On The Constitutionality Of A New Health-Care System

Hayden Frost   What a lot of people don't realize is that one insurance company provides coverage for treatments X, Y, and Z for $200/mo, but not Q, P, and O. The next company covers X, Y, Z, and also Q for $250/mo, but also leaves off P and O. If you want P and O, you'll have to go to a private doctor and pay cash. It's laughable to think that the government is going to magically be able to provide coverage for Q, P, O, and X, Y, and Z for $200/mo or even $250/mo. And when the government denies you coverage, good luck suing through government immunity. When people talk about government healthcare in other countries, they never mention the fact that when the government denies a procedure (and there are many), you're still back to paying for it in cash.

Then consider the load ratios. Compare medicine to the legal field, where amlaw firms will have case to attorney ratios of 1:5 or even 1:20, while public defender offices will have case to attorney ratios of 60:1 or even 100:1. We all know the reputation PDs have, and how much people bitch when they can't afford a private attorney. How does anyone expect it to be different in the medical field? When the government starts paying ridiculously crappy rates, what doctors are going to risk the malpractice lawsuits? In certain areas of the country, doctors in droves are either moving to concierge service or dumping their practices altogether to develop patents on medical devices.

This doesn't even address the problem of merely providing X, Y, and Z for $200/mo to Peter paid for by Paul's tax dollars. The nonpartisan trustee's report on social security and medicare says that these two programs alone (providing only for the old and those incapable of working) are so financially dismal that the programs will start collapsing around 2012, and completely consume every cent of our taxes by 2080. The finances are ridiculously impracticable.   6.22.09 @2:18PM