You bring up a very good point that gets lost in the shuffle. A government funded health system will inherently seek to save money, just like any private insurance company. Worse yet, in a government funded system, there is no incentive to MAKE money, i.e., to innovate or, God forbid, order tests that, in hindsight, may be unnecessary. Are unnecessary tests a bad thing? Fiscally, yes, but would you rather have a system that errs on the side of caution towards the patient, or one that errs on the side of caution toward its balance sheet?
This Vancouver report demonstrates exactly why bureaucrats should be outlawed from administering healthcare. They can’t even prioritize spending cuts to protect the patients more in need than others.
It ain’t rocket science.
A gouvernment funded Health system will seek to save money... and on the other hand will waste a lot of money for too much unappropriate cares for libtard clients!
This is the liberal(fascist)mismanagement with political purposes
And yet, that's one of the arguments FOR government health care, that the government won't make cost cutting decisions like private insurance might. Those that really think that are deluding themselves.
With *free* healthcare, people are going to go for every little thing because they don't have to pay for it. As it is, there are plenty on welfare already who use the ER as their doctor's office and go there just because they have a sore throat or tooth ache in the middle of the night, instead of taking care of it during the day like other responsible, reasonable people (been there, seen that- for real)
I'm against government funded anything, but in the worst case scenario, if the government really felt that it had to help people without insurance, there are so many other better options than making a mandatory, restrictive, burdensome health care system like the one they're proposing.
FWIW, I've never had our insurance deny us coverage.