The squirrel that gathers no nuts doesn't have the right to bear arms and have access to extremely cheap and lethal weaponry. Which is precisely why so many countries go the universal access route - it's cheaper than paying for the mess left behind by revolutions.
That depends on what is considered meaningful. The US does have a lot of hospitals that are subsidized by state and county governments that still provide health care for those that can't pay. Is it top notch premium care? No. Still they are not just left to suffer. This is not to say that everyone gets equal care nor is it implying that every possible reason to see a DR is available for everyone. Someone with no insurance is not likely to get any treatment considered as "elective" or "cosmetic" in nature. The question is should they? Should everyone have the right to get that mole removed from their back? A better question might be would ANYONE still have this ability under government care? Probably not. he government would probably stop all "elective" procedures if they are paying the bill. So the people that don't have it now still wouldn't and those that do have it now wouldn't. Also anyone who is seriously injured in the US will be taken to the nearest hospital (no matter if you can pay or not) and at least stabilized and then if they can't pay they will be moved to a subsidized facility for recovery. Other "non-necessary" health care (ex: dental work) while not directly provided or advertised can still be received cheaply or even free for the adventurous. I have heard of dental schools allowing the poor, elderly, etc to come in and receive either really cheap or free dental care from students near graduation. This allows people to get the services they need at more reasonable prices while giving students the practice they need. I still stick by my initial statements that the only thing that really needs to happen for health care is more Medicare for the elderly and disabled and more programs to help educate and find jobs for people that are willing to work and don't currently have jobs.
I agree with most of the posts by angrycat. As a doctor with plenty of international experience, I can safely say that the standard of medical care in US is by far the highest in the world. No other country comes close. This can be a proud fact for any US resident, but this is also probably the root cause for rising health costs. So the main problem of limited access to medical care arises. People want the best and latest treatments for them, including the right to sue a doctor if they don't get the tests and treatments they want, but don't like the price tags on such medical care. If the costs are to be brought down, then some compromises have to be made as to quality of care. And with the current Obama plan, the public healthcare plan would make this compromise. Of course people who want more expensive treatment options would still have the option to go with private plans. For the record, I am not a supporter of anybody, just making an observation.
I'm a doctor, so trust me. Right ? How about some evidence. If heath care is not being effectively delivered to a significant portion of the population, then any such claim looks very dodgy to say the least. Just sounds like yet another expression of "US exceptionalism".
While you are correct that the quality of care in the US is the best in the world for a country of any significant size, it is disappointing to see the perpetuation of the myth that cutting costs in our bloated healthcare system necessarily means cutting care and quality of that care, and by a physician no less. Just fixing the problem of defensive medicine, the cost of which in one mid volume community hospital ED I surveyed for 6 months ran in to the low hundreds of thousands of dollars (did not include the cost of malpractice premiums nor the cost of any litigation that may have been ongoing and was very conservative in ruling in tests and procedures that were done purely for liability protection with no medical justification, if tests done for marginal medical reasons but primarily for liability protection were included the figure would have been 4-6 times higher) we could expand minimal access to everyone without significantly increasing costs. If other cost cutting measures were put in place we would have no problem delivering the high quality of care those with good insurance currently receive to all. But hey, if you want to believe that there is no solution other than to deny older people care or force young people to essentially be taxed at a much higher rate than they need to be to get care then go right ahead, you are right where the politicians want you, divided, factionalized and polarized by your ignorance, and thus easy to control. Campaign finance reform 1st, then meaningful health care reform which in this country, with what we currently spend, means getting everyone an equally HIGH standard of care, vastly improving access and outcomes, and reducing the burden of health care on businesses.
That is what they are MISLEADING most people to believe. The truth is if you CURRENTLY have an insurance plan you can keep it BUT once the Obama plan is in place NO NEW PRIVATE POLICIES CAN BE WRITTEN!!! If you change jobs, and lose the plan you were on at your old company guess what your ONLY option is...The Obama plan. If you decide you need to change something in you policy such as adding a new child...you get moved to the Obama plan. This is designed to move everyone to a "single payer" (a new way to say socialized) health care system through attrition. Think I am lying? Watch as Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) POINT BLANK admits the Obama Health Care Plan will destroy the private insurance industry (April 18, 2009 at a rally for healthcare reform in Chicago): http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d9b_1241198916 Watch as Obama himself says (June 30, 2003 when running for the U.S. Senate) he is "a proponent of a single payer health care system" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE Since the above Video is a bit hard to hear, here is the transcript: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, is spending 14 percent, 14 percent, of its gross national product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And thatâs what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And thatâs what Iâd like to see. And as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, we have to take back the House." This is not made up guys, this is not some obscure news source falsifying stories. This is Obama and his supporters telling you themselves what is going on.
To all the people who advocate eliminating malpractice lawsuits, what do you say to family of a friend of mine who checked into his HMO and complained of a pain in his back. The doctor wanted to keep him overnight and prescribed an IV painkiller to be added to his fluid drip. First the doc wrote the scrip for 10X the standard dosage, and the nurse pushed it all at once instead of a little bit at a time. He died without ever waking up.
Fix the economy...and the health care problem fixes itself. There's one thing for certain -- Americans are going to have to do a lot more producing, and a lot less banking in the future. Health care is only a problem right now because the rest of the economy has collapsed under the weight of a completely unsustainable and innefficiently run banking sector.