Quote:
Originally Posted by cabo35
Some posters have argued quality of life issues as trumping extension of life. While on a personal basis, I prefer quality of life, my main concern with government run health care is that politicians and bureaucrats will be significantly involved, one way or the other, in these decisions. I strongly believe that the decision making process should be the exclusive purview of the individual not the state. Therein lies the crux of my opposition and presumably, the objection of many others.
I believe every American should have the right to secure whatever level of insurance coverage they want and the government has no business regulating that condition.
|
You say you don't want a government beareaucrat making your health decisions. I understand that. And while what I'm about to ask might sound provocative, I ask it in all sincerity.
Why is it ok for an insurance company beareaucrat, who's only interest is profit, to make that decision? To play Devil's Advocate for a minute, at least the government drone still wants your vote. Once you're a drain on an insurance company bottom line, their prime responsibility, which is to their stockholders, is to get you OUT of the system.
When I worked at Beth Israel Hospital some agency did a study that I wish I could find these days. It basically said that something over half of all benefits paid out by insurance companies went to 2% of the subscribers. Think about those numbers for a moment. It means that 98% of the people are making a profit for the company. It means that getting rid of those 2% is good for the bottom line. It *also* means, more insidiously, that the vast majority of subscribers won't get hit with being cut off when they need the insurance the most - which will keep the company form having to face torches and pitchforks. It means they can cut off those neediest and still look good doing it because so many other people think that they're well covered.
Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama believes the delusion that has become the greatest myth in the health-care debate. He said that President Obama's plans are "the first step in destroying the best health care system the world has ever known".
The U.S. is 31st in life expectancy - tied with Kuwait and Chile.
We're 37th in infant mortality (but that's partially due to so many premature births being recorded as infant deaths). However, an American kid is 2.5 times more likely to die by age 5 than Singapore or Sweden.
An American woman is 11 times more likely to die in childbirth than in Ireland.
Canadians live longer than we do after kidney transplants and dialysis.
Another study of 19 countries and how well they ranked in "preventable deaths" had us ranked dead last (pardon the pun).
If you're a minority here, it's even worse. If you're black and in New Orleans, you have a lower life expectancy than the average Honduran or Vietnamese.
But it's not all bad. Oddly enough, there's one place where Americans *do* rank well above all other countries. For someone who has already reach age 65, if they're an American, they can expect to live longer than the average person in any industrialized country. Why? Medicare. Suddenly they're in a single-payer system that can't kick them out. Suddenly they can go to the doctor for preventative treatment instead of using the ER when it's too late.
Make no mistake, even the places like the WHO don't rank the UK or Canada (single-payer systems) as #1. No, that honor seems to go to France which has public AND private insurance. It CAN work.
Just as some people pay more for security (security guards, patrols, etc) to supplement the local police department, or more money on supplements to other civic services, some would do the same even if 'the public option' became so ubiquitous.