What can you say?

What can you say to those "bleeding heart liberals" who throw the number of 47 million people in the US being uninsured at you? Especially when they add that 9 million of them are children and most of them are working families?

Well, first you can point out that the numbers are misleading. Of that 47 million, about 10 million aren't even citizens! Almost 18 million make more than $50,000/year; they can afford to have the insurance but they choose not to (more than half of 18 million make more than $75,000/yr.) It's not a money issue here. And 19 million are young people (between the ages of 18 and 34) who feel they don't need it right now. And finally almost half of 47 million are only temporarily uninsured, like for four months, because they're between jobs. Yes, those numbers and groups can overlap, but there is an exaggeration of lack of health insurance in the US. (I'm taking these numbers from "Next on the Statists' List: Health Care" by David Limbaugh, but I'd heard them before.)

Second, point out that lack of health insurance doesn't mean lack of coverage. The law requires emergency room care even when someone can't afford it.

Third, and most importantly, you can tell them government health care will do the opposite of what's intended. Government mandated health coverage will make people less likely to get health care. I know it sounds crazy, but it's a simple matter of economics.

Government control of medicine is price control. When the price is required by government fiat to be lower than the market dictates, you get more demand (more people taking advantage of the lower price) and less production. Fewer people will be encouraged to become doctors and nurses. So you end up with a shortage.

That's why the long waiting periods for care in Great Britain and Canada. Many people die while waiting for their treatment! That's why they need "advisory boards" to decide what medical treatments are not financially feasible. So they'll be weeding out the people who won't benefit enough from treatment (i.e., they're old anyway and will be dying soon) and weeding out the treatments that are too costly.

So the old man above will not receive much care in Obama-care. Too bad, huh?