U.K.'s Healthcare Horror Stories Ought To Curb Dems' Enthusiasm For Single-Payer

When I call 911 I get a government provided EMT aid car within an average of about 7 minutes.

That has nothing to do with private enterprise. It's done as part of the fire department.

You want to claim private enterprise is a good thing, but private enterprise means that only those who can pay their own way get service other than for dire emergencies - and then only until you are no longer emergent.

Besides the fact that pumpkin picking bad examples is NOT a method of analysis, your whole idea of looking at ambulance trips to the ER is nonsense.

 

Without wishing to sound condescending in any way that's a very insightful response. I agree with you its a simple task to take an extreme example and then over dramatise it as being the norm; the interesting part is distinguishing someones indoctrination from the reality.

 

This is beginning to get really absurd. You started a thread about the NHS, so, for some reason you seem to be interested in it.
Now you accuse people who reply to your ideology driven rhetoric, people who - unlike you - actually live in the UK and have first hand expertise, that they care how the US administers health care? It seems you really haven't understood how this works. People don't care how you administer the system in the US, they reply to what you've said before. If you can't handle those replies, then don't start a thread about another country's health care system. Very simple. When you use another country as your idelogical battleground, you should be aware that people from said country will reply to your one-sided political rhetoric.

 

Two points you are missing here.
1: It is possible Medicare is better at catching fraud which is why more fraud is found per person.
2: Medicare patients are very old and tend to needs healthcare services disproportionately more than the general population. Since they are using the system more, there will be more fraud per person.

 

So much BS.

https://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/

There are two separate but not equal systems. If your in Medicaid (MediCal in Calif), you have to be seen specific doctors and facilities. Most likely not the ones you'd like go to. I think that's what rubs them the wrong way. Why should WE get excellent service quickly when we work for our health insurance and they have to wait because they don't work for theirs but want the same service. Universal Health Care gives crappier health care to folks that work hard for better care now, and more expedient care for those that don't or won't work for theirs. It's typical class envy, they want what you have without working for it.

 

There are just too many examples.

 

Go back and re-read my post. Medicare catches only about 6% of the fraud.

 

How do we know how much uncaught fraud there is if we haven't caught it yet? Also, how do you know uncaught private fraud isn't rampant as well?

 

Medicare for all means the end of medicaid.

You have no evidence at all that the care would be worse. And, in all other countries the per capita expenditure on healthcare is far less than it is in the US.

Beyond that, Medicare for all does NOT mean that those with wealth could buy insurance or pay out of pocket for feature not covered. Even with Medicare, that is available right now.

 

That's only ONE of the reasons that quoting examples is poor analysis.

 

Around here at least, no "health center" is more than a clinic.

And, who says the "sliding scale" for ability to pay is the answer? At best, it's laying off the charges for one patient onto some other patient.