Why is universal healthcare a bad thing CONS?

Question

Please explain?

I am impressed, cogent well thought out responses and no insults either.... btw I am having trouble making up my mind and this really is helping. Thanks.

I am convinced that Government interferance in health care would be a bad idea. We however need to find a way of providing suitable healthcare for those that are not as fortunate as us. A government insurance up to a premuim level maybe?

Answer 1

If we explain, will you LIBS listen?


Socialization of health care would be bad in many ways. First, it would increase the wait time in hospitals. So people in need of serious care would have to wait behind everyone with a runny nose. "my head hurts, I'll go see the doctor, its free." Next, it would lower the salaries of doctors, which would reduce the number of bright minds going into the medical field. This would not only lower the quality of physicians, but medical research teams, as well.

If you look at canada. Many people who are in need of critical care, or want care from a more qualified phsician, come to the United states, because our doctors had/have incentives to be doctors, and they are not as bogged down with minor cases.

Answer 2

It would be a great idea IF liberals were the ones who had to pay for it.

Or we could just nationalize the entire health care industry.

It's the cost thing. And time you get the government involved in doing anything there is an automatic waste factor of approximately 65%. And if you had a national health care system you immediatly make the US Government liable for any law suit filed against any doctor. After all essentially the US government is the employer of the doctor.

I'll agree the whole healthcare system inhales. When I was growing up Doc Polk was the only Doctor in my area. An office visit cost about $10. He might give you a shot that cost you another few dollars. Before I was born (He delivered me by the way) when times were very hard he took payment in eggs, bread, chickens, pigs, and who knows what else. Everyone who recieved treatment felt an obligation to pay for the visit to the doctor. Doc Polk never carried malpractice insurance because no one even considered suing the doctor.

Today the doctor almost never makes a house call. One doctor needs at least two ro three nurses and a staff of probably five or six just to keep up with the paperwork. Malpractice insurance is so costly many doctors who have never been sued spend as much on it as they do on their entire staff just because one suit could bankrupt them. And even after they retire they have to keep malpractice insurance in case something shows up years after they quit practicing.

Yes universal health care sounds good. But before I'm going to say yes we should have it. I'm going to say what will be covered and what will it cost? And how will it be paid for?

That is the difference between a liberal and a conservative. Liberals never think anything has to be paid for.

Answer 3

Where to start...

First because it seizes money from the people or seizes time from doctors to provide the health care.

Mainly a socialized health care system doesn't provide very good care. It gives minimal care to everyone while specialized care is difficult to get. Many Canadians come to the US for specialized care because the wait is so long in Canada. For health care to move forward with new innovative tools to allow doctors to practice better medicine, the industry should be controlled by the open market. The reason being, when someone wants to open, say, an MRI center, they only have to justify it to investors and prove that it'll make a profit. Whereas, if it is in the hands of the government, to open a new MRI center, the people have to vote on it. Since people are usually against higher taxes and an MRI center benefits a minority of the people as most people don't need to go get an MRI, the voters are most likely to vote against it, seeing it as frivolous. Nothing good can come from giving the government control of the health care system. Look how well they run the DMV. A lot of nurses and orderlies are surly enough as it is.

Answer 4

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=MURDOCK-08-24-06

If you want the overall quality of healthcare to suffer. I feel sorry if someone gets cancer, but especially in these countries. Early detection is the best hope for survival, but universal healthcare delays treatment.

Another thought I had, but have not researched it. If the government starts covering doctor's malpractice insurance, I think some people will see that as easy money. We already live in a lawsuit happy society, think what people will do to sue the doctors covered by government paid insurance.

Plus, it's socialism.

The real problem is cost spurred by unnecessary treatment (I've got a hangnail call the doctor), lawsuit happy people, presciptions for everything, doctors prescribing medicine for and treating every minor ailment. The people I blame the least is the insurance companies.

Answer 5

I prefer to choose my own doctors-not have them chosen for me. I want to choose the ER I think is best-not the one assigned to me. I want quality doctors-not ones sent to government runned medical schools (the thought gives me the chills). I don't want to wait 2 years for a life saving surgery. Ask any Candian or Englishman and they will tell you the wait is unbearable. I needed surgery earlier this year and it was scheduled within 2 days. Universal healthcare wouldn't allow for that. If people would get off their asses and do for themselves instead of waiting for the government to do for them, we'd be ok. Socialism is not Ok. It fails time and again. Look at the state of France. Noone there is happy. The only one's unhappy here are the liberals who want to change our way of life.

Answer 6

in all probability the worst ingredient is that various HMO executives will lose their jobs and could discover another company industry to fully f*ck up. yet leaching off peoples scientific expenses like a vampire and intentionally increasing the fees of healthcare via forcing human beings to pay "in spite of the industry will undergo to stay alive" has on no account quite been a "clever" provider to the country.

Answer 7

because it will mean the federal government, once again, telling us how to be treated, what to be treated with, who to see and it would add another layer in the already too large bureaucracy. they would decide who was treated for what when they would have access to top health care. fewer people would be trying to become doctors because there would be no incentive to become one. all would make the same, no matter what. there would be long lines and months to wait for treatment. ask people from canada or anywhere else they have it.....not the healthy one........THE SICK ONES.

there would be no competition for services which would eliminate innovative treatments and drugs. where do rich people who are sick come to get treatment?
the USA.

besides, dont we have one already with all the programs. almost everyone gets medical anyhow and they dont pay for it. so as far as i can tell, everyone already has health care.

Answer 8

Name ONE government program that is done right. Ask the Canadians how they like wait long periods of time to see Dr.s.

Answer 9

I'm not paying for someone elses care needs.

Nor do I expect them to pay for mine

Look at Canada absolutely falling apart. Don't have health care? Get a JOB. Employer doesn't offer it, further your eduaction to pursue a job that offers it. I'm self employed and offer it to my employees. It's a matter of if you want good happy employees

Answer 10

higher taxes when i already get free healthcare from working , i would rather my taxes not go up double and me gain nothing . Doctors wouldn't get paid as much so the care wouldn't be nearly as good and advanced as shown from other countries with national health care . national healthcare is a great idea if you don't believe in working , you know when you get a job you get healthcare free right