It was a problem with private companies that delayed the vaccine. Check it out. They miscalculated the incubation stage so it has nothing to do with government incompetence.
And once again the point flies right by your unwilling head. Not ONCE did I say or imply that the lack of vacccine was due to government incompetence. What I DID say was that DUE to the shortage, the government stepped in and made decisions as to who got the vaccines. Can you not see the point here? You claim that it will be different, but the reality is there will always be more demand for medical facilities than there are available, this is true in a free market system (which is not really free market), it is true in a single payer system, and it is true in those beloved European systems you laud so much.
The shortage is not as bad as many opposed to universal care would like to have people believe, but it is there, and it is very real. There are delays in certain types of procedures based on a government determined triage protocol. Anyone who says there are not those types of things going on at all are every bit the liars as those who claim two-month terminal cancer patients wait 4 months.
As for health care being an unlimited resource there are enough resources to adequately look after the ill. To imply dozens of countries can do it and their citizens are happy but, somehow, the US couldn't manage it is just silliness.
Again, not, there is not. Health care, just as every other concrete resource in existence, is limited. Dozens of other countries "do it" by managing the resources and making DECISIONS who is covered under what circumstances. You can deny that reality all you want. But if you continue to try to claim that the European systems do not distribute their health care resources by limiting access according to a protocol of triage hierarchy, then I can only conclude you are either ignorant beyond help, or an outright head-up-the-donkey's-ass liar.
I explained some of the things the "everything" may include. Private rooms. Private nurses. The non-essentials.
Yes, and you completely and deliberately ignored others, such as annual mammograms starting at age 40.
Here's an example to do with car insurance. I was watching an AD and the policy includes a provision that should one be involved in an accident and are injured to the point where they can not walk their dog, should they have a dog, the insurance will cover the cost of a dog-walker. I kid you not.
So? Is this a government mandated policy? Or is it a free choice policy for people willing to pay extra for dog walking coverage?
Are you able to vote out the CEO of an insurance company if you don't like the policy? You can with the government. Also, government insurance has to offer broad coverage because it includes so many different people in different circumstances.
And if the government makes a bad law which cannot be repealed? What good does it do to change then?
Take cancer, for example. Because it is so prevalent the people will insist on adequate coverage. Put another way there is a large cancer voting block. Either one has cancer or knows someone who has. A universal plan has to cover the various cancers and treatment.
Yes, and the vast majority of private policies also cover cancer. A person can buy a basic policy that has a maximum lifetime limit, and for not much more add a catastrophic policy that only kicks in if that ceiling is breached. Much cheaper than buying a no-ceiling policy right off the rack, which is what the government plan is insisting all policies become.
The same applies to other illnesses. Universal plans have to, by their universal nature, cover more treatments than the majority of private plans. It is not just cheaper coverage. It is more coverage.
Sorry, but that is an outright lie. Universal refers to who is covered, not what is covered. Your rhetoric shows that you have zero actual knowledge of what universal plans do and do not cover compared to private plans. Ever wonder why emergency facilities are used even more than ours are in areas using universal coverage? Because emergency visits are automatically covered, whereas non-emergency visits for the same condition may not be covered. About the only place universal plans consistently exceed most private plans is in the area of preventative treatments. And we already see how our government is going to approach that particular area: by completely ignoring decades of medical history and cutting mammograms by over 60%. With that kind of blatant maneuvering, I seriously doubt other types of preventative treatments will fair any better.
Types of coverage. How does one determine the medical coverage they'll need let alone the treatments for diseases and injuries they may encounter? The reality is the majority of people take whatever they can afford and hope if something does happen that they're covered.
In too many cases that is true, and it is a factor which should be addressed. However, if we were to take the smart road, find out why health care costs have risen at three+ times the inflation rate, and control those factors driving costs out of control, the affordability of coverage, therefore the freedom to choose better policies, would become automatically more manageable. There's more than one way to skin a cat. But there is only one smart way. The ways being discussed by government and supported by their dronebots are NOT the smart ways.
The larger the group, the lower the rares. It works that way with everything so why wouldn't it work that way with government medical? The answer is it does work that way. Just the combining of everyone in one pool significantly lowers cost and because there is such a diverse group of people more illnesses and injuries are included/covered.
Yes, which is why the bill includes forcing young, healthy people to buy unwanted coverage under threat of fines and or actual jail time. (which no one yet has explained how that requirement is any different from simply taxing those people for the same purpose.)
The problem is, and every population statistic that includes heath factors in existence bears this out, that little aspect of the plan will not work. Those who are voluntarily without insurance, or only carry accident or major medical because they are healthy cannot hope to make up for those who are involuntarily without coverage who need treatment. (And the more things that are covered, the wider the disparity will be) Add to that the various requirements placed on carriers to cover things they do not cover under lower priced policies,** and the end result is coverage costs will go up, not down. The "larger the group, the lower the rates" has a limit before the law of diminishing returns kicks in.
** And here is another source of deliberate misinformation from the government plan proponents. When complaining about lack in adequate coverage, ceilings on annual and lifetime benefits, etc, they always look to the cheapest policies available. When they compare the price of coverage under their proposed plan to current prices, they invariably use the higher priced policies. The end result is the implication their plan will provide better coverage (by comparing it to the cheap policies) for less cost than the private policies (by comparing to the higher priced policies).
