If universal-healthcare, or as I'd like to say, socialize-medicine is better than the private-sector, then why is it that we don't hear about any deaths under it?
People like to keep saying that a bunch of americans are unasured, but we never hear any deaths solely because of that. They must be able to get the care somehow.
Can someone tell me of any specific cases in which people have dies, like names and stories and such?
Hillary Clinton was interviewing a guy in New York who said someone died or something because she couldn't pay the care. But it turns out he was misleading and they immediately dismissed the story.
Michael Moore pointed out that a girl was denied care and eventually died. But the hsopital she went at was a NON-PROFIT(paid by the government) organization, which is similar to socialized.
They are reports of people who ARE DENIED care in Britain because the government is determining who gets it.
This was an article from a site, "When 89-year-old Jack Tagg began losing his vision, Britain's National Health Service told him he would have to go blind in one eye before it would pay for treatment. In a public campaign, the World War II pilot took on the government — and won."
And there was another case born-Canadanian U.S.-citizen who's a critic of socialize-care but had a mom who was denied certain treatment because she was too old.
And more cases.
So, could anyone tell me of certain cases and names and stories of people who died because they didn't have insurance for private-healthcare?
link to some stories: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91971293
Just checking blood pressure, and taking blood pressure medicine (which is generic and cheap), would save a ton of money. Can we at least agree on offering free blood pressure tests, and handing out free blood pressure medicine? (Strokes are hideously expensive to treat.) Indeed, how about free blood tests too, so folks can know that their glucose count is high enough to let them know they are on the road to diabetes, and an unhealthy late middle age and on, assuming they don't assume room temperature in their 40's like my cousin did. The amount of money saved in controlling glucose levels itself would be staggering.
Can we agree on that?
There is something to be said on trying to get all sides of the ideological wars to agree on some things, that at least save a lot of money for those who don't like government subsidies to the impecunious as an
a priori assumption. Sometimes living in an ideological strait jacket (ya notice I am loading the dice there because I can), is that it leaves one susceptible to shooting oneself in the foot, when it comes to the end result. That is why, in my view, there are some "smart" libertarians, who know when to tack to avoid de-masting, and then there are the "dumb" ones, who don't.
One of the "joys" of getting old, is one learns so much more about medical issues.
You know, come to think of it, without preventative medicine, and some changes in my life style, I might well have bit the dust by now, and the planet "deprived" of my "valuable" presence
), or at least I would have a highly degraded (and probably irreversible) quality of life. It is pretty sobering to think about. Which brings me to another topic. I have lost about 50 pounds, and voila, my skin disease (also very expensive to treat) has become far less virulent. I just learned that being overweight is a substantial exacerbatory factor, from a dermatologist researcher at UC Irvine, who told me that. No dermatologist had told me that before. Damn, just damn.
