What about the people that die while waiting for care due to the declining number of health care providers that will invariably be available? They would not have received the care that they needed.
Currently viewing and reading
Do people think that a government run health care system means guaranteed care when it is needed?
Posted by admin in February 1st 2011
Related Post
- How Many Deaths are Due to No Health Insurance? (April 24th, 2012)
- How can you be opposed to national health care and not Medicare? (April 9th, 2012)
- How soon can I get Obamacare and stop paying thousands a year for my health insurance? (March 24th, 2012)
- Will Obama explaining the health care option change you mind on it pro or against? (January 24th, 2012)
- If Medicare is so great, why not just expand it to all Americans? (January 18th, 2012)
26 Comments Received
February 2nd, 2011 @4:53 pm
What about people who currently cannot afford care? They cannot recieve the care they need, either.
February 4th, 2011 @8:15 pm
Nope.
It means you wait.
How do you add 50 million people onto an already stressed health care system?
Make them wait longer in line.
February 6th, 2011 @9:50 pm
we already have guaranteed health care. it is illegal to refuse medical care to somebody..insured or not. states should be responsible for providing health care ins. for the individuals who cannot obtain it otherwise…not the federal government. government has already interfered with health care decades ago, and that is why we have the problems we have today with it.
February 10th, 2011 @3:59 am
What about the people that die now, because they cant afford the operation they need?
February 11th, 2011 @3:49 am
Absolutely not.
February 13th, 2011 @12:35 pm
Latest says it will only cover 30% of people currently without healthcare. So why spend 1.6 trillion for something that won’t be entirely effective and will lower the quality of healthcare we currently receive in this country?
February 14th, 2011 @9:19 am
Only the brain dead Obamabots
February 15th, 2011 @11:25 pm
A. It isn’t ‘government run’ health care.
B. 18,000 people died in 2008 without health care. People in the US who are insured already wait for services and procedures. Happens all the time as we wait for our HMO to decide if our surgery is ‘necessary’.
February 18th, 2011 @10:24 pm
Yes, that’s what the dumba$$ libs just DON’T GET!! Waiting to get treated in a hospital is going to be like waiting in line to buy stamps at the government-run post office!! Duh!!!
February 21st, 2011 @8:50 am
No I don’t think so.
The health care plan will be limited anyway.
February 21st, 2011 @9:21 pm
And where would the Doctors go? There would be no drain, America is the last Industrialized Nation on earth that does NOT offer UHC
February 23rd, 2011 @6:39 pm
“What about the people that die while waiting for care due to the declining number of health care providers that will invariably be available? They would not have received the care that they needed.”
Those people are treated at the hospitals now, even if they can’t pay. Hospitals MUST treat people who need emergency care. The cost is passed onto the insured payers.
So, if that cost is not passed on anymore, your premium should go down.
February 26th, 2011 @8:13 pm
Most idiots I know think it means FREE health care. They are foolish enough to think that everyone will be treated equally.
February 28th, 2011 @10:49 pm
Hogwash.
First, there’s absolutely no reason on earth that a government run healthcare system and a private system couldn’t operate side-by-side. Second, there’s absolutely no evidence that suggests the number of healthcare providers would “invariably” decline. That’s talk-radio propaganda.
March 1st, 2011 @8:22 am
The idiots who assumed bama was going to make there home, and car payments probably do. aren’t they in for a rude awakening
March 3rd, 2011 @5:23 am
People don’t think about the the consequences. Its all about what the ‘government’ can do for them. Next thing you know we’ll be living in a socialist country.
March 4th, 2011 @5:26 pm
anyone who thinks the government needs to manage health care should go spend a few days at a VA hospital,or one of our so called charity hospitals!
March 7th, 2011 @3:51 am
Why the idea that health care providers will diminish? There is no statistical data from other countries with a public health care option to make such a claim. I have many friends in several parts of Canada that do not experience any more of a wait for treatment than what we do here in the US.
March 10th, 2011 @2:57 pm
The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not offer universal health care for its citizens. But we need it: We spend a higher percentage of our income on health care than any other country, but are uniformly at the bottom of the list when it comes to quality of care, access to care, wait times and efficiency of care.
Quality health care isn’t just curing people when they’re sick. With rising deductibles and co-pays, every American needs a financial break from the skyrocketing health care costs.
Medicare recipients don’t wait. They choose whoever their provider is, they get in right away, they get the help they need, and their bills are mainly paid through Medicare and a supplemental insurance company.
Medicare is government-subsidized.
March 13th, 2011 @3:46 pm
no, it means its up to the gov, who is subsidizing it, what you need and when you get it.
March 16th, 2011 @6:57 pm
Yes, like congress has. Apparently it is ok with you if congress says pay for ours, but you can’t have it, us not you. That is called being generous to a fault, shooting yourself in the foot, cutting off your nose to spite your face… You are also coming to an illogical conclusion with no evidence to support it, when you say they will die while waiting for health care from the declining number, etc. etc. etc. No they are dying right now because of lack of health care. It stands to reason that if more people can afford health care, there will be a demand for more health care professionals, and more people will train for those jobs. Wow that could be called creating jobs. Simply put, health care good, no health care bad.
March 16th, 2011 @9:20 pm
From what I hear, nothing has been decided on as yet. Some of the proposals coming out would be for those that receive their healthcare through employer funding would be taxed on that amount…………with the exceptions of those belonging to Unions. Furthermore it IS ALSO hidden in these proposals that our dear corrupt Politicians are NOT REQUIRED to give up their healthcare they now receive from we the taxpayer. This will lead to more being uninsured as employers will be dropping the healthcare incentives for their employees. Down the road we will all be under the so called “government plan” with those from the Unions and our own Politicians exempt. DOESN’T BODE WELL WITH ME!!!! Also the cost this administration is spouting is far under what experts say it will cost. More like +$3Trillion over ten years.
THEY BEST COME UP WITH A BETTER PLAN………one that includes the Politicians. In that way, and only in that way will these corrupt Politicians come up with a plan which would be good for everyone!!!!!
March 17th, 2011 @7:37 pm
People from Canada and the UK come here all the time so they don’t have to wait three years for a major medical procedure.
March 20th, 2011 @1:21 pm
The American people better do some reading for themselves because government run medical care is nothing short of a cluster —-, and that’s putting it mildly! Wake Up America, don’t let ‘the Great Prevaricator’ sell yo another of his socialist bills of goods!
March 22nd, 2011 @12:24 pm
If they do they are Morons…………..
I agree we need to revamp our health care and make it more affordable but not gut it and be slaves to the government.
Ask any person that sells health ins. They will tell you daily they will give decent quotes and families turn it down at $350. a month BUT they have nice cars and a BIG screen TV. People need to get their priorities straight.
March 23rd, 2011 @9:06 pm
I do think that some people think that government can guarantee something by mandating it. However, if pressed I think that most people would admit that there are no guarantees. People who still support government run health care after admitting that fact must make the argument that it would be the best way (or at least a good way) to achieve their stated goals — usually to offer wide coverage and reduce costs.
You make one argument that the number of health care providers would decline. Supporters of government health care would, I am sure, argue that would not happen. Typically, they would insist that didn’t happen in France, Canada or some other country with nationalized health care. Whether those countries experienced some kind of problems, it *is* informative to note that their care did not grind to a halt. People are not dying in the streets. Yet I believe that more fundamental rationale should be given for doing something. “Because the French did it” is not good enough reason for me even if what they have is (arguably) better than what we have.
I do think that there are major problems in our health care systems. However, the assertion that markets have failed in the United States is to ignore the great extent that our systems are already government run or influenced. Some people argue that free markets have failed and then immediately turn around and complain about how much influence health industry lobbyists have on government. This is a most ignorant contradiction!
They can not have it both ways. In fact, I believe that our system is managed to a great degree. Yes, there are aspects of it that are free. But at the same time, other interventions are undertaken. I believe that, in addition to their stated goals, there may be other purposes at times. Remember, lobbyists would not devote so much time and resources if they weren’t getting results.
Because parts of the system are free, individuals react in ways not predicted by the planners. Unintended consequences result, calling for either a cessation of controls or increasing their scope. Since I have already taken my answer quite long, I will leave for another debate which would be better. From what I have written, I hope that you can gather that I favor releasing the health care industry from its current governmental grasp. As only a sample for reasoning my position, consider whether lobbyists will have less influence once the government achieves greater control. While I doubt that there are few (if any) secretive plots between Congress and health care lobbyists, the system works to reward people who support politicians. That would not change if we gave politicians more power. To the contrary, the influence to be had would increase.
In conclusion, there are no guarantees in human action. It is possible that the voluntary market would fail in some situations since individuals do make mistakes. Unfortunately for supporters of nationalized health care, government planners and bureaucrats make mistakes too. They are not free from corruption (to be fair, neither would there be no corruption in freed markets). If all of the health care in the world were placed under various government controls, there would also be no mechanism by which they could allocate resources. The somewhat limited information provided to the extent that voluntary prices are allowed to develop would be entirely replaced by bureaucratic judgment.
That doesn’t sound like much of a guarantee to me.
Leave A Reply