re: #59 martinsmithy

In every study I’ve heard about, every other developed nation in the world has a health care system that beats ours in accessibility, cost, and quality for all areas of medicine with the notable exception of unusual or cutting-edge medical treatments.

I’ve seen a few such studies. And I’ve heard from plenty of patients who waited for a year or more in a country with nationalized health care to get access to a medical test, or a doctor visit, or a surgical procedure that they could have had almost immediately in the United States. Many of the ones who can afford it come to the U.S. to get treatment they can’t get elsewhere.

Personally, I don’t think a person should die or be chronically ill because he or she cannot afford health care.

I agree. I also don’t think a person should die or be chronically ill because a government agency or HMO has decided that it would rather pay its own salaries than spend that money on providing health care.

I don’t like the idea of my hospital and other medical bills being needlessly inflated to pay for the emergency room visits that the uninsured make because they don’t have access to any other health care.

I agree.

And one thought for everyone - doesn’t our current employer-based health care system put a huge cost burden on our nation’s employers - a burden that prevents them from creating more jobs? If health insurance became a joint responsibility of individuals and government, this burden would be lifted. Would GM still be going bankrupt if it didn’t have the huge burden of “legacy costs” to pay for the health insurance of its retirees?

Good point. But would GM have gone bankrupt sooner if their corporate taxes had been raised because they had to pay for a large new Washington bureaucracy full of government employees who consume health care dollars, yet do not see patients, or render care in any other way?