How many would be destitute if we did not have socialized healtchcare since 1960?

Toronado3800

Gold Member
Nov 15, 2009
7,608
560
140
To understand the question you have to understand what happened when folks used to show up at the hospital with a serious problem and without money since 1960. They got treated and someone else paid.

If they could do ANY level or paperwork they can even get chemotherapy essentially paid for by you and me. Heck, if they were honestly special and could not do any paperwork the socialist Country of Eisenhower and all the Presidents since still treated them.

So, lets say we had an honest capitalistic system where if folks showed up at the hospital with a gunshot wound, heart attack or cancer and no insurance or assets they were shown the door.

How do we calculate the effect?

Certainly there would be the half dead on the street corners instead of in nursing homes paid for by you and me, but how many?

How many would be dragging their families down the tubes trying to care for them?

Life expectancy would be shorter but how much?

Any links or good reading?

Any good examples in the world of an industrialized nation with healthcare technology equal to us in the 60's or newer and a true capitalist system? Russia perhaps? What happens there if I had a gall bladder problem and no insurance?
 
Last edited:
Bump.

There are studies on this folks who are passionate about healthcare know about?
 
A tough question perhaps.

I will leave it blank and start a new thread in the hope someone will come by that has studied this issue.
 
Actually, EMTALA does not actually "treat" severe problems. People are stabilized and sent home with instructions to "see their own doctor" for the rest of their treatment.

In the case of childbirth (and abortion to save the woman's life) and including illegals, they are admitted for a hospital delivery at the tax payer's and hospital's expense. In the case of any other life threatening illness or trauma, they are admitted and treated at the taxpayer's and hospital's expense.

Its a very hit and miss and VERY expensive non-answer.
 
Certainly there would be the half dead on the street corners ...

Well, if you say so...

Tell us, why were there not dead people in the streets prior to Medicare/Medicade? Somehow, charity and local community organizing managed to care for those that had no insurance. Or did I just miss all those dead bodies?

Your central planners have not done a superior job of anything compared to what free people acting voluntarily can do for themselves and their neighbors. Did you ever wonder why if your ideas are so damn good, how come they must they be compulsory...enforced with the threat of incarceration?
 
Over 26,000 annual deaths for uninsured: report | Reuters

(Reuters) - More than 26,000 working-age adults die prematurely in the United States each year because they lack health insurance, according to a study published ahead of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling on President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law.

The study, released on Wednesday by the consumer advocacy group Families USA, estimates that a record high of 26,100 people aged 25 to 64 died for lack of health coverage in 2010, up from 20,350 in 2005 and 18,000 in 2000.

That makes for a rate of about 72 deaths per day, or three per hour.
 
Over 26,000 annual deaths for uninsured: report | Reuters

(Reuters) - More than 26,000 working-age adults die prematurely in the United States each year because they lack health insurance, according to a study published ahead of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling on President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law.

The study, released on Wednesday by the consumer advocacy group Families USA, estimates that a record high of 26,100 people aged 25 to 64 died for lack of health coverage in 2010, up from 20,350 in 2005 and 18,000 in 2000.

That makes for a rate of about 72 deaths per day, or three per hour.

Holly molly! You mean Families USA, an organization "dedicated to the achievement of high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans" said this?

Color me shocked...

But lets for a moment assume they're correct. What your saying is that after 100 years of progressive creep, 45 years of outright market meddling and massive redistribution, you still haven't fixed the problem.

Color me shocked...again.

You've actually made my point. If people are REALLY dying because they don't have health insurance, you can blame your very own nanny state central planners for fucking with the health insurance markets. It's the meddlers that require insurers to cover everything under the sun, which causes rates to rise dramatically. It's the meddlers that determine who is and who is not able to practice medicine and create new drugs and procedures, which not only raises the price of medicine, it suppresses innovation. It's the meddlers that imposed onerous taxes on the people, suppressing charitable donations to organizations that had no problem caring for the poor before the feds began screwing with markets.

But as we all know, your answer to the problems caused by central planning is more central planning.

:cuckoo:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top