Alrighty. First off: Watch the movie called "Sicko". It can probably explain much better then I can. Anyways,
You're arguing that we have a limited supply of health care available: Doctors, offices, etc. And the key to it all is successfully allocating our supplies, economics in other words, right? Supplies are always going to be limited.
Would it be better for people to have an allocation of zero, a ration of nothing? Instead of one doctor visit a year?
The thing about people taking advantage of the system, that's bogus. The problem in our culture is that people go to little to the doctor, they only go when something goes horribly wrong. At that point, it either costs a significant amount or it's too late, and super-expensive drugs to only prolong life can be given. That comes into the whole "death panel" scare, but I won't get into that now.
Now, you're arguing about the deficit in Japan; we pay the most out of our health care. The problem is that the incentive is simply upside down. The incentive is to give people less care and gain profit. Why not put the money in good use, since most of it goes to the insurance companies.
And in order to prevent those super-high rate costs of emergencies, surgeries, in general what many Americans pay when they decide to go, the answer is
Preventative Care. The British have it in their system, and it is a great idea. It costs less when people aren't necessarily sick, but to keep them healthy. Plus, doctors get a bonus for how healthy their patients are.
Our health care is already rationed. To the people who can afford it. At
Least we would
have a decision of how we would allocate these supplies, with the large money spent, instead of most of it flowing into private insurers. The country decides how much they want spent based on results. But I doubt that this country will even need more then what we're spending. And again, would it be better that someone go to the doctor once every 5 months or nothing at all?
The waiting idea of waiting, that's BS. A conservative idea that totally takes things out of proportion. Of course, you'll wait for minor things, colds, surgeries that really don't need immediate attention. Why not? Is it better to have no care? In fact, you'd have to wait longer HERE to get to an ER, because so many hospitals are overloaded with patients who only get there once things are bad. There are three possible outcomes:
1. People are always relatively healthy (Not happening)
2. People get the the ER because of no primary care. Expensive costs that is covered by government, subsidies, etc.
3. The Patient dies. Is that justified? That because they didn't have primary coverage?
Now, we're paying these LARGE, excessive amounts for ER care for so many. Why not waste it in a good way, Preventative care. Which by the way, is much less.
In Britain...and Canada, they'll easily get you to an emergency room within at least 30 minutes.
So...we've been spending billions of dollars on a war that started with 9/11. Yet more people die per year because of no health care coverage then the number of people that actually died in 9/11...
44,800 excess deaths annually in the United States due to Americans lacking health insurance, equivalent to one excess death ever 12 minutes
I feel I'm forgetting something. If you have any questions, though, ask.
