[HM2Viking]

I think that you are missing the point. Patients with comprehensive health insurance receive better care overall than those with high deductible/consumer directed health plans. PNHP specifically debunks the government bureaucrat argument that you are advancing:

<H3>Who will run the health care system?

There is a myth that, with national health insurance, the government will be making the medical decisions. But in a publicly-financed, universal health care system medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be. This is true even in the countries like the UK and Spain that have socialized medicine.
In a public system the public has a say in how it’s run. Cost containment measures are publicly managed at the state level by an elected and appointed body that represents the people of that state. This body decides on the benefit package, negotiates doctor fees and hospital budgets. It also is responsible for health planning and the distribution of expensive technology.
The benefit package people will receive will not be decided upon by the legislature, but by the appointed body that represents all state residents in consultation with medical experts in all fields of medicine.

Source: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...lthcare_system

In other words the health care system will move towards an evidence based model. The funny thing is that more tests do not always equal better medicine or better outcomes. Using an evidence based model will hopefully teach providers to use "what works" for patient care.</H3>

[HM2Viking]

This graph shows why comprehensive health insurance tends to lead to better outcomes. It is good public policy to reduce access inequities for health care especially for patients with chronic illnesses.

[HM2Viking]

Skipping medications for cost reasons yields false economy. Patients wait to seek care until they are sicker and end up being hospitalized.

[HM2Viking]

[HM2Viking]

[HM2Viking]

Capping drug benefits yields poorer control of chronic illnesses.

[HM2Viking]

Paying for health care earlier during chronic illness reduces longer term costs d/t hospitalization.

[HM2Viking]

Countries with UHC plans have better outcome measures and spend less.

[HM2Viking]

The desire for "choice" is overstated...

[pickledpepperRN]

Like many critical care nurses I've cared for many people who had symptoms but for financial reasons did not seek help.
Undiagnosed HTN, DM, and cancer symptoms.
60 year olds with GIB in the ER with no preventative care at all.

Too many die. It could have been prevented with a mammogram, colonosctomy, or someone taking vital signs.
One 50 something man said, "I didn't do the free blood pressure test at the farmers market because I didn't want to know." He claimed his kids came first and he didn't think he could afford going to the doctor and filling prescriptions. He is now a dialysis patient.

I am concerned that IF we somehow magically eliminated health insurance and made any government interference or assistance illegal ( eliminated Medicare too) that more people would choose not to avail themselved of health care.
Or like the man in the ER would refuse a test such as an EKG for financial reasons not religious or philosophical reasons.
Denial is more common than not in many illnesses.