I really wonder if the proponents of the American system understand anything of what they say. First, it has been said that other countries that are ranked above the USA in health care have 'political motives'. What are they? I'm waiting to hear because I'm not sure what you are talking about.
There is apparently good health insurance. The problem is that too many people don't have it and can't get it. With the turn-down of the economy, how many millions just lost their coverage? This does not mean that people don't get sick because they don't have coverage. It means they stay sick until their only option is to go to the emergency room, which is a costly way to correct something that may have been treated months ago. It also means many people become unable to work and go on social assistance or even that some people or family members resort to unlawful activity to generate income to cover health costs. It means more defaults on loans of all types.
There are two things emerge from this. The first is that you pay for their health care. And you pay top dollar for it, more than any insurance company pays. The second thing is that it is usually acute care applied too late for optimum outcomes. If anyone has ever done maintenance on something why did you do it? Because it is easiest and least expensive to maintain something in good shape rather than repair it when broken. Has anyone ever heard the old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?
Under a single payer system costs are better controlled in countries around the world. So you can understand a single payer system I'll try to illustrate how it works. Just as an insurance company represents a pool of money paid in by policy holders out of which payments are made, a single payer does the same. In the case of the USA ,right now, millions of people get heath care, often too little, too late, and the government pays their bill. Only the government can't get the same rates the insurance company does because that wouldn't be the American Way. The American Way is the way of corporate welfare. In the allegedly free market, that isn't anywhere free, the government can't be allowed to compete with private corporations. If a single payer system was adopted it would allow the government to negotiate prices for goods and services. All citizens would be covered and after a period of maybe 5 years the health across the citizenry of the country would be better than it presently is. Many who are or will not be working due to health reasons under the present system will be working, or back at work, and paying taxes. There will be less defaulting on house, car and credit card loans, and a great number of other benefits to the country which you can identify and I don't need to list.
My experience tells me that the mantra of government not being able to do anything as good or better than private enterprise is a fable. As the writer suggested above, a study of rankings of countries health care systems ought to convince anyone that the present system is a failure for everyone but the providers of the care and the insurance companies. In short, it is a scheme where a few get rich and the many suffer. It is a scheme where the individual is afraid to leave a job for something preferable because he will lose insurance. It is the most expensive system in the western world and it is a system that continues to gobble up an increasing amount of the GDP. It's a bloody fools game.
Now let me hear the wailing. Yes lets blame it on the illegals: but aren't they working and paying taxes which they can't get back. Lets just say if you want it get a job: do you see a surplus of jobs? good paying jobs that provide the coverage? In the final analysis some butt head is going to tell me he has a gun and someone is going to have to pry it out of his cold, dead fingers. That can be done and you will have brought it upon yourself. This whole issue needs to be thought through intelligently and talked through civilly. An optimum result will require bipartisanship and honesty. The present reform leaves too much to be desired and the blame for that cannot be laid at the feet of the folks that tried to achieve a better program. It can and will be laid at the feet of the 'no' party and its obstructionism.
I'm always willing to discuss things rationally and civilly but have no desire tobe part of a tirade.
