Okay, I'm going to do a little deconstruction on both sides here, since I'm in favor of making sure that all Americans have access to adequate basic health care but don't really agree with how this is being gone about.
Firstly, the free-market system is far from perfect itself. Case in point: Many health plans require a doctor to see a certain number of patients every hour- usually six to eight. This leaves a doctor about 7-10 minutes to give a patient a full checkup, ask questions and follow up on any problems. This is nowhere near long enough to gain any sort of insight into a person's health, and as a result, rather than perform an extensive checkup and Q&A with the patient, the doctor will simply order tests to be done for any symptoms the patient might express. This is an unnecessary expense, and also places the patient's health secondary to the doctor's busy schedule. The covered tests cost the insurance company money, which means they must raise rates to keep profits up, placing higher expenses on individuals and businesses. So much trouble that could be avoided if the doctor simply had time to follow up on potential problems during the initial visit.
Secondly, there are far too many people for whom health insurance just isn't possible, or at best can only be attained at a bare minimum level. Therefore, small problems that aren't covered by their plan are ignored until they spiral out of control, requiring emergency room treatment (and possibly even an ambulance ride on top of that, which is expensive). If the health plan doesn't cover it and the patient can't pay, the hospital must eat the cost of the treatment- and will raise prices on other things to make up for it. Again, more costs for everyone else.
Now, against the other side of this argument. For those of you who think that the U.S. government is perfect to step into the role of health care supervisor, I strongly suggest you take a good, long look at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Created to take care of our wounded servicemen- some of the most revered and respected people in American society- the VA has been embroiled in scandals, controversies and lawsuits for decades. It has been accused of turning a blind eye towards poor doctors (even after lives have been lost to malpractice), denying claims for arbitrary reasons and providing utterly atrocious facilities and housing for disabled veterans. While it's true that corporate greed can harm patients, so can bureaucratic indifference.
A big problem I'm seeing here is the tossing about of words like "evil". Yes, the Republicans who spoke that way about the NHS are pretty well idiots- but there's a lot of stupidity coming from the other side of the aisle as well, with Democrats calling anyone who questions this new plan monsters who care more about money than human life. It's the height of idiocy for ANYONE to be doing this- a problem so vast and complex is not going to be solved by one side's all-encompassing plan without the help of knowledgeable and concerned people on the other.
But hey, I suppose this strange view is what I get from being a fiscal conservative but a social liberal.
Firstly, the free-market system is far from perfect itself. Case in point: Many health plans require a doctor to see a certain number of patients every hour- usually six to eight. This leaves a doctor about 7-10 minutes to give a patient a full checkup, ask questions and follow up on any problems. This is nowhere near long enough to gain any sort of insight into a person's health, and as a result, rather than perform an extensive checkup and Q&A with the patient, the doctor will simply order tests to be done for any symptoms the patient might express. This is an unnecessary expense, and also places the patient's health secondary to the doctor's busy schedule. The covered tests cost the insurance company money, which means they must raise rates to keep profits up, placing higher expenses on individuals and businesses. So much trouble that could be avoided if the doctor simply had time to follow up on potential problems during the initial visit.
Secondly, there are far too many people for whom health insurance just isn't possible, or at best can only be attained at a bare minimum level. Therefore, small problems that aren't covered by their plan are ignored until they spiral out of control, requiring emergency room treatment (and possibly even an ambulance ride on top of that, which is expensive). If the health plan doesn't cover it and the patient can't pay, the hospital must eat the cost of the treatment- and will raise prices on other things to make up for it. Again, more costs for everyone else.
Now, against the other side of this argument. For those of you who think that the U.S. government is perfect to step into the role of health care supervisor, I strongly suggest you take a good, long look at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Created to take care of our wounded servicemen- some of the most revered and respected people in American society- the VA has been embroiled in scandals, controversies and lawsuits for decades. It has been accused of turning a blind eye towards poor doctors (even after lives have been lost to malpractice), denying claims for arbitrary reasons and providing utterly atrocious facilities and housing for disabled veterans. While it's true that corporate greed can harm patients, so can bureaucratic indifference.
A big problem I'm seeing here is the tossing about of words like "evil". Yes, the Republicans who spoke that way about the NHS are pretty well idiots- but there's a lot of stupidity coming from the other side of the aisle as well, with Democrats calling anyone who questions this new plan monsters who care more about money than human life. It's the height of idiocy for ANYONE to be doing this- a problem so vast and complex is not going to be solved by one side's all-encompassing plan without the help of knowledgeable and concerned people on the other.
But hey, I suppose this strange view is what I get from being a fiscal conservative but a social liberal.
