Benefits of non rationed health care

Scott Atlas:

Regardless of the facts, most of the media seem to focus on one aspect of the proposed health care legislation - cost - as if it is a given that the Democratic reforms are desirable, except for the quandary of how to pay for them. Heart-warming stories from Europe about in-home visits to assist with healthy newborn babies receive the spotlight, while restricted access through family practice gatekeepers is stated as a goal. The media then pose questions like "how can we achieve such great care?" - as if the only dilemma is how to pay for it.

Inexplicably, the facts published in the world's top medical journals about our system continue to be ignored:

c Americans have the best survival rates from cancer and most serious diseases, and the most rapid decline in breast and prostate cancer deaths despite being hindered with severe obesity and the largest burden of smokers over 50 of any Western nation.

c Americans have the most successful, most available treatment for chronic diseases like high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

c Americans have the shortest wait times for life-changing surgeries, like cataract and hip replacements, that may not increase survival but greatly impact quality of life.

c Americans have the best access to the newest, most effective drugs.

c Americans have the quickest access to the safest, most advanced medical technologies.

c Americans have the easiest access to specialty doctors, doctors of their choice, doctors who lead the world in health care innovation, regardless of what metrics are assessed.

Instead of solely considering costs, shouldn't we ask if Americans are willing to die sooner from cancer, to give up access to specialists, to be refused safer, more accurate diagnostic imaging, to lose the most accessible screening programs, and to lose their autonomy in pursuing treatments for their families? Shouldn't we ask if Americans want to replace the most advanced and successful medical care in history with the restricted care and lower cost social programs of Europe, and insure the less than 5 percent of people who don't buy insurance but receive care anyway?

...

This is a view of American health care you will not find in a Paul Krugman column. Krugman is more likely to dismiss the poor quality of care in the rationed health care systems and dismiss the advantages of our current system. What the Democrats are now proposing will drive up the cost of health care for those who already have coverage and encourage those without coverage to wait until they are sick to apply for coverage. When you add rationing to the disadvantages of the Democrat program there is no need for this legislation unless you are a control freak Democrat.