Should a 'just' government provide healthcare to its citizens?

Answer 1

Most of the responses you get will most likely say that the government should pay for health care. However, these people also think that the cost for such healthcare has nothing to do with them. The truth is that with this question, we already have two realities:

1. The US government already provides free healthcare to millions of people. These include but are not limited to the military, retired military, government workers, retired government workers, Medicare beneficiaries, Welfare beneficiaries, WIC programs and many more. Millions upon millions of beneficiaries are covered with government healthcare benefits already.

2. Healthcare is not a single monolithic object. There are numerous types of health care delivery vehicles. We call them HMO's, PPO's, Select Provider Networks, Open Provider Networks (and I'm not even mentioning perscription plan options.) Many people think healthcare = healthcare. WRONG. We could both have healthcare, for example, but I could have a plan with a $500 deductible and you could have a plan with a $1,000 deductible.

Why do I bore you with these facts to answer your question? I just want to say that a just government may feel obligated to provide basic healthcare to its citizens, but everybody should already know that no matter what healthcare the government provides, it will never equal to the healthcare individuals purchase through incentive or through work. Nothing free will ever be as good as something you pay for.

With this in mind, you give people the opportunity to continue to complain because my health care is better. Imagine that healthcare was a car. People on government programs will complain that the government gives them a Ford when the dude who pays for his car buys a Mercedes.

Bottom line, what ever you do, you will not please some people.

TX Guy

Answer 2

numerous governments have tried that, unsuccessfully. large Britain has a well being care situation with human beings waiting weeks and months for clinical care. Canadians come to the U. S. for clinical care because the wait is sometimes deadly. Denmark has socialized drugs and complete socialized care of all electorate, including the unemployed. even with the undeniable fact that, a blouse expenses $ninety and denims are over $100 a pair. What you're suggesting is extra socialization of a capitalistic republic. I advise we stay faraway from socialistic classes, they did not artwork contained in the U.S., nor the different united states of america the position they have tried that try. i imagine really, the authorities could get administration of the frivolous regulation suites being filed that are making well being care expenses flow through the roof. If someone has a valid declare, they could be in a position to sue, yet most of the proceedings are purely a persons' huge payday contained in the sky and costing all persons more effective than we an have the funds for.

Answer 3

Idyllically sure that could be a good thing. But, in reality anything run by the government becomes an inefficient corrupt bureaucracy. The quality of our health care would fall terribly. There would no longer be incentives to cure diseases, create new treatments and medicines as monitory incentives will be removed. And eventually the government could and would decide who gets treated and who does not. And on top of that we still would be paying for it but just through higher taxes. And providing free medical for even more people who are not supporting themselves. Most by their own choice.

Even China is removing their government run health care system and letting it to the hands of private companies and individuals.

Answer 4

NO. Look back at history. When our country first started they tried to make a socialist economy and they nearly all died. The changed their ways to what the Bible says and became the United States. There is also the saying : feed a person a fish and the person lives for a day, teach that person to fish and they never go hungry again. Communism already tried the universal healthcare and failed miserably. God says you must work for healthy life. If you don't you die. Besides do you really want your taxes to skyrocket to pay for everyone's bills and you won't see much of any return for your part either.

Answer 5

This was asked a few days ago.
Tha answer is STILL NO.
Look at any country with socialized medicine. It eventually becomes a health care rationing system.
Do you want some unknown government employee, who has their job for life via civil service and who gets promoted for denying you care, to make the decision if you get treated and when?

Answer 6

No, why should i pay for your gd bills? You pay yours, i will pay mine

And oh,.. why dont you do some kind of survey of people that live in Canada and ask them about that great health care they have, where you wait 2 or 3 weeks to get your kid in to see the doc, or if you need some kind of surgery, unless its a life threating one thats needed on the spot, you just lay around at home suffering for 2 or 3 months untill you can get in.

Answer 7

It's working for almost every other civilized country on the planet.
England, Canada, Ireland to name a few.
I must agree with BeachBum, a healthy nation is a strong one.

Ok, imagine a person of poverty contacts a contagious disease,
& cannot afford treatment - do we really want viruses to have
this much freedom?

Answer 8

Yes and transport too, aswell as edcucation. All three of which make a better society. The only problem with socialism is capitalism.

Answer 9

And just where is the government going to get the money to do this? Are you willing to give up half of every thing you have to get this?

Answer 10

how about this! WORK and pay for your own benefits like a lot of people. It is time to stop the free handouts including welfare and foodstamps