Must read info in the continuing health care fiasco

The following article details myths, and then the facts to myth bust.
I posted a sampling below, but please, if you are concerned about this, if you have participated in the debate, please take the time to read this piece by Elizabeth MacDonald. Everything in italics below are included within the article. The text in black represents my own comments.

Health-Care Myths

Myth: “The cost of uncompensated care for the uninsured significantly increases hospital costs.”

Hospitals provided about $35 bn in uncompensated care in 2008, the CBO says. Uncompensated care represented only 5% of total hospital revenues. In addition, half of the $35 bn in uncompensated hospital costs were offset by Medicare and Medicaid.
And the cost of uncompensated care for the uninsured is “unlikely to have a substantial effect on private payment rates,” the CBO says, adding that shifting costs from uninsured to private insurance premiums is “likely to be relatively small.”
source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 2008,

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf

This myth is crucial because this is one of the top talking points proponents of Nationalized Care will cite to support their socialist agenda. Contrary to popular belief, hospitals do not turn people away from the emergency room. While chronic afflictions understandably may not be covered as thoroughly for the uninsured, immediate assistance for acute problems are delivered. The education of the public on healthcare is nothing short of abysmal, however it can probably be said that many understand that treatment can be acquired upon visits to the emergency room, regardless of ones ability to pay. So in response to this many liberals will follow up this debunking of the "limited access to care" response with "The costs of covering the uninsured makes everything more expensive for everyone". While undoubtedly there is truth to this, this piece, sourced to a government document, suggests that it is largely overstated.

Myth: “Nationalized health care would not impact patient waiting times.”
Waiting time for elective surgery is lower in the US than in countries with nationalized health care.
In 2005, only 8% of U.S. patients reported waiting four months or more for elective surgery.
Countries with nationalized health care had higher percentages with waiting times of four months or more, including Australia (19%); New Zealand (20%); Canada (33%); and the United Kingdom (41%).

Source: Commonwealth Fund, "MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL: AN INTERNATIONAL UPDATE ON THE COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF AMERICAN HEALTH CARE," by Karen Davis, Cathy Schoen, Stephen C. Schoenbaum, Michelle M. Doty, Alyssa L. Holmgren, Jennifer L. Kriss, and Katherine K. Shea, May 2007,

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2007/May/Mirror%20%20Mirror%20on%20the%20Wall%20%20An%20International%20Update%20on%20the%20Comparative%20Performance%20of%20American%20Healt/1027_Davis_mirror_mirror_international_update_final%20pdf.pdf

Nationalized healthcare means poorer quality of care, poorer access to care, at ironically greater cost to everyone due to long term economic ramifications which will result after the installment of such a system.

Myth: “Insurers cover less today than they did in the past.”
No they’re covering more costs. According to the CBO, consumers paid for 33 % of their total, personal health care expenditures in 1975. But by 2000, consumers’ personal share had fallen to 17%, and it declined to 15% in 2006.
Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008,
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf

There is a bit of a catch-22 to healthcare costs. As new and improved treatments are developed that improve the quality of life for people, it becomes an anticipated necessity for many. Developing medicine, and providing treatment that once was not covered costs money. 15 years ago many providers were still debating whether or not birth control medication should be covered, and I think it should be. But today we have progressed from this to a point where items such as Viagra are being covered. I don't want to get into the debate of whether or not the latter is a necessity. And further more, regardless of whether the treatment represents an issue of quality of life or necessity, medicine is extraordinarily expensive to develop. Pharmaceutical companies use specialized equipment that has very limited production which creates very high costs. You can't take that out of the equation, if you do, you risk stifling or ending medical advancement. Fighting off death costs big bucks, and someone has to pay for it.

One of the primary problems is the egalitarian nature of people. We have been told too long that everyone is special, that we all deserve a chance. What "a chance" means has changed from "the right to compete- the right for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness", per say..... to I deserve help putting food on the table, to I deserve money for my retirement, to I deserve this... I deserve that." The problems in healthcare as well as in social security, medicare, housing, etc., all can be sourced to the notion that we all have the right to have things without necessarily taking proactive efforts to acquire it. We, as a society, take for granted our lives and expect a certain level of comfort, without taking the strategic measures and cautious outlook on life that we need to. Despite what politicians say the only person who can look out for you, is you. Giving big brother the ability to do it for you will make it tougher for you to make sure it gets done right. After all, politicians at the end of the day, know that the only person looking out for them, is themselves.

As medicine expands further into areas that are less about curtailing death and more about improving quality of life, the cost to everyone will go up. Perhaps a fragment of a solution would be offering a standardized base health insurance that seeks only to cover the absolute necessities for people who have fallen on hard times, or for those who just want to save money. The trouble is when a better option exists everyone thinks it is their "right" to have it.

Just because my neighbor has a bigger house doesn't mean I should. Just because someone has a plasma screen TV or an LCD doesn't mean I need one. Just because some people can spend a lot on their hair... doesn't mean everyone should get a government subsidized trip to the salon... even though most will admit that looking good can improve your mental well being and by relation, your health.