The right to life does not stop at birth

On July 6, 2009, Badtux the Snarky Penguin wrote a short article titled "The right to life does not stop at birth." The article is about Eric De La Cruz who died because he needed a heart transplant.

And while the article is very good and I encourage you to read it, I found Badtux's answer to 1 of the most common misunderstandings about how our country's and other countries' health care systems work to be outstanding.

So rather than re-post the article I'm posting 1 of the comments where the misconception that " government healthcare has more exclusions and limitations than private insurance" is cited as a good reason for not having a universal health care system in America. Below the comment you can read the response left by Badtux where he refutes this arguement with solid facts.

The Comment:

"I don't understand why you advocate government run healthcare when you simultanously evoke the memory of Eric De La Cruz? I hope you realize that entities like Britain's NHS and Canada's Single-payer system are known to deny procedures that private insurance carriers commonly approve. In other words, government healthcare has more exclusions and limitations than private insurance.

Additionally, in a single payer system, you cant turn anywhere else after a denial. At least in a private healthcare industry there is redundancy and overlap, which reduces the amount of people who "fall through the cracks."

My concern is that you equate government run healthcare with GUARANTEED healthcare, and this is sadly not the case. Not by a longshot. When nations collectivize food production, people get hungier, not fatter. When nations collectivize transportation, more people have to walk or bike to work. When nations collectivize housing, more people end up homeless. And when nations collectivize healthcare, more people will die of medical conditions."

Badtux's Reply:

"Eric would have gotten his heart transplant under the Canadian system. The Canadian system does *not* ration healthcare. There are waiting lists for voluntary procedures, but critical procedures are done immediately -- indeed, 50% of ALL procedures are done immediately. See BC health service website for example of the reality.

Eric would have also gotten his heart transplant under Medicare For All. Heart transplants are covered by Medicare. So once again he would have been saved by Medicare For All.

My preferred system is the French system, which is roughly Medicare For All plus Medigap. That is, Medicare covers all critical/expensive procedures, and you can buy Medigap to cover anything not covered by Medicare. This both gives you health care choices and assures that there are no more Erics. And they do this WHILE providing all the same advanced treatments as the US system, for 40% LESS MONEY!

As for the British, nobody proposes the British system for America. In the British system, all doctors are salaried employees of the state, and all hospitals are owned by the state, and private insurance is illegal. It is cheap -- 1/3rd the cost of the U.S. health care system -- but that is all that can be said for it.

As for your assertion that government-run healthcare will impoverish the people and result in more deaths, that has not happened in any of the other 19 OECD states that have adopted universal healthcare systems. Indeed, they pay much less of their GDP in healthcare costs -- see the OECD statistics. I fail to see how paying less for health care can IMPOVERISH a people. It just makes no sense.

- Badtux the "Facts are facts" Penguin"

I applaud Badtux for his great article and his even better response.

Susan