This is rich:
The argument being made by the right wing depressives is that universal heatlh coverage, such as those underway in Massachusetts, possible California and other states, will be a disaster for the country. John Stossel, an entertainer masquerading as a reporter for ABC, made this comment recently:
With a rational government policy, people would save money for routine medical care and buy insurance for solvency-threatening illness. After all, we don’t buy auto insurance to pay for oil changes and worn-out windshield-wiper blades. But today, people expect medical insurance to cover routine physical exams because someone else seems to pay the premiums.
An oil change. An oil change which costs, what, $25? Compare that to an office visit which will cost upwards of $200 or more. Plus any lab or diagnostic tests. My wife and I have, and have had, employer health insurance throughout most of our married life. Except when we were covered by an HMO, preventive visits and services were decidedly not covered.
OK – so let’s say preventive visits are covered. Isn’t the idea that by screening and catching problems early on, it will be less expensive to treat, AND reduce morbidity and mortality? But that doesn’t reduce the cost of health care for the employer, which is what Stossel and his ilk are really talking about. They are not talking about anyone’s health and well being except their own pocketbook.
Some 46 million uninsured, and the only western nation without universal health financing. Hmm.