In my talented and gifted class we are doing a debate over the above subject. I need some opinions pros and cons ect. I was wondering if all the good folks at yahoo would help me out!
2006-10-09 09:12:45 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Education & Reference ➔ Special Education
No. Besides, it is NOT free. Someone, somewhere is paying for it with his/her hard earned tax dollars.
2006-10-09 09:20:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the government should provide health care to all it's citizens. Many foreign governments provide health care systems which provide coverage for all based on a tax system. Of course, I cannot pretend to knwo all of the details of those systems, however I believe the theory is similar to medicare for ALL ages, not just the elderly.
Of course, there is the danger of too much governmental control over what constitutes an illness and when coverage should apply, but don't we already have that issue in the US with insurance companies running the health care system? At the least, with government provided coverage we'd receive basic preventive care without the outrageous premiums required by health insurance companies.
Also, consider the overall reduction in health care costs if we were able to receive routine preventative care. This would theoretically create a healthier society. Fewer illnesses means less overall expense...sort of like the low cost of an oil change (preventive) compared to the high cost of rebuilding a locked up engine (reactive)...
2006-10-09 20:36:48 · answer #2 · answered by BrenG 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
National health care has its pros and cons.
Check into the pros and cons for Canada.
My brother lived in Canada for about 2 years. He said he could get into a regular doctor for care, but if he needed to see a specialist, there was a long wait.
You would also have to consider how high the taxes would go up to cover this. Also, the medical people may be overwhelmed with people wanting care-there may be a shortage of health care professionals (doctors, nurses, radiologists, etc) if the country goes to national health care.
Just a few things to consider.
2006-10-09 16:22:07 · answer #3 · answered by Malika 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the government provided free health care for its citizens then it would have the ability to pick and choose what was a treatable illness....and those decisions might, and probably would be directly influenced by cold hard percentages of survivability of the given illnesses, and how much it would cost to treat them. Plus, the money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the taxpayers' pockets.
As a taxpayer, I prefer to choose my own destiny as far as health care goes.
2006-10-09 16:23:34 · answer #4 · answered by ●Gardener● 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it should. We here in the UK have one its called the NHS the National Health Service. We pay Billions in taxes to run our hospitals so why should we not have such a system. It matters not where you come from, if you need treatment that is our first priority. You save the life first not ask for insurance details. The doctors in America and the UK earn plenty because of all the private work they do for the mega rich. Ask yourself this...what is a human life worth?
2006-10-09 16:22:57 · answer #5 · answered by Le Baron 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look into Canada's health care system.
2006-10-09 16:21:08 · answer #6 · answered by galactic_man_of_leisure 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Read Animal Farm....
2006-10-09 16:15:34 · answer #7 · answered by JWAV 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, it would be nice not to have to pay. i'm sure some of the drawbacks would be not getting to choose where you go, wait time. canada has free healthcare, i think. ask some of them.
2006-10-09 16:21:42 · answer #8 · answered by practicalwizard 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, they should snatch it from all these illegal immigrants and give it to those who are from here and are working but cannot afford it.
2006-10-09 16:23:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋