You guys think the US should have universal health care systeM?

Question

if so why?

Answer 1

There are powerful arguments both for and against.

First, efficiency. It is a proven fact that universal health care system is more, not less, efficient than that based on private health insurance. The U.S. spends a greater percentage of its GDP on health care than any other advanced nation, but has relatively little to show for it in terms of life expectancy or mortality rates. While this can partially be blamed on features of American lifestyle such as scant walking and fat-rich diet, the differences do not disappear even if those are controlled for. The reason is very simple: one big non-profit bureaucracy tends to cost less than 20 smaller for-profit ones, each with its own rules, networks, billing systems, etc. People who critisize Medicare and Medicaid for being expensive and bureaucratic simply ignore the fact that private insurance companies are even more expensive and more bureaucratic. There is a reason for that, too: unlike Medicare and Medicaid, private insurers have a direct financial incentive to refuse treatment.

Second, incentives. Private health insurance discourages entrepreneurship; a person leaving a large company to start their own business automatically loses valuable health coverage and can be insured only at a much higher individual rate. It also encourages employers to hire two half-timers instead of one full-time worker, just to get out of having to provide health benefits. The result is a net loss to society; two workers have to commute to two jobs each, instead of working one job full-time.

Then there is the question of innovation. Under the current system, medical breakthroughs that cost a fortune can be practiced without any governmental pressure on prices; this helps to perfect the delivery and in many cases leads to mass-market adoption (and related price drops) in the future (laser sight correction is an excellent example). It is not clear if the government would exercise this kind of restraint if it were to pay for it, with consequences typical for all price ceilings.

Finally, there is the big money question. Universal health insurance has to be funded somehow or other. The likely cost of universal health insurance in the U.S. is about $1 trillion a year. About 40% of it is already being covered by Medicare and Medicaid, so the government needs to come up with additional $600 billion or so. About the only program that can be squeezed to provide anything close to that amount is defense. This, by the way, is why the U.S. stands apart from other industrialized nations in both defense spending and non-existence of universal health insurance; other countries chose health care over military buildup, the U.S. made the opposite choice. It is, therefore, no surprise that the highest life expectancy in the world is seen in Japan, which has a constitutional limit (1% of GDP) on defense spending...

Answer 2

Well we do in the UK - its pretty universal.
ITs a lot cheaper than the US system because you have to pay for much more administration you have the health insurers, the HMOs and the hospitals. This makes it inefficient. It also leaves large amounts of the population uncovered by insurance.

There are also higher rates of preventable illnesses in the US than the UK especially among the poor - particularly TB.

I think the US system provides better health care for those who can pay - you have access to brand new drugs for certain types of cancer than we may have in the UK but for the majority of the population the UK system is better.

I think individualism v collective responsibility is one of the big differences between the USA and the UK. I think there is just a bigger assumption in the UK by more people that the state should play a part and this is how the community looks after each other. In the USA more people seem more likely to think that its up to the individual to get off there **** and not burden other people. At least that's what i have found in my very unscientific conversations with people from the UK and the USA.

Answer 3

Yes because there are so many people out there without insurance. People get by without healthcare so often that easily treated diseases and common ailments become deadly. Anyone who says we are better off without a universal health care system is rich, has insurance or a doctor. Or all three.
At the very least something needs to be done even if its not a universal healthcare system.

Answer 4

I dont think so because if we had that like Canada then say someone wanted to get a elbow surgery done because the tendons seperated from the bone beacause of arthirits then they would be put on a waiting list for years maybe until they can receive that help opposed to someone who needed a heart transplant... plus the US is too big to supply the needs of people wanting different surgies or health care... Maybe if it was free to like doctor visits where no surgery was needed or longtime care then that would be useful...

Answer 5

NO.

A "universal health care" system involves forcibly taking one person's property and giving it to another person. That is called stealing. Expect when the government does it, then it is called compassion.

Medicare is over 100,000 pages of rules and regulations. Look no further if you want to know why health care costs have skyrocketed.

We allowed politicians and government to run our education system and that has resulted in decades of failure with no end in sight. Why would you want those people to control your health care?

Answer 6

Yes. America pays the most for its healthcare of any developed nation and yet we rank 19th in care. We live about as long as Cubans and Costa Ricans who spend far far far less on health care. Our health care system is deeply broken. But we would rather cut our nose off in spite of our face in order to maintain the capitalist approach. Capitalism works great in many areas. Healthcare - clearly not!

Answer 7

i think it should be available to the people who cant afford it. but not put everyone on the same plan because it could lower the quality of the current healthcare plans that people have now.

Answer 8

I think it should be privatized. Auto, home, and life insurance are highly competitive and cheap. Medical insurance is not. Guess which one is not fully privatized?



(insurance through work is not exactly privatized.. is it? it's institutionalized)

Answer 9

No. It's Socialism, costly, inefficient and unfair because it is anti choice.

Answer 10

no cost too much