mrstickball said:
So then why argue for a universal system that does nothing unless you are dying? Given the very minimal difference in life expectancies between the US and other developed nations, it would seem that universal health care should only be used in a way to control costs here, which we've seen will not be the case, as is with the VA - the cost issues are elsewhere in the system. And having said that, I cannot believe the amount of time other nations have for many procedures. When I was bleeding out of my inner intestines (which didn't require hospitalization, which I'd assume is one of those 'only get care if your dying' situations), it took just 12hrs to schedule a colonoscopy and CT scan for me.....Compared to weeks in Canada or other universal comparables. |
Well you can still get private, fast care here if you are rich. But it is a luxury, as it should be. The US's economy cannot support the quality of healthcare that the average American recieves now, and there is no incentive for either doctors or patients to avoid extra cost since the insurance is either there or not.
So, yes, universal health care to control costs by lowering care quality but no so much that if affects ability to work. That's exactly why it's good.
