His Excellency Aethien wrote:
It is not, and has never been, about making sure people don't die because of lack of health care.
About 10 seconds of googling gets me this Reuters article
from 2009 that states that roughly every 12 minutes a US citizen dies because of lack of healthcare. It may be exaggerated and you'll probably whine about how it doesn't count...
The article wrote:
The Harvard study, funded by a federal research grant, was published in the online edition of the American Journal of Public Health. It was released by Physicians for a National Health Program, which favors government-backed or "single-payer" health insurance.
Good bet it's exaggerated.
but even if it's massively exaggerated and the real number is only a quarter of what they estimate it is, it's still about people dying because of lack of healthcare.
Note that you used the correct term here, but the conclusions (in the article) don't. Health care
, is not synonymous with health insurance
. At the center of the issue is whether insurance is the best method to deliver the exact sort of regular treatment/care which this study looked at.
The article wrote:
Another factor is that there are fewer places for the uninsured to get good care. Public hospitals and clinics are shuttering or scaling back across the country in cities like New Orleans, Detroit and others, he said.
This is exactly the sort of thing folks like me have been predicting and arguing about as an effect of pushing our regular care under the insurance umbrella (not just public hospitals though). The argument is that because our government has pushed health care into a "comprehensive insurance coverage" model, it has priced regular care out of the range of the uninsured pocket books. It has destroyed the family doctor model, and the small private practice. This in turn forces doctors to work as part of hospitals and larger health care centers, with all the overhead and bureaucracy that entails, which in turn drives prices up more. And over time, only those being funded via overpriced insurance and expensive grants can keep their doors open.
You don't need to go to a health care center with a large number of the modern equivalent of the "machine that goes ping" in them to be diagnosed and treated for diabetes (and get a prescription). Yet, that is increasingly the only option, and it's increasingly expensive. Using insurance for comprehensive care is just plain the wrong approach. But it's an approach that the same folks arguing for universal health care have pushed us into "to move us in the direction of a universal health care system". One step leads to the other.
In the first case I'm all for the government protecting them from their stupidity and in the second case I think it's simply the government's duty to keep it's citizens safe and healthy.
I disagree with both of those ideas. In the first case, who gets to decide what is stupid? How about instead of the government making that determination for us, we allow the real world to do it naturally? Doesn't cost a penny either. Similarly, the degree to which a government is responsible for its citizens safety and health is directly proportional to the degree to which that government will impose authority over the choices and actions of its citizens on the grounds that it's fulfilling that responsibility.
Responsibility and authority come hand in hand. We cannot hold someone (or the government in this case) responsible for something they have no authority to control, so we should expect that government control must follow any degree of government responsibility. We should absolutely apply strict limits to what the government responsibility is, and thus its authority, else we give over our freedoms to the government.