| SamuelRSmith said: ^Yes, because I have proof: The NHS.
EDIT: Actually, I'll just tell you a astory which proves my point: My great uncle had throat cancer a couple of years ago. He was a smoker. Some health insurance companies would reject to pay for his treatment because he was a smoker. The NHS didn't. They performed the operation, and he recevied radiotherapy afterwards. During this time the NHS also tried to assist him in quitting smoking. He did, for a while, give up smoking. However, after a few months he started smoking again - and he got throat cancer again. The hospital new that he had the cancer before, and they new that he had gone through anti-smoking stuff aswell. And yet did they refuse him treatment? No. They still operated on him, but it wasn't a success. They kept him in hospital for the last few weeks of his life - they offered him alternatives, but he rejected them, yet he was able to stay in the hospital - fed, rested and cleaned, until the day he died. And so, yes, I truely believe that a Government run program would be better at a firm at cost cutting. |
They wouldn't be able to cost cut. They've signed an agreement with the government... they would have to follow the letter of the agreement.
Also... lots of doctors are actually for the stuff you are against. One moment to find the link.
