English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I am doing this for debate-- please give reasons for your answer, I really need info. Thanks much!

2006-10-01 10:34:03 · 9 answers · asked by Jjq 2 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

9 answers

bad idea

government never gets it right like the private sector does.

to the canadian...wait till your grandma needs care and has to wait 3 months for an MRI. we can get them here in the states on your lunch break. also you canadians dont have government funded dental care, but you all seem to have good teeth (unlike the brits..hahaha) so types of private healthcare even work in the socialist world of the great white north.

also, where does it stop??? first you have the government responsible for caring for your body, then are they going to restrict even more what goes into it? are they going to make laws and arrest you for overeating? smoking? it is a slippery slope.

if the government begins to supply free health insurance, when will they start doing free car insurance? free homeowners insurance? free life insurance???

i want my family to get a million dollars from the government when i die

liberalism is death to america as we know it.

furthermore, you take away the free market healthcare economy and privatize it, and the doctors will change professions. you will lose the best and have to settle for mediocrity. also, as long as there are profits to be made, those profits become capital for research. we dont want to slow down medical research in this country, but that would happen if it were government run.

2006-10-01 10:47:12 · answer #1 · answered by hotrod9230 2 · 0 0

depends on the alternatives.

technically
US spends the most on health care (something like 14% GDP) without having a better health care system, or people living longer.

pros:
-other socialized countries seem to have better systems.
-the current health system as is utterly screwed up.
3rd party payment (insurance companies) leads to the consumer (patient) and the provider (physician/hospital) to both not care about the cost. and it may be 4th party as the consumer often does not pay for the insurance but the employer.
dare i say most people don't know how much their hospital procedure costs. ask someone how much their surgery will cost and they will have no idea as the insurance company is paying.
-people always talk about how many millions of uninsured today.

cons:
-many people loathe the idea of the government running an entire industry.
-maybe there is not enough "research" on new topics going on
-Britain, Canada have delays in treatment
-less choice when you are not the one paying



i could go on.

2006-10-01 17:44:30 · answer #2 · answered by goo321 2 · 0 0

I for one think it is a good idea because then not only the rich can afford decent health care . Everyone would be cared for best disregarding their income status or economical status and England and Canada have been doing this for years and it works well for them. I think the U. S . should at least try it . But no the drs here are too greedy to implement this . They wont be able to charge an arm and a leg to their patients. It is all a corrupt system in the medical field in the U.S. anyway.

2006-10-01 17:44:27 · answer #3 · answered by Kate T. 7 · 0 0

It is a great idea.I live in Canada and we have health care.
Everybody is in-titled to see a doctor when they need to. Why should only the rich get top care. Here we all get the same treatment which is very good.
If America would change its priorities it could afford to look after all its citizens
You have such a rich country is unbelievable that you don't have medicare for all

2006-10-01 17:40:57 · answer #4 · answered by teddybear 3 · 0 0

I think America can learn something from Canada in this case...Since health care has such a big business sense and the drug company's want their money capitalism out ways it here. It's about the money in the end not the people....and American politics do not agree with socialism so that doesn't help either...I think it's very unfortunate but it's the truth but I agree that is what we need.

2006-10-01 21:46:35 · answer #5 · answered by coopchic 5 · 0 0

Civilised idea in principle morally and ethically, good or bad depends entirely on your circumstances/perspective and whether or not you want to move in a civilised direction as a society.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=civilization
US spelling
You don't say which argument you are to support.
By the way it's Socialism not Liberalism which has no connection w. health care nor are either more than indirectly related to one Party State Communism.

2006-10-01 17:48:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well, in my opinion it is a bad idea.

I like knowing that if something happens to me, I will get the best care possible when i need it.

I am terrified to think of what would happen if our hospitals were run like the DMV or any other government run "business".

2006-10-01 17:38:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

We are the only industrialized (i.e., rich) country without universal health care. The wealthy don't want it, so they make every excuse possible against it. The current health care system is among the worst scams in history.

2006-10-01 19:37:45 · answer #8 · answered by manabovetime 3 · 0 0

Good idea, hard to implement, cost and fraud being the biggest issues

2006-10-01 17:36:50 · answer #9 · answered by lobo 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers