Originally Posted by itsme123
The basic idea of government healthcare is that everyone is covered regardless of their financial situation or whether they have taken out health insurance.
This thread is obviously going to be terrible, but for some reason I can't resist. The way that you have laid things out is such a gross oversimplification.
The first problem is that there is nothing "basic" about this idea at all. What do you mean everyone is "covered"? What people generally want is essentially all of the most cutting edge health care exactly when they need it. In a world of finite resources, this is impossible. Sure, there are going to be things everyone agrees on, like treating most heart conditions, strokes, etc. But there is a lot of stuff that is gray:
Would you cover bariatric surgery for overweight people? How about things like abdominoplasties after the weight is lost?
Would you cover viagra? Ok, say you would. How much viagra can someone get?
Would you cover psychiatric care for someone with a personality disorder?
Let's say one of the guys in Jackass knowingly does something stupid and injures himself, would you cover that?
Would you cover treatments for acne?
What about expensive experimental treatments for which no known alternatives exist?
The list of stuff like this goes on forever. Even if you could get some enlightened group to go through every possible medical intervention and decide which ones are "cost-effective" in terms of longevity or quality of life improvements, you would still run into a ton of problems. Of course getting past this step is very difficult.
Governments with universal health care try admirably to do this, but despite their best attempts there will be some person with condition X that needs treatment Y. The government won't pay for it, so the person tells you they are "not covered".