Your language is so emotional, "suffer and die a painful death" c'mon, let's get objective and philosophise a little. You seem pretty smart, but you always get so dramatic. Just chill.
I respect what you are saying and in a way i admire you for your steadfast and honest views that you will do anything to take care of those you love. Sometimes life doesn't always go as you plan, i guess that all i'm saying, and i think to say you will never take a handout is probably a little silly.
As to my language being so emotional, i dunno. I don't mean to over dramatize and i can't even see that's what i am doing. I'm just speaking from the heart you know. Maybe it's my line of work and the things i see and experience there. They are real and those things do happen. I'd pretty much do anything for anyone and i do always try to see the good in people. Even tossers. It's definitely got me a fair bit of negative feedback around here lately. I'm quite often being told not to take things personally or to take a chill pill lately.
In my opinion, government's role should be the very basic - infrastructure, basic defense and creating and enforcing laws that protect us from each other.
I think the world would be a much better place if we let individuals and companies take care of the rest. With the drastically lower taxes, we could afford to help our fellow people... and do so in a much more effective and efficient manner.
1 University of Michigan Health System
2 University of Texas Medical Branch
3 NYU Medical Center
4 University of Kansas Medical Center
5 University of Virginia Health System
6 Johns Hopkins Medicine
7 Vanderbilt Medical Center
8 Massachusetts General Hospital
9 University of Rochester Medical Center
10 MD Anderson Cancer Center
11 University of Miami Hospital & Clinic
12 Texas Tech Health Sciences Center
13 University California Davis Health System
14 Columbia University Medical Center
15 University of Maryland Medical Center
16 University of Kentucky Academic Medical Center
17 University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
18 Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center
19 University of Arkansas Medical Center
20 University of Connecticut Health Center
21 University of Nebraska Medical Center
22 Children's Hospital Boston
23 Loma Linda University Adventist Health Sciences Center
24 Taipei Veterans General Hospital - Taiwan
It is. But I think it's more relevant that a ranking of hospitals you posted. Especially when we're talking about health care, and we are.
I dont think a report that is almost a decade old is very relevant. are you trying to argue that America doesnt have some of the best hospitals in the world?
I dont think a report that is almost a decade old is very relevant. are you trying to argue that America doesnt have some of the best hospitals in the world?
oh. I'm having a hard time finding another source of rankings that show the US & World. would like to see one though.
No, I'm merely pointing out that your list is completely irrelevant. It's not about health care at all. Your link certainly doesn't prove that "it's the best in the world."
The most recent data by a credible or relevant source suggests otherwise.
Furthermore, the WHO research focused on different factors. A much better way of judging a country's quality of health care. Even if you actually had a real list that judges hospitals on the care they provide, it's still doesn't say much about the general health care in a country.
No, I'm merely pointing out that your list is completely irrelevant. It's not about health care at all. Your link certainly doesn't prove that "it's the best in the world."
The most recent data by a credible or relevant source suggests otherwise.
Furthermore, the WHO research focused on different factors. A much better way of judging a country's quality of health care. Even if you actually had a real list that judges hospitals on the care they provide, it's still doesn't say much about the general health care in a country.
ok maybe so about my link. but the one you posted is no where near the "most recent and relevant" data.
I was merely replying to Commy's suggestion that our care is among the worst in developed countries.
I say that is complete bullshit. Our quality of care is among the best, not worst, in the world. whether or not everyone has equal access is not what I'm arguing.
ok maybe so about my link. but the one you posted is no where near the "most recent and relevant" data.
I was merely replying to Commy's suggestion that our care is among the worst in developed countries.
I say that is complete bullshit. Our quality of care is among the best, not worst, in the world. whether or not everyone has equal access is not what I'm arguing.
I think if we're talking about world health care, the WHO is definitely one of the most relevant sources. The research they published in 2000 is the latest, they have not done a similar research since.
Feel free to find more recent data by a equally relevant source. I will gladly read whatever you have to post.
And I guess your final point is where we differ in perspective. I think when we judge a health care system, we should look at all the factors. The fact that the richest can get quality care and the rest gets screwed over doesn't mean you have the best health care in the world. It means a small percentage of your population has access to good health care.
I think if we're talking about world health care, the WHO is definitely one of the most relevant sources. The research they published in 2000 is the latest, they have not done a similar research since.
Feel free to find more recent data by a equally relevant source. I will gladly read whatever you have to post.
I agree the WHO is a great source but the data is not recent. I'd love to find more research on the subject but my google skills arent that great this morning.
And I guess your final point is where we differ in perspective. I think when we judge a health care system, we should look at all the factors. The fact that the richest can get quality care and the rest gets screwed over doesn't mean you have the best health care in the world. It means a small percentage of your population has access to good health care.
I'm only talking in terms of quality of care. IMO, the US has some of the best doctors and medical technology in the world. is it the absolute best? maybe, maybe not. but its close.
I also feel if you let the government have complete control of it, the quality would plummet. everyone would surely have access to it, but in many cases, that care would be poor.
like it or not, profit is an excellent motivator when creating and innovating. and when something is socialized, profit is mostly taken out of the equation and would lead to bare minimum type care.
another thing that needs to be taken into account is the size of a country. its much easier for a country like Sweden to take care of ALL its citizens. it has a population of merely one city in the US (NYC).
I agree the WHO is a great source but the data is not recent. I'd love to find more research on the subject but my google skills arent that great this morning.
I posted an article from 2003 and a research from 2008.
I'm only talking in terms of quality of care. IMO, the US has some of the best doctors and medical technology in the world. is it the absolute best? maybe, maybe not. but its close.
In your opinion, indeed. Facts seem to tell a different story.
I also feel if you let the government have complete control of it, the quality would plummet. everyone would surely have access to it, but in many cases, that care would be poor.
A lot of countries with socialised health care seem to be doing great, a lot better than the States according to most surveys and researches.
like it or not, profit is an excellent motivator when creating and innovating. and when something is socialized, profit is mostly taken out of the equation and would lead to bare minimum type care.
Again, this is not the case in a lot of countries with socialised health care.
Nothing is perfect, and the consumer should demand better always. It's much easier to justify privatisation if the concerned parties are more actively involved. The fact is, we're not as a whole. We're not writing our congress or local reps, we're not voting intelligently, we're not writing neslte and the fda about melamine in the baby formula, we're not demanding better of anything until we're directly affected. That's the trick. To say "it's not working in the hands of the private sector, so let's give it to the government" is a head scratcher for me.
And I think you could absolutely make the case for less regulation, but smarter and more principled regulation. If the system would adhere to smart, basic principles, and as a result not get bogged down in minutia, we could have a much more effective healthcare industry.
We should not be saying that all people are entitled to "healthcare." You pay in, you get. You don't pay in, you don't get. Kids excepted. I fail to see a justification for the belief that all people are entitled to healthcare as a birthright. You start making the rules up as you go, and all of a sudden you have to account for every "what if" scenario under the sun. classic liberalism.
But a more fundamental set of principles, and a commitment to adhere to those principles, is the best way for any institution discussed, in my view.
As for healthcare, smart regulation means better pricing. Better pricing means more people can get. More people getting means even better pricing (particularly when it comes to insurance), and so on, that's how it should be.
I must say, you're the first person I've seen in a long time arguing for less regulation in regards to the health care industry. I'm not sure that's a tenable position, considering regulation is limited and what regulation is there is not adequately enforced much of the time. If you're looking for as little regulation as possible, then the current situation is your endgame. So before we go anywhere else, you have to be able to accept that your proposals will leave many unable to get medical treatment. If that's fine with you, then fine, we can move onto other parts of the argument. But you must admit that such a unfortunate reality goes hand in hand with your proposal.
Your problem is here is that you propose it's possible for health care to be both extremely profitable and extremely beneficial towards clients. The problems the insured and uninsured face in regards to the health care industry is the cost-cutting procedures; for example, people with pre-existing medical conditions can be turned away because it is deemed that they will be too costly to insure? This seems correct to you? Seems like a good business model? This is only one example of countless that has the health care industry turned upside down. Our Constitution orders, as one of its tenets, that the provision "of the general welfare" is obtained. You don't think, included in the general welfare of the nation's citizens, is the right to obtain competent medical treatment? What else are we talking about when we're talking about welfare if not health? It's how the word is defined.
You're caught in a catch-22, I feel, because you want the desired result without any action on the part of any government agency or legislation. You want lower prices, and you seem to argue that should we just get out of the way, the 'free market' will enhance competition, lower prices, and everyone will get the chance to have competent medical coverage. Well, luckily we have a real-life example of what happens when you let the free market be free in regards to health insurance; we have the present-day situation we find ourselves in. Regulation has been abysmally legislated and enforced and the statistics stand as; 47 million without health insurance. Over 9 million children without health insurance. Double that latter number if you include those children that have gaps in coverage during the year. (those numbers are from a study by the American Medical Association). Those numbers don't sound like free-market health insurance working to me.
A lot of countries with socialised health care seem to be doing great, a lot better than the States according to most surveys and researches.
Again, this is not the case in a lot of countries with socialised health care.
right, but like I said, the sheer size of countries have to be taken into account. the US has the 3 largest population in the world behind China and India.
what facts? it is undeniable that america has some of the best Doctors and medical technology in the world.
The 2000 WHO research, though old touches some issues that haven't changed much since. The problems pointed out in the report are generally not fixed.
There's the research (2003) by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine that again confirms that US health care certainly isn't the best in the world, nor is it close to being the best.
Then there's the 2008 survey by the Commonwealth Fund that says the same things, the US is not the leader in health care at all.
Yes, America has some of the best doctors and technologies. That doesn't say much about health care in general, though. It simply means that the US has some excellent doctors and technologies. A lot of Western countries have those too. It's about how the system in which they operate works. Is it available for the majority of the people, can they afford it, are they getting the care they need?
right, but like I said, the sheer size of countries have to be taken into account. the US has the 3 largest population in the world behind China and India.
The 2000 WHO research, though old touches some issues that haven't changed much since. The problems pointed out in the report are generally not fixed.
There's the research (2003) by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine that again confirms that US health care certainly isn't the best in the world, nor is it close to being the best.
Then there's the 2008 survey by the Commonwealth Fund that says the same things, the US is not the leader in health care at all.
care to post them these reports? and the report you posted above sites chronically ill patients.
none of these reports suggest American does not have the best doctors, technology, and quality of care in the world. it only suggests some do not have adequate access to it. which is not what I'm arguing.
Yes, America has some of the best doctors and technologies. That doesn't say much about health care in general, though. It simply means that the US has some excellent doctors and technologies. A lot of Western countries have those too. It's about how the system in which they operate works. Is it available for the majority of the people, can they afford it, are they getting the care they need?
roughly 47 million americans, or 16%, do NOT have healthcare insurance. that means the 84% or over 250 million Americans have access to some of the greatest doctors and technology available in the world.
my point is that its nearly impossible to have a "free" socialized healthcare system for 300,000,000 people and expect it to provide a high level of quality care.
its much easier and practical for a country like Sweden to do that with only 9,000,000 people.
this goes back to my point that medical technology and advancements in innovation are key to high quality
Good medical treatment means people get treated adequately. I'm not up to date on the statistics, but what worth is the medical technology and advancements in innovation if hypothetically the health care industry does not enable the people who need that technology most to get it?
Good medical treatment means people get treated adequately. I'm not up to date on the statistics, but what worth is the medical technology and advancements in innovation if hypothetically the health care industry does not enable the people who need that technology most to get it?
well what do you mean by "enabling" the people who need it?
that suggests giving it away for free? I'm not trying to say people who need the best care shouldnt get it. but in order to stay ahead of the curve in innovation, these companies need to have competition and see profits.
I'd love to see some type of government reform that defines certain criteria for providing care to someone who needs it.
the simplest way I can put it is this.
have the majority of Americans access to excellent care, while leaving some with little or no access.
or
give everyone access to very mediocre care.
this is not to mention the United States could not afford a socialized healthcare system. we already do that for just the elderly and we have $34 TRILLION in future obligated costs.
well what do you mean by "enabling" the people who need it?
I meant, by that, people having access to that medical care. I was merely saying that you seem to be saying that "medical technology and advancements in innovation are key to high quality." I was saying that, when measuring a country's medical care, innovation done within that country is relatively meaningless if the innovation has no real impact on its' citizens.
EDIT: I also disagree with your either/or possibility that it must be 'excellent for some' or 'mediocre for all', simply because I do not believe that the only two options are a completely private health-care industry devoid of any regulation whatsoever, or a health-care system entirely run by the government. I don't think it should be that cut and dry. I think the goal should be to get everyone access to good care, and I see no reason why this is impossible. Also, when you say the 'majority of Americans have access to excellent care,' although you would be right in saying that the majority of Americans do have health insurance, the statistics are still not flattering. 47 million people have no health insurance. That's 1 in 6 Americans. And that says nothing about the quality of care that those with insurance do get.
My point is that I think it's a dangerous notion to view shopping for health insurance in the same manner as shopping for a new car. It's not the same thing and should not demand the same approach.
I meant, by that, people having access to that medical care. I was merely saying that you seem to be saying that "medical technology and advancements in innovation are key to high quality." I was saying that, when measuring a country's medical care, innovation done within that country is relatively meaningless if the innovation has no real impact on its' citizens.
but it does. you make it sound like no one has access to it. when in fact the majority do
but it does. you make it sound like no one has access to it. when in fact the majority do
See the second part of my answer. You seem to make it sound like 99 percent of the people in this country have health insurance, when in fact that is not the case. It's a minority that doesn't have health insurance in this country, but it's awfully sizable minority.
EDIT: Also, this doesn't address the possibility that insurance companies do not always approve the use of this "new" technology. Hell, my insurance company just rejected my need for a CT scan. Imagine how difficult it must be to finangle them for more expensive care? I'm not saying that you never get that treatment when you have health insurance, I'm just saying it's a bit more problematic than "if you have health insurance of any kind, you automatically have the best and brightest care in the world."
See the second part of my answer. You seem to make it sound like 99 percent of the people in this country have health insurance, when in fact that is not the case. It's a minority that doesn't have health insurance in this country, but it's awfully sizable minority.
no. as you can see in my previous post. its around 84% that have health insurance.
EDIT: Also, this doesn't address the possibility that insurance companies do not always approve the use of this "new" technology. Hell, my insurance company just rejected my need for a CT scan. Imagine how difficult it must be to finangle them for more expensive care? I'm not saying that you never get that treatment when you have health insurance, I'm just saying it's a bit more problematic than "if you have health insurance of any kind, you automatically have the best and brightest care in the world."
by no means am I saying the system is perfect. and who are you quoting? it certainly wasnt me.
in many cases, with health insurance, many do have access to the best, however. please dont generalize my statements.
EDIT: I also disagree with your either/or possibility that it must be 'excellent for some' or 'mediocre for all', simply because I do not believe that the only two options are a completely private health-care industry devoid of any regulation whatsoever, or a health-care system entirely run by the government. I don't think it should be that cut and dry. I think the goal should be to get everyone access to good care, and I see no reason why this is impossible. Also, when you say the 'majority of Americans have access to excellent care,' although you would be right in saying that the majority of Americans do have health insurance, the statistics are still not flattering. 47 million people have no health insurance. That's 1 in 6 Americans. And that says nothing about the quality of care that those with insurance do get.
My point is that I think it's a dangerous notion to view shopping for health insurance in the same manner as shopping for a new car. It's not the same thing and should not demand the same approach.
I'm open for any and all ideas in providing "good care" to all. but when you start to involve the government things can get sloppy very quickly.
so much red tape would be created. Trillions upon Trillions would be spent. and quality of care would decrease.
Comments
As to my language being so emotional, i dunno. I don't mean to over dramatize and i can't even see that's what i am doing. I'm just speaking from the heart you know. Maybe it's my line of work and the things i see and experience there. They are real and those things do happen. I'd pretty much do anything for anyone and i do always try to see the good in people. Even tossers. It's definitely got me a fair bit of negative feedback around here lately. I'm quite often being told not to take things personally or to take a chill pill lately.
um worst in terms of what? quality of care? we are actually the best on earth. you have to get to #24 before a non-US hospital is ranked.
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top1000.asp
1 University of Michigan Health System
2 University of Texas Medical Branch
3 NYU Medical Center
4 University of Kansas Medical Center
5 University of Virginia Health System
6 Johns Hopkins Medicine
7 Vanderbilt Medical Center
8 Massachusetts General Hospital
9 University of Rochester Medical Center
10 MD Anderson Cancer Center
11 University of Miami Hospital & Clinic
12 Texas Tech Health Sciences Center
13 University California Davis Health System
14 Columbia University Medical Center
15 University of Maryland Medical Center
16 University of Kentucky Academic Medical Center
17 University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
18 Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center
19 University of Arkansas Medical Center
20 University of Connecticut Health Center
21 University of Nebraska Medical Center
22 Children's Hospital Boston
23 Loma Linda University Adventist Health Sciences Center
24 Taipei Veterans General Hospital - Taiwan
broken, costly, and red tape? um can you imagine how much this would INCREASE if the government was actually in charge of Healthcare
I will agree that most Americans do what some form of government run Healthcare. ok great, just leave me out of it.
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html
naděje umírá poslední
thanks. thats an interesting read. but I cant find when it was written. do you know?
In 2000.
naděje umírá poslední
thats a long time ago.
It is. But I think it's more relevant that a ranking of hospitals you posted. Especially when we're talking about health care, and we are.
Just read what the ranking you posted is about:
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/about_rank.html
naděje umírá poslední
I dont think a report that is almost a decade old is very relevant. are you trying to argue that America doesnt have some of the best hospitals in the world?
oh. I'm having a hard time finding another source of rankings that show the US & World. would like to see one though.
No, I'm merely pointing out that your list is completely irrelevant. It's not about health care at all. Your link certainly doesn't prove that "it's the best in the world."
The most recent data by a credible or relevant source suggests otherwise.
Furthermore, the WHO research focused on different factors. A much better way of judging a country's quality of health care. Even if you actually had a real list that judges hospitals on the care they provide, it's still doesn't say much about the general health care in a country.
naděje umírá poslední
ok maybe so about my link. but the one you posted is no where near the "most recent and relevant" data.
I was merely replying to Commy's suggestion that our care is among the worst in developed countries.
I say that is complete bullshit. Our quality of care is among the best, not worst, in the world. whether or not everyone has equal access is not what I'm arguing.
I think if we're talking about world health care, the WHO is definitely one of the most relevant sources. The research they published in 2000 is the latest, they have not done a similar research since.
Feel free to find more recent data by a equally relevant source. I will gladly read whatever you have to post.
And I guess your final point is where we differ in perspective. I think when we judge a health care system, we should look at all the factors. The fact that the richest can get quality care and the rest gets screwed over doesn't mean you have the best health care in the world. It means a small percentage of your population has access to good health care.
naděje umírá poslední
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/nov/14/politics.medicineandhealth
It's from November, 2003.
edit: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=726492
2008
naděje umírá poslední
I agree the WHO is a great source but the data is not recent. I'd love to find more research on the subject but my google skills arent that great this morning.
I'm only talking in terms of quality of care. IMO, the US has some of the best doctors and medical technology in the world. is it the absolute best? maybe, maybe not. but its close.
I also feel if you let the government have complete control of it, the quality would plummet. everyone would surely have access to it, but in many cases, that care would be poor.
like it or not, profit is an excellent motivator when creating and innovating. and when something is socialized, profit is mostly taken out of the equation and would lead to bare minimum type care.
thanks.
another thing that needs to be taken into account is the size of a country. its much easier for a country like Sweden to take care of ALL its citizens. it has a population of merely one city in the US (NYC).
I posted an article from 2003 and a research from 2008.
In your opinion, indeed. Facts seem to tell a different story.
A lot of countries with socialised health care seem to be doing great, a lot better than the States according to most surveys and researches.
Again, this is not the case in a lot of countries with socialised health care.
naděje umírá poslední
I must say, you're the first person I've seen in a long time arguing for less regulation in regards to the health care industry. I'm not sure that's a tenable position, considering regulation is limited and what regulation is there is not adequately enforced much of the time. If you're looking for as little regulation as possible, then the current situation is your endgame. So before we go anywhere else, you have to be able to accept that your proposals will leave many unable to get medical treatment. If that's fine with you, then fine, we can move onto other parts of the argument. But you must admit that such a unfortunate reality goes hand in hand with your proposal.
Your problem is here is that you propose it's possible for health care to be both extremely profitable and extremely beneficial towards clients. The problems the insured and uninsured face in regards to the health care industry is the cost-cutting procedures; for example, people with pre-existing medical conditions can be turned away because it is deemed that they will be too costly to insure? This seems correct to you? Seems like a good business model? This is only one example of countless that has the health care industry turned upside down. Our Constitution orders, as one of its tenets, that the provision "of the general welfare" is obtained. You don't think, included in the general welfare of the nation's citizens, is the right to obtain competent medical treatment? What else are we talking about when we're talking about welfare if not health? It's how the word is defined.
You're caught in a catch-22, I feel, because you want the desired result without any action on the part of any government agency or legislation. You want lower prices, and you seem to argue that should we just get out of the way, the 'free market' will enhance competition, lower prices, and everyone will get the chance to have competent medical coverage. Well, luckily we have a real-life example of what happens when you let the free market be free in regards to health insurance; we have the present-day situation we find ourselves in. Regulation has been abysmally legislated and enforced and the statistics stand as; 47 million without health insurance. Over 9 million children without health insurance. Double that latter number if you include those children that have gaps in coverage during the year. (those numbers are from a study by the American Medical Association). Those numbers don't sound like free-market health insurance working to me.
from 08? where
what facts? it is undeniable that america has some of the best Doctors and medical technology in the world.
right, but like I said, the sheer size of countries have to be taken into account. the US has the 3 largest population in the world behind China and India.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/96860.php
A few posts ago, here's the link: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=726492
The 2000 WHO research, though old touches some issues that haven't changed much since. The problems pointed out in the report are generally not fixed.
There's the research (2003) by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine that again confirms that US health care certainly isn't the best in the world, nor is it close to being the best.
Then there's the 2008 survey by the Commonwealth Fund that says the same things, the US is not the leader in health care at all.
Yes, America has some of the best doctors and technologies. That doesn't say much about health care in general, though. It simply means that the US has some excellent doctors and technologies. A lot of Western countries have those too. It's about how the system in which they operate works. Is it available for the majority of the people, can they afford it, are they getting the care they need?
Fair enough, but I'm not sure what your point is.
naděje umírá poslední
That article doesn't say the quality of care is the best or close to the best in the US.
naděje umírá poslední
care to post them these reports? and the report you posted above sites chronically ill patients.
none of these reports suggest American does not have the best doctors, technology, and quality of care in the world. it only suggests some do not have adequate access to it. which is not what I'm arguing.
roughly 47 million americans, or 16%, do NOT have healthcare insurance. that means the 84% or over 250 million Americans have access to some of the greatest doctors and technology available in the world.
are you serious? sigh ok.
my point is that its nearly impossible to have a "free" socialized healthcare system for 300,000,000 people and expect it to provide a high level of quality care.
its much easier and practical for a country like Sweden to do that with only 9,000,000 people.
this goes back to my point that medical technology and advancements in innovation are key to high quality
Good medical treatment means people get treated adequately. I'm not up to date on the statistics, but what worth is the medical technology and advancements in innovation if hypothetically the health care industry does not enable the people who need that technology most to get it?
well what do you mean by "enabling" the people who need it?
that suggests giving it away for free? I'm not trying to say people who need the best care shouldnt get it. but in order to stay ahead of the curve in innovation, these companies need to have competition and see profits.
I'd love to see some type of government reform that defines certain criteria for providing care to someone who needs it.
the simplest way I can put it is this.
have the majority of Americans access to excellent care, while leaving some with little or no access.
or
give everyone access to very mediocre care.
this is not to mention the United States could not afford a socialized healthcare system. we already do that for just the elderly and we have $34 TRILLION in future obligated costs.
I meant, by that, people having access to that medical care. I was merely saying that you seem to be saying that "medical technology and advancements in innovation are key to high quality." I was saying that, when measuring a country's medical care, innovation done within that country is relatively meaningless if the innovation has no real impact on its' citizens.
EDIT: I also disagree with your either/or possibility that it must be 'excellent for some' or 'mediocre for all', simply because I do not believe that the only two options are a completely private health-care industry devoid of any regulation whatsoever, or a health-care system entirely run by the government. I don't think it should be that cut and dry. I think the goal should be to get everyone access to good care, and I see no reason why this is impossible. Also, when you say the 'majority of Americans have access to excellent care,' although you would be right in saying that the majority of Americans do have health insurance, the statistics are still not flattering. 47 million people have no health insurance. That's 1 in 6 Americans. And that says nothing about the quality of care that those with insurance do get.
My point is that I think it's a dangerous notion to view shopping for health insurance in the same manner as shopping for a new car. It's not the same thing and should not demand the same approach.
but it does. you make it sound like no one has access to it. when in fact the majority do
See the second part of my answer. You seem to make it sound like 99 percent of the people in this country have health insurance, when in fact that is not the case. It's a minority that doesn't have health insurance in this country, but it's awfully sizable minority.
EDIT: Also, this doesn't address the possibility that insurance companies do not always approve the use of this "new" technology. Hell, my insurance company just rejected my need for a CT scan. Imagine how difficult it must be to finangle them for more expensive care? I'm not saying that you never get that treatment when you have health insurance, I'm just saying it's a bit more problematic than "if you have health insurance of any kind, you automatically have the best and brightest care in the world."
no. as you can see in my previous post. its around 84% that have health insurance.
by no means am I saying the system is perfect. and who are you quoting? it certainly wasnt me.
in many cases, with health insurance, many do have access to the best, however. please dont generalize my statements.
I'm open for any and all ideas in providing "good care" to all. but when you start to involve the government things can get sloppy very quickly.
so much red tape would be created. Trillions upon Trillions would be spent. and quality of care would decrease.