[FLOMOUSLY]

[q=Kidicious;5663578]Straybow posted: "The only scarcity is in places like Canada and UK."

See Lori's post in the first thread. Scarcity for health care exists in every nation. Health care is one of the most important services produced. The problem is that resources are often diverted to less important areas of the economy.[/q] I did. What that site didn't address is the scarcity of assigned resources. For example, how many MRI or CAT machines per 100k population, or how funding for other laboratory analysis facilities per 100k population. See also Steyn's example of the British friend whose doctor was not allowed by policy to run routine tests that would easily have detected gout, and instead this poor woman suffered for nearly a decade with the pain.

"The rising cost of health care isn't a problem."

1) People are struggling to pay their bills.
2) Many people can't afford insurance.
3) People forgo recommended care.
4) Less employers offer health care benefits as the cost increases.
5) The federal and state governments have strained budgets due to healthcare costs.

You can't be serious dude. We have a 19% death rate for prostate cancer, while UK has a 57% death rate and Canada a 35% death rate. We are getting what we pay for, and if someone you love died on a waiting list in CA or UK, or you were waiting on such a list yourself and facing the likelihood of death before your number were called, you'd agree. You'd have a point if we weren't getting measurably better results in many areas, and anecdotally better results like Steyn's friend.

Whether or not people can "afford" insurance is a matter of perspective. Many people don't understand the economics of insurance and think they should only pay out as much as the routine medical attention they receive, but that isn't the purpose of insurance. That's exactly how the Dems are trying to sell this crap, by preying on those who are ignorant of the economics.

As for employers providing insurance, my employer had to drop insurance. Instead he offers to cover a portion of premiums and co-payments on whatever policy we can get for ourselves. I'm paying $200/mo out of pocket to be on my wife's insurance. I don't do so because I expect to have $2400 in medical exams and tests this year.

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait 'til it's free from the government!"

"The costs rise because we're getting better diagnostics and treatments over time."

That's only a small part of the reason. But the increased cost of those treatments must be justified by both the benefit of them and the implications for the whole health care system and the economy. It's not enough to just say costs have increased because health care is now better than it was before. Yes, it is.

If you want to forego the latest and greatest healthcare, you can. Just sign up for a cheap insurance policy that doesn't cover that kind of stuff, and shut your piehole when you don't get effective treatment.

If you want government to improve medicine and treat everything on somebody else's tab, you're in for a rude awakening when your diagnosis comes years down the road. "We'd have been able to treat you back in the day, but now everyone wants to save the taxpayers expenses. We don't have enough XYZ to do that now. You're on a waiting list, hope you live that long."

"More hospitals with MRI and CAT machines."

Again. Sure that's better because a patient doesn't have to travel as far to get to one of these machines, but does the increased cost justify this? And can we as a society afford these costs. No, the limited number of machines means that they can't do all the tests really needed to care for the patients. Patients in the UK or Canada are simply denied the test if they fall outside the group judged to benefit the most from their artificially scarce resources. That those who are given the tests may have to travel to another hospital is not so big a deal, if that resource were sufficiently funded that it was more widely available. But it isn't, and even those who get the tests have waiting lists of months or years.

Again, if that's what you want, you can buy an insurance plan that doesn't cover those kinds of tests. Just don't complain when you don't get what you aren't paying for.

"More effective drugs."

Indeed. The inflation rate for prescription drugs far exceeds the general inflation rate. Same point does the benefit exceed the cost. Once again, anyone can opt to make do with older drugs that are less effective but less costly.

Note also, anyone who has financial difficulty paying for drugs can apply and receive drugs steeply discounted from almost any manufacturer in the US.

"The most serious obstacle to availability in this country is the enormous tort insurance burden placed on doctors and hospitals, which none of the Dems are addressing."
Source? Try KH's source: "Mr Baker calculates that this means an average annual premium (in 2003) of around $12,000 per doctor"

I dunno about you, but if my employer had to pay $12k per year for professional liability for my work, I'd be out of a job. He'd be out of a job, too.