If Medicare was extended to all, and 95% of the people arriving for care used it, well, if doctor A refused to see them, doctors B C and D would. Most of the rest of the industrialized world has single payer, you know, and study after study finds their costs are much lower than the US's, and their care is better.
No, it would be more like finding a needle in a haystack to find a doctor. Many would retire or stop seeing Medicare patients all together and you know it. Then there would be the months long waits for treatment, rejection of proceedures, etc. etc. Canadians come to the U.S. for better care. The U.K. is making major changes to their public heatlth care because it isn't working. Government needs to get out of the healthcare business and stay out.
Many would retire. More would replace them. Quote: source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism Somehow, I don't think Mexico has better health care than the US. But it is cheaper. So, Canadians come here to get their non-urgent stuff done without having to wait a long time, and we go to Mexico to get stuff done cheaper. In short, your little anecdotal nonsense proves what anecdotal nonsense always proves: nothing at all.
Yeah but Dr A might just know your name . Obamacare is just moving healthcare towards the fastfood drivethru model. Which works fine until it doesn't.
First, you have terrible comprehension skills. I'm stating a fact about money being taken from one socialist plan to another so the Demosluts could call it deficit neutral. It seems you get really defensive when you don't have the answers to the truth. Why don't you create a few more of your lies to support your moronic views of the world. You liberal idiots really don't have a clue what you are talking about. You are really just too stupid to continue this discussion any further.
The US does not have the best health care in the world. We have the most expensive health care system.
Depends what you mean by "best". People with money come from all over the world for treatment in the US, you know.
Maybe we apply the principles of mass production to health care and they don't quite work out very cost effective. We develope a new procedure or test, which may be quite expensive, then in order to reduce costs, we need to use the economies of scale, more tests, lower cost per test but the problem ends up with many on whom the test is performed do not pay for it or have insurance etc. So although the intial cost of test has gone down the number of tests go up (to reduce price) yet many aren't paying for the tests. The end result is no different than where we started with an expensive procedure or test in terms dollars spent. yes more people are treated, the good result, the economics defy solution.