No, these people died as a result of misguided social entitlements such as Medicare and government mandates on health insurance companies which drive up the cost of health services. Should we discuss the number of Canadians who have died while on the waiting list for surgery? I have personal experience with that one, FYI.
Or perhaps we could talk about the British citizens who have died in government hospitals because the government has no financial interest in keeping their patients alive?
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts...l-Appalling-neglect-that-led-to-1-200-deaths/
These people were treated like animals. I've never heard of anything like that occurring in the United States in modern times. Have you?
My point isn't to start a debate about which system is superior (I have no interest in such a debate, as the answer seems pretty plain to me), but rather to demonstrate that your view of single-payer health care is unattainably Utopian. No system is perfect, because people aren't perfect.
My view isn't unattainable utopia.
Those deaths that occurred in Britain are being investigated. It is acknowledged procedures broke down and rules were not followed. In other words immediate changes are to take place and such circumstances are not to be allowed to occur again.
Contrast that to a "pay or suffer" system. Are the deaths mentioned in the article Watermark provided being investigated? Are government officials insisting rules be immediately changed? Is the government saying the next person who can not afford a doctor is entitled to medical care regardless?
Anyone who believes universal medical care is unattainable is saying we are unable to look after our ill citizens which is nonsense. It's simply a matter of allocating sufficient funds and talking about funds that's another scam, for lack of a better word.
The US spends almost double on medical care per capita. Governments with universal medical spend, perhaps, 8% GDP and another will spend 9% and another will spend 10%. They all complain about a shortage of money.
If the governments currently spending 8% immediately budgeted 10% imagine the difference. An immediate 25% increase.
The point is governments allot the minimum and continually complain about a shortage. It's like budgeting $15/wk for gas when one requires $20/wk. Of course the person will continually be over budget because the budget is unrealistic.
As the population ages medical costs will rise. It's time people got over it.
It's not a matter of the government not having the money for medical care. It's a matter of allocating the funds. Every National Park that has someone emptying garbage cans has an employee that can empty garbage cans in a hospital. Every information cabana/hut is one more hospital room. Every monument....
(Excerpt) The National Park Service estimates a maintenance backlog of $6.1 billion for its facilities.(End)
http://apps.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=39
I have nothing against parks. (The truth is I've planted over a dozen trees on my suburban lot even though there were a number of mature trees already there.)
The point is there is money available. The question is do we spend it on caring for the ill or supplying showers for weekend campers? Do we pay doctors or ensure visitors to the beach have clean sand?
http://www.hbarber.com/Cleaners/Beach_Cleaning_Equipment.aspx
Locally, are new sidewalks more important than a medical clinic?
If people have the motivation to vote for a political party that will cut taxes why not vote for a political party that will direct money towards medical care and away from other things or is going to the beach or spending a day in the park more important?
