Is socialized/nationalized healthcare a good idea?

Question

In the United States, we have privatized healthcare, but we are 48th in the world for life expectancy. But would socialized healthcare improve this situation at all?

Answer 1

It has its merits and drawbacks.

It is good to the extent that it offers ESSENTIAL health care to those who could not otherwise afford to get it. However, note that I have used the word "essential". Socialized health care plans run an enormous potential to be abused by people seeking treatment for ailments that might be better off left alone and people tend to make way too many visits to doctors. Have you heard the saying that more health care is not necessarily better health care?

Modern medicine can be used to abuse people with treatment and to make them even sicker. People are sometimes misdiagnosed and subjected to treatment they do not need. I think that a lot of deception exists in modern medicine, and Ritalin is one of the best examples. Health care workers have their dues to pay back. Health care workers as well are frequently overworked. Hospitals tend to be understaffed and lacking the money to hire more people. When they are overworked they make more mistakes. The average nurse is about 50 years old.

Furthermore, it is totalitarian in principle. The government bureaucrats and politicians can obtain personal information on their citizens because they have access to much of the medical information. They sometimes insist that if the government pays your health care costs it has a right to much of your information. Some of the information leaks can be very endangering and damaging to patients. A government with socialized health care should always provide the public with the legal right and option to seek private care if it is desired.

I live in a region where socialized health care has been in place for many decades. Widespread dissatisfaction exists. For example, some of the socialist politicians wanted it to be made illegal for people to seek private health care. I find that the government itself - consisting of many "stonecutters" - wants to be able to say who is to live and who is to die, and when. Oh yes, politicians and government bureaucrats do give out personal information on their citizens, including health information. I know of one who seems to think they should be on top of everything. The program can put people in danger as well as help to cure them and look after them. The socialists, when criticized, sometimes try to twist criticism by suggesting that people who believe in the right to private health care believe that only the rich have a right to medical treatment and longevity. It is simply not the case. Some people go into the hospital and know they are not going to get out of it alive.

Even diagnostic procedures can do a lot of damage if they are overused. It seems like the government we have here has a lot of money for elective surgery, which often leaves people worse off if not dead. However, when someone requires an essential diagnostic test and/or surgical procedure badly the resources just are not available, and many people die prematurely because they have been placed on waiting lists of long duration.

I hate to give this answer, because I am not an expert, but no, I do not believe that it would improve the life expectancy in the United States. I think the whole system, both private and capitalized or socialist, needs a complete reform and rehaul.

Be careful about being sucked into socialism. It can be just as greedy and abusive as capitalism. Pigs are pigs regardless of their political stripes.

A DIFFERENT SYSTEM ALTOGETHER NEEDS TO BE DRAWN UP FOR HEALTH CARE AND ITS FUNDING.

Answer 2

For all the poor people who can not afford medical treatment today it would be extremely helpful. For all the ones who currently are in an insurance plan - it would become so much more expensive - you have no idea.
I experienced it in Europe. There they have that what you call a socialized or national health care. But those systems are aching under the load of the costs.
The deductions from my monthly paycheck were in the range of a couple of hundreds of Euros.

There is however the need to find a path in between. It is unacceptable that so many people are not insured, and it is a growing number. So many who can not see a doctor. I witnessed a mother with her child getting turned away in an emergency room, it just wrenched my heart.
And then - there are plenty people who get treatment and then can't pay the bill. That does not help either.

it will be very interesting to see how the experiments at the East coast will work, Was it in RI? Where everyone is obligated to be insured and the insurances are obligated to provide affordable offers.
That could be the right path forward. With compromises on all sides.

Answer 3

48th in the world for life expectancy? Who told you that? Your bartender? Americans are the healthiest people on the planet, and we don't have a National Healthcare. I suppose we could go to national healthcare and life expectancy would drop, if that's your goal.

Answer 4

the generic consensus is that if McCain gets elected, the 1st merchandise on the time table would be finished immigration reform. Debate over well being care reform (and no person is featuring the Canadian gadget) will only approximately actual be tabled till after the 2010 elections and then element Democrats could have adequate votes interior the dwelling house and Senate to push with the aid of a invoice over McCain's veto. yet not less than, the votes isn't there to soak up McCain's concept to end business enterprise-presented scientific insurance and replace it with the alternative for guy or woman's to purchase their very own in the event that they are in a position to have adequate funds it.

Answer 5

Your kidding...right? Since when has the government run anything right? Why would life expectancy be tied to a government run system? John Foster Dulles said it best. The business of America is business. Simply put, when people stop relying on the government to solve problems and solve their own, society becomes more efficient.

The answer to the health issue was initiated recently with the health savings plans. Pre tax dollars that the government cant inflate to service major medical or copays to insurance. I believe the limit is two thousand a year and most employers report postive results. In otherwords not redistribution of wealth but tax relief...NOT more government involvement but less...lots less.

Answer 6

It would lead to a lower level of care, when I was in the Military if I ever got sick, I went off post to go to a private doctor and paid cash. I did this because the care was so bad and a lot of times you could not even get in.

I fear that national healthcare would be like military health care and we do not want that.

Answer 7

well.. the problem is... the uninsured don't go to the doctor, unless it's an emergency, and often it's too late then for some medical problems...

and the number of uninsured are growing...

but with socialized health care, everyone could get care as they needed it, and people could get preventive care... an ounce of prevention goes a long ways often..

right now you get the health care you can afford...and it's going up every day... and every day, more people can't afford health insurance

Answer 8

It would "level" the playing field for people who need access to healthcare. While we'd pay into such a system via our taxes, it would probably curb raging health care costs and become more affordable for the majority of Americans.

Answer 9

Who's paying for it???? Surely not those on welfare and other social programs. So that leaves ME, the taxpayer.
Get a job and pay your own way, no matter what it is you're talking about.
Next you'll want socialized housing.

Answer 10

It works in every other industrialized nation in the world what do you think?