What is so wrong with universal health care?

Question

As long as private health care is still an option?

It's not like the U.S. can't afford it. We still spend more per capita on health than any other Western nation while we have the biggest economy too. Why can't we look at France (who has arguably the best healthcare in Europe) and improve on it and make it our own? Even Cuba has a higher world-wide quality of healthcare than we do...it's Cuba! I think America can do it.

So what is so wrong with it, ideologically or morally? How can you tell a child that he/she doesn't deserve health care because you think that is a socialistic program and better luck next time?

Answer 1

Nothing, if it is well-managed. Australia has just such a system, and it provides better health outcomes at lower cost.

There is much less bureacracy in the public sector than in the private sector in Australia. I go to a private-sector clinic that bulk-bills (not all clinics do) and receive treatment just by swiping my Medicare card, no paperwork at all. My wife, who is in a private fund, has a real paper chase, especially when she goes to hospital.

Quality of doctors has more to do with the country's investment in training than whether the system is private or public or mixed.

There are compelling arguments in favour of the mixed model, each sector helps to keep the other honest. No system is perfect, but at least in a system that has a public option, people of all income groups are able to access basic medical services.

There were the same dire warnings as you see above about the perils of socialism prior to the introduction of a univeral system in Australia in the 1970s, usually made by vested interests such as the Australian Medical Association. But the system has proven an outstanding success and is so popular no political party dares campaign for its abolition. Even the AMA now supports it.

Answer 2

It seems like a logical choice for a civilized society to have socialized health care. However, if you look at the models of socialized health care, you find too many incidents where the entire health care system has been brought back due to red tape. I have personally talked to English and Canadian people to hear of stories of delayed surgeries until their need shows enough cause. I knew personally of a man needing a heart by-passed and waiting 7 months in the process.

If you look at the term, socialized health care, it begs to ask what's best for society? Too many doctors would claim that a Phase IV breast cancer patient is too far along to even receive treatment. Is that the answer you would like to hear because society has decided on that?

In America, a doctor would act on that Phase IV breast cancer with radical and probably expensive treatment, regardless of what society deems as appropriate. Although it may suffer in terms of high insurance premiums for all, the individual gains from it.

I do think there is a large amount of American society which goes without health care. But they must deem it necessary for themselves and act appropriately.

I am impressed that even the commercial fast food places are willing to provide health care even for part-time workers. If you can't flip burgers to save yourself, why should society be responsible for it?

Answer 3

I think it is clear in Cuba and France that although a larger proportion of people may have some health care most do not have really good care and scientific advances in medicine are not as great as in the US. I think there is less incentive to advance or provide great care when you have universal health care. The profit is what drives excellence and scientific advance. Without profit being available there is no incentive to invest energy, time, and funds to do the best or discover new improvements.

Answer 4

universal health care is said to lessen the quality of care . Recently I am aware of 3 persons who went for care with insurance and were turned away . One died one lost a finger . another has worsened . The doctors did not accept their insurance . Which is worse socialized medicine or no medicine . The insurance company's doctors and pharmaceuticals . are making too much money to let it happen . It needs to be brought to a vote . Besides if politicians were on the same plan as everyone else things would change overnight.

Answer 5

It is a terrible idea. Canada's in the news today for a shortage of doctor's. Wonder why taxes ,unemployment and gas are so much higher in Canada and Britain.The waiting list is a mile long even for the simple exams or procedures ,sometimes six month's or longer .People die from cancer waiting for treatment but it's free. I guess death is just a small cost to pay for free health care.

Answer 6

Because conservatives think the gov will take over the health care system. Plus, they are trying to protect the whole ludicrous income stream for all those who provide services -- drug companies, doctors, etc.

There are solutions that balance all concerned but R's and D's can't grow up to address the problem. Well, they've ALL got great health care benefits.

The gov running it is not a solution-- Look at what they did to medicare drug program. They voted NOT to allow competition and negotiated drug prices.

Answer 7

you get the same HORRIBLY NAIVE ANSWERS BY PEOPLE THAT CLEARLY AREN'T PAYING FOR THEIR OWN INSURANCE ON HERE...

I SEE EXCUSES LIKE "it will cost too much"... DO YOU PAY FOR INSURANCE OR EVER PAY FOR YOUR DOCTOR VISITS? OBVIOUSLY NOT, WE PASSED "IT COSTS TOO MUCH" ABOUT 5 YEARS AGO...

frankly... anyone who knows anything about the system knows two facts are true...

A. hospitals can't deny saving someones life

B. when they save someones life that isn't insured... guess what... you're paying for it anyway out of your insurance when cost go up to make up for it...

the government subsidies a HUGE amount of medical research as it is... so advances shouldn't be affected...

the basic truth is... we're already paying a tax... it's called health insurance... the only difference is... a gov. director would make only a few hundred thousand dollars a year, while a healthcare CEO makes millions, and stock options...

we're already paying $40 for an aspirin at the hospital... there isn't any more of a "cliche government $100 screwdriver" than that...

anyone who speaks out against it... at least with any of these PATHETIC REASONS... is only showing their ignorance of the issues of modern health care...

Answer 8

There is nothing wrong with universal health care, except that Republicans and neocons feel it will only make the poor live longer at their expense.

Universal health care does not have to be state-run, only state-paid, as the insurer of last resort. Since insurance has come to mean something very strange in this country, limited to those people who never need it, the rich don't like it. Of course, the rich use more and more expensive health care than anyone else.

Morally, it is unconsionable that the US does not have universal health care. It works in all other industrialized countries.

Answer 9

I wrote about that to my Representative.

I received the same old tired explanations.

In today's climate, cost is a concern. We'll get more promises, from one party or another. Won't happen soon.

My letter!
The most common objection by those who oppose this is that the taxpayers will foot the bill. TRUE! But consider.

Aside from those corporations that furnish voluntary medical care, and it normally is done to promote longevity by an employee, the largest group of recipients of this benefit, as well as retirement, are members of the strongest Unions.

I think it is part of your responsibility along with Congressional members, to clearly inform the public that these benefits are only available to a “select few”. That the costs “are not paid out of the pockets” of a company. You and I both know that it is recovered in the cost of goods produced by that worker. This means that all Americans are paying for this, again, for a “select few”.

Aside from that fact, consider the tax benefit to those select few workers. I realize that all Americans can deduct “some” health care costs in order to reduce their adjusted income for tax purposes, but, it is limited to a percentage of income. THIS IS NOT the case for those select few who receive free benefits. FREE only to them. All other workers who do not have “free” health care and or premiums must pay tax on at least some portion of their health care. The select few DO NOT. If I receive a “gift” of an equal amount, I will be taxed on that gift.

Consider this in light of the cost of goods when a benefit or an increase in wages is granted to a select few workers. Those who are not part of that select few group and those who are on a fixed income actually take a cut, a reduction in buying power when prices are increased for those reasons stated.

I will now address National Health Care, for everyone.
Have you or any of your colleagues in either party ever considered or requested a study by the insurance industry to determine what the estimated premiums might be, if every American owned a medical plan, regardless of who pays the premiums?

We know that the young generally do not need medical care for many years, although, obviously birth is part of health care. We also know that the more numbers contributing to a plan such as this normally reduces the premiums to the individual.


My final point.

Without any facts to back up my opinion, I just have to believe that the Government could pay “the premiums” on a Health Care Policy for every American, and it would amount to less outlay from the taxpayers than is presently paid out.

I’d bet the ranch that a private insurance company would eliminate ninety five percent of fraud and waste.

There is nothing fair about a “select few” receiving benefits, tax free, while the rest of us pay the tab. If a company decided to give those benefits back to the worker in the form of wages, uhhhhhhhhhh, would it be taxable? HUH?

Do you think this is worth considering? Can you discuss this with your colleagues?

Answer 10

Look to Canada for the answer. I've traveled there and heard conversations indicating they pay over 50% income tax across the board, their doctors are paid flat rates and leaving enmasse for U.S. Their medical protocols are awful; diagnosed with heart problem? You go a waiting list, no recourse.