Please help me respond to this Republican health care argument

I got this email and I am not sure how to respond?

I would like to get your input/thoughts on this counterpoint to what happens when 40 million more people are getting serviced from the health care system. One of my friends argued that the health care industry does not have the supply to handle 40 million more patients, so if supply stays the same, and won't catch up to demand for some time due to the high cost of more equipment, more physicians, etc, then the price will rise sharply because of the huge increase in demand.

Let the 40 million eat Advil.

-90% jimmy

doctors and medical facilities such as ER. They wouldn't be "new" users of the system, just that they wouldn't be paying out of pocket. Not only that, it's unconscionable to even consider that they shouldn't be covered because "the health care industy doesn't have the supply". If it doesn't it's about time they geared up and make do until they are up to speed.

Those uninsured are using the health care system now; they're just either stiffing it (for which uncompensated service we're all paying) or they're being bankrupted by it (and which, once again, we're paying for in some form or another).

However, once people know that going to see a doctor won't cause them to lose their house, it's possible that they will have regular visits with a medical professional, get early diagnoses of any potential problems, and head off that very expensive heart attack or stroke before it happens. If just a few people a year do that, the savings to the system would be enormous.

People who are sick are going for care now, although there may be an increase in the future in people seeing doctors earlier who would otherwise be waiting until they are much sicker and then seeking out the ER.

There may actually be less need for ER doctors, who can then transfer to general practice or where otherwise needed. People will catch problems earlier, not be as sick (nor sick for as long), and money will be saved.

the USA spends too much on healthcare as it is. look at this:-
http://www2.tricities.com/tri/news/opinion/editorials/article/how_to_stop_wasting_billions_of_health_care_dollars_each_year/30664/

They're assuming that all 40 million people will rush in for medical care whether they need it or not.

That's silly.

As it stands, they're getting care, but they're not getting the early care that would save physician work hours and money. They're coming in a lot sicker, requiring more care, and costing the system much more when timely care could have saved the system all of it.

Right wingers are flailing around right now, desperately searching for reasons to support the totally unacceptable system their party has allowed to develop.

This is one of the sillier reasons.

Those 40 million uninsured don't lack healthcare, they lack insurance. Wen things get bad enough, they show up in the emergency room and costs are MUCH higher in the ER. Preventative care and universal coverage actually LOWERS costs and covers everyone on what we save in unneeded ER visits alone. Ted Kennedy made this point repeatedly. We pay more than DOUBLE what the rest of the world does for healthcare already. The resources and capacity are there.

Good graph here:

http://wolafen.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/life-expectancy-versus-health-care-cost-per-capita/

I guess it is cheaper to allow them to go to ER and get us to foot the bill...

I guess it is cheaper to let them go to the ER, be given the bill, and forced into bankruptcy...

I guess it is cheaper to allow their children to get sick and pass those illnesses to yours because they can not afford to take them to a doctor. (Schools are plague factories, don't you know.)

I guess it is cheaper to allow 700,000 people a year to go bankrupt due to medical bills... (60% of those have health care insurance and go bankrupt anyway.

I guess it is cheaper to force American businesses to pay for health care for their workers, and suffer when the compete against companies in country that have a real health care system..

It is much much cheaper to refuse to give health care to a woman that allows her husband or her boyfriend to beat her half to death...to deny health coverage to a woman who forgot to say she had acne as a teenager...to deny health coverage to a man who was expsed to asbestos...to cut health care off to a faimly whose child is found to have type I diabetes or cancer...



Damn, they have a point...


The question is not about cost, it is about right and wrong. It is about what we are as a nation.

doesn't mean they haven't been using the system. Some have and haven't been paying. Some, like me, have been paying out of pocket for what I can afford to have done. The bottom line is, no one should die for lack of medical care in the United States of America. Some won't understand this until their insurance is dropped and they're diagnosed with a treatable cancer.