Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pr0f3n
What the hell is wrong with you?
America can't have UHC because countries with UHC are healthier because of their UHC. Gotcha.
|
And Britain is considering paying obese people to exercise in order to prevent their system from being crushed under its own weight (no pun intended). Doesn't seem like UHC is such a catalyst for cultural and lifestyle change.
Quote:
We already have a medical care infrastructure, funded through mixed payor means. We're only failing to cover 15% of the population. Single payor allows for everyone to receive preventative and emergency care at a greatly reduced cost and with better outcomes.
I'm not sure what leads you to believe our medical system will be "uprooted." We're talking about how it's payed for, doctors and hospitals remain the providers of care. It's the profiteering that's excised. The benefit of a Federal UHC system over disparate state plans is the portability and additional leverage in negotiating prices with providers and pharmaceutical companies. Plus with a centralized system it's far easier to address chronic lifestyle issues like obesity and smoking.
|
Even if your right, do you think the government is going to keep its tendrils out of medical care, and not start demanding compliance with whatever schemes the politicians come up with down the road? After all, its government money, they should get a say in how it gets spent.
And quite honestly, with the way our government handles money, both D&R, I'm not really excited at the prospect of giving them more to mismanage.
Fix government spending and I'll consider UHC. If its 15% of the population, uninsured, its hardly a national crisis worthy of so much fuss.
Quote:
|
It's funny how people drive on the federal highway system, go to public school, eat federally inspected food, yet don't trust our government to successfully administrate health care even we've been doing so for the elderly for 40 years.
|
I dont trust the government for schooling, not in the least. Anyway, whats wrong with starting at the state level first? Your asking to appropriate a hell of a lot of tax money from a hell of a lot of people for your scheme. The least you could do is prove it works first, by enacting it in a place thats willing to try... and if it doesnt work, you dont take us all along for the ride. Saying it works for the French isnt good enough... we have our own set of unique challenges in this country.