Shouldn't a country like the USA have a free HEALTH service like Britain?

Answer 1

There's no such thing as a free health service.You pay for it one way or another.

Answer 2

No. I believe that we need health care reform, but not free health care. My grandfather was British but moved over here quite a while ago, but his brother stayed in Dover. Now, both his brother and himself ended up getting congenital heart failure later on in life. My grandfather's brother died early on due to the sub-par health care that he received under the free system. My grandfather died over 10 years later due to something else completely (stage 4 colon/liver/lung/brain cancer, not much we could do. Although he did live more than a year longer than expected, due to the fine folks at Charlotte Medical). I can not even count how many times during his treatment that he told us how glad he was to have been over here when this happened. He said if it had occurred in Britain, he would have long since been dead. You get what you pay for. Doctors that are paid at the minimum, unfortunately are schooled at the minimum. Plus, they probably don't have as much of the newer technology,due to cost, and the governments desire to spend the budget in other areas. The rich British go to better doctors, not those paid for by the state. There are reasons for it.

Answer 3

This depends on whether you think "healthcare" is business (that would yield all the benefits competition engender), or a "personal right" (which, by definition, has limits). It certainly SEEMS reasonable to think everyone has a right to free healthcare, but don't they have the same right to free food? Or free housing? Or a free paycheck? I used to be English, but am now very "American". By paying to see a doctor for what I thought was wrong with me, I was lucky enough to find out I had cancer, which was promptly treated, and now I'm okay. Under the British system I might still be waiting for an appointment with a specialist, or I might be dead.

Life isn't fair. But under the American economic system, while I don't think that one can control circumstances to make oneself "super-rich", I think you can become "middle-class" just by getting up and going to work every day, and doing a good job.

Answer 4

British healthcare isn't free - we pay for it through our taxes.

I can't pretend to understand the American healthcare system, but I believe it's based on having health insurance cover. Poorer families therefore may not take out insurance as it's not an immediate need, but then find themselves in difficulty when they need to seek medical attention. This is ridiculous for a civilised country.
If I'm right about the insurance cover, then personally, I find the British system much fairer. Everyone has to right to treatment. When you're ill, whether it be something minor or something life-threatening, you should be able to seek medical treatment without worrying about how much it costs.

Answer 5

As a former benefits administrator, I feel that the U.S. has made a huge mistake in not offering a nationalized health care policy.

The rising costs of monthly insurance premiums to employers are rising at over 10% per year. Most companies cannot continue to offer insurance at fully paid rates, so the costs are being transferred to the employees because not every company can afford to absorb this rising cost (not every company has a multi-millionaire CEO).

Second, Toyota recently looked at setting up a new manufacturing facility here in North America. They chose to put the plant into Canada instead of the U.S. One of the reasons they cited was that Toyota would not have to pay for benefits for their employees in Canada because that is covered by the government. And Canada, which has nationalized healthcare has no national deficit.

The reason for long lines is because the office visit is so low cost in other countries. So you have people going in for every little ache and pain. Studies have shown, the higher the co-pay for the office visit, the less likely you are to go in for minor issues. The best solution is then to require a moderate co-pay to eliminate the unecessary and hypochondriac office visits which tie up the office visits.

Also, take into consideration that those of us who don't have medical insurance don't go in at all unless it's life or death. The longer lines might be due to the fact that everyone now can go when they need to instead of just those who are lucky enough to have health care insurance.

The cost of personal health insurance is very expensive for someone who has no insurance through their employers. I know all about HSAs and MSAs, but when you look at the insurance plans and their monthly premiums, you need to also look at the copays and doctors to see what is covered. Often you pay out hundreds of dollars a month and are not able to get coverage for services.

But the main reason we will not see nationalized health care in this country: look at the current structure for Medicare prescription drug benefit. It was not designed to help the senior citizens. It's very confusing and the biggest beneficiaries were the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industries. If the government was to offer nationalized healthcare insurance, The highest paid lobbyists in Washington would be out there pushing for legislation which ultimately would benefit the insurance companies. The government is not about to let the insurance companies lose their profitability to help the U.S. citizens. The liegislation, I'm afraid would not help the common guy; it would only benefit big business.

And as a final argument for nationalized healthcare, I would like to have you consider this fact. One of the biggest reasons that people are unable to hold down a job is due to medical conditions. Issues like Tourettes, traumatic brain injuries, diabetes, previous injuries, emotional issues all are some of the biggest reasons why people cannot get work. They also are the people who may not have medical coverage (not everyone can qualify for Medicaid or SSI/SSDI or other government funded healthcare). Because these people cannot seek help, they often lose out on getting help for their medical problems so they cannot hold down a job. If these people could seek help, many of them would be able to get the medication and psychological counselling that would allow them to be productive members of society.

Sorry for the long post, but nationalized healthcare is something that is long overdue here in the U.S.

Answer 6

There is no such thing as free health service.

Even in Britain, SOMEONE has to pay for it.

Taxpayers in the UK pay taxes to support their health safety net, just as we in the US pay taxes to support Medicare and Medicaid.

The cost (and growth thereof) of these American entitlements is already such that it is ringing alarm bells and has government officials wondering how it will continued to be fund.

If a service is mandated by the government, ultimately it is paid for by the working stiffs like you and me.

Answer 7

the national health service isnt free you pay national insurance for it wether you want to or not, even if you pay for private health care in the UK you still pay national insurance for the NHS, in the states you only need to pay once for your healthcare insurance ok your pretty buggered if you dont pay health insurance but no the NHS is far from FREE in fact it's overly expensive and badly mis-managed (i will say the quality of care is good for the most part but thats a different issue) but any government ran operation tends to be overly expensive and mismanaged but the managers still get there bonuses

Answer 8

in Sweden everyone has health care coverage (according to a documentary) but they pay a higher income tax. they don't have homeless people wondering around either. maybe things would be better over here if welfare weren't draining the taxpayers so much. health care is not free - someone always picks up the tab

Answer 9

i grow to be approximately to respond to with some thing approximately wars and how america of a alternatives terrible fights, yet curiously it incredibly is approximately struggling with. easily, i might think of it would be any incorrect way around, individuals have a tendency to be happy with only approximately each little thing American, no remember if or no longer they must be or no longer. it incredibly is in all likelihood in basic terms a private component, perhaps it incredibly is by way of fact the different international locations have much less of a recognition and are seeking for for some thing to coach, some thing else to be happy with and that's their probability. in basic terms a theory.

Answer 10

hell yes every country in the world should have free health and dental care and welfare and pensions. too many countries spend more on military than they do on healthcare. having to pay to go to college even though the governments are crying out for doctors and surgeons idiocy

Answer 11

Something like that would entail starting out with a whole 'nother type of person to train as medical doctors. The ones we have now have the mentality of stock brokers. Commission, commission, commission! We have to select a different type of person to become a medical doctor. Perhaps people who want to help others, rather than people who want to get rich. People who want to get rich should become stock brokers, not medical doctors.