I don't think that anybody has a right to health care. Nobody should be coerced, though the threat of force to pay for others' bills. I don't really care if the majority approved it. Government is, or at least should be, set up to protect the minority from the majority. Furthermore, I don't think it's the job of the state to act as your mommy.
So would you support the disbanding of the fire service, the coastguard rescue, the police, the public libraries, the public schools, stop public roadbuilding and road maintenance and so on? Maybe we should stop coercing you with threat of force to pay for all these? And what about foreign embassies and the space programme and even the armed services?
If you are opposed to any compulsion to pay
others' communal bills, then surely you're equally opposed to these?
That being said, even though I still wouldn't like the idea of universal health care in the US, I would accept it if I thought for a second that the United States Government could properly administer it. The USG has time and time again proven itself to be incompetent. I don't think that it is a good idea to give an entity that needs to borrow trillions of dollars in order to pay its bills a huge amount more money, power, and responsibility.
So we're just back to the belief that the government of the biggest superpower the world has ever known, of a country which is renowned for can-do attitude, innovation and resourcefulness, is too incompetent to accomplish what every other developed first-world country has managed successfully.
Oh dear.
The health care system works fine for me. And sorry but I am not willing to risk that in order to give a mult-trillion dollar experiment I feel is doomed for failure a whirl. Call me selfish, I suppose I am. So what? I want to have to best health care possible for myself, and I think that's achieved better now than would be through universal health care.
Well, with your permission, I will call you selfish. I will also call you extremely short-sighted. In the course of a lifetime people's circumstances can vary a great deal. Financial circumstances change. Previously good health may break down, or a catastrophic accident may change everything in a moment.
Reading posts by other American forum members, I notice a frequent theme. A poster who was once of that opinion has changed his or her mind completely after falling foul of circumstances that left them with healthcare liabilities they struggled to meet. Just because you're not one of the disadvantaged group at the moment is no guarantee that you won't be in future. Thinking about the healthcare system from the point of view of the other guy isn't just common humanity, it is also practically self-serving.
As for why the United States still spends proportionally more on health care than countries with universal care, I think that is largely due to the US using cutting edge/very expensive tests, procedures and drugs much more often. How much of this is due to legitimate medical need and how much is due to doctors, hospitals, and drug companies fleecing patients, insurance companies, and the government, I have no idea. But I would rather have a system where these things are widely available on demand rather than heavily rationed due to their high cost as they are in, for example, Canada.
Please go back and read the link Professor Yaffle posted earlier in the thread. That is a very thought-provoking enquiry into just where all that excess spending is going.
Now, re-read your last paragraph. First, I think you have been fed a very biassed view of what happens in Canada. I have also seen internet promotions rubbishing Canada, apparently produced by right-wing Americans with the object of frightening their fellow-countrymen out of supporting universal healthcare. Vested interests have many ways of influencing the agenda. I have not seen one claim which has stood up to even the most superficial scrutiny - my favourite bit of lying was the lady with the slowly-progressing hormonal disorder who was presented as having a brain tumour that needed immediate surgery to save her life. I have also spoken to actual warm breathing Canadians, and have heard nothing but praise for their healthcare system.
Now think again about what you've said. And if you don't mind I'll use Britain rather than Canada because that's the system I know.
These "high-cost" interventions are available here on exactly the same terms as they are in the USA. You can pay for them out of your own funds, or you can take out medical insurance in advance of any need. Nobody will prevent you from doing that. And, as I said, your insurance premiums will almost certainly be significantly lower than they are in the USA.
The difference is that in Britain, they
might also be "widely available on demand" without your having to pay a penny. Always supposing the objective evidence of benefit is there. As it is for the vast majority of interventions anyone is ever likely to need.
The only "rationing" you might encounter, if you're really really unlucky, is that you think you might benefit from something the state-finded service doesn't agree with you about. In which case you are in
exactly the same position as you are now. Freely available on demand so long as you pay for it.
I totally don't get why you want to prevent universal unrestricted access to the vast majority of healthcare needs just because it's
possible that a few of the things you're currently paying for, you might still have to pay for.
Rolfe.
