still have the opportunity to get insurance from the thousands of other companies, to pay for your own medical care, or to receive government aid for any medical care if you can’t afford your own. In the case of government run health care, you have no other options when a bureaucrat denies your requested health care.

If the answer from the right is “tough luck”, and the answer from the left is “The government will help” then I am much more receptive to the left.

Perhaps the VA hospitals and the DMV suffer becuase they are underfunded.

(just being a devil’s advocate… this is my first post on RedState)

So why is this even an item for comment?

So why is this even an item for comment?

Otherwise, what the h_ll was the point of the anecdote??

If the diarist’s anecdote had been about some upper=middle classe person who’s benefits are better under private insurance than they would be under the liberal/Democratic system, I would not have objected.

But the diarist specifically chose a poor Medicaid recipient for his anecdote and he objected to restrictions/rationing on HER coverage. The implication was that this welfare recipient would get unlimited, unrationed coverage under the conservative/Republican system,

THAT’s the pie-ion-the-sky dishonesty.

All anyone with half a brain is saying is that, with the profit-motive intact, the system will be far more efficient and effective than if run by government bureaucrats.

Which it is. Why else would people come here from other countries to get health care that they are unable to get where they live?