True or false: A just government should provide health care to its citizens.?

Question

Please add details.

To clarify: Justice is subjective and so there is no right or wrong answer. By provide, I mean that the government would grant free health care to its citizens. The citizens will probably be taxed, so it's not completely free.

Answer 1

A just government should, in short, take care of its people. Health service is one of the necessities of citizens, so there should be a way for a citizen to obtain such a service.

It's important to be realistic. This program should provide only basic health services. This is the general care that doesn't involve double bypasses and organ transplants and whatnot; this is stuff like general exams and checkups, prenatal care, and generally low-cost services. Nothing should prevent the elites that worry about having to stand in line for months to get their fix to go to their more expensive but exclusive private doctors to get their privileged care.

The government should contract out to private firms to provide the actual care. But this contract should be reevaluated often (semiannual?) and should not be renewed automatically. This means that the different carriers must compete for the government contract often and should therefore perform reasonably well if they want to get and keep the business.

Finally, why would there be long lines to get care? Not enough facilities? Well. That just means we need more facilities, right, since efficiency should be taken care of in the above? So it is also important that, if we're going to do this, we'd better do it right and not in a half-*** way (like the famously underfunded "Leave No Child Behind" stunt). Allocate enough money for it, and put in place someone accountable (i.e. no more "heckuva job" cronies) to run it.

Answer 2

Citizens have a right to affordable, quality health care.

Should the government provide it? I like the sound of this on the surface but there are not any good example of places that do this. You can look at Canada....huge taxes and long wait for your health needs. England is the same only worse. Sweden is no better. The Soviet Union had it and doctors were de-incentivised and paid less than most professions.

Again, everyone has a right to good affordable care. It is not available now. But every time i think of the government providing it I think of my experiences at the DMV, the post office, and other government run or sponsored agencies. I think of FEMA during the Katrina disaster. Churches and non-profit relief groups were much more effective in that case. I'm not encouraged about the idea of the government providing health care for my family.

Answer 3

It's true that a Socialist government like in the UK should provide health care for it's citizens. It's not true for a Republic like the USA. However few doubt that the USA government needs to start doing more for it's own citizens and stop interfering with other countries.

Answer 4

No just some of the people would be taxed. More would enjoy the benefit at someone else's expense! Plus it would destoy the best health care system in the world! Should they also be entitled to a computer and broadband internet, cable tv, Nike tennis shoes, a 3 story house with a swimming pool and a two car garage, an escalade and a BMW? How about personal responsibility?

Answer 5

FALSE. It is not government's function to provide health care for its citizens, nor is it government's job to educate them, or house them, or give them food. The proper function of government is the protection of life and property. The rest is up to you. You have to grow up sometime.
Remember, everything government gives you, it has to take from someone else. There are a few things that government can do better that we as individuals. These things include defending the country, delivering the mail, coining money (not delegating the job to a central bank which issues inflationary debt notes) and signing treaties. Incidentally, the federal government is supposed to protect us from invasion. It seems that they are refusing, and instead, talking about immigration reform.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. When government does something for you that you should be doing for yourself, it ends up costing more, plus, you loose the ability to chose.

Answer 6

false , anytime the government gets involved it is bad , look at canada or england once they started the health care for everyone its done more harm them good ,and even in america there is a limited healthcare i was on it myself for a short time the problem would be the same if it were so called universal healthcare yes everyone gets free health care but guess what you will have to get in line i had to wait 4 months to get in just to see a doctor i have a heart condition dearing this time i could not get the meds i needed nor could i see a doctor you can keep your uni healthcare i dont want no part in it ! i have had a small taste of it and it sucks major monkey nards ! oh it sounds nice til you have to use it ! you want med coverage get a job and pay for it noone owes you jack ! thats the problem with america now after 40 years of democrates trying to make everyone dependant on the state people have an entitalment mentality get a job and stop trying to live off other peoples money this is not a socailist country russia is yea i know they are trying real hard to make it one , if you dont like what i said go ahead vote for it get it then live it and when you or a love one dies cuz they have to wait months to get seen dont go crying about it youve been warned

Answer 7

False.
Anything run by the government doesn't work. That's why people's private pensions and 401ks are doing better than SSI. You will create a beaurocracy where people will have to wait for medical services and abuse the system with unneeded treatment just because it's free.

Second, if the government takes over, they will dictate pricing and costs. That will cause a lot of qualified people to not want to be a part of the system, since they can't make enough money. Additionally, there is no incentive (profit) for doctors to research and look for additional treatment and methods.

Answer 8

To a certain degree i agree with you,but first,IF the gov'mt was to pay for the healthcare of it's citizens,then it MUST stop growing tobacco,shut down the distilleries,breweries,wineries,and stop bringing drugs into our country! ALL these things we taxpayers are paying for! I for one should have FREE healthcare coverage because i dont drink,use tobacco,or do drugs,but it doesnt work like that,does it! The good,health conscience people get screwed worse than those who purposely do things that they willfully and knowingly will damage and destroy their bodies! Why should I have to pay high med ins because of these rotten americans who dont take care of their health or care about their health! This whole country is just plain screwed up!

Answer 9

You just answered your own question. Check the budgets of a lot of other countries who offer Universal Healthcare. A vast part of their budgets go to this. With the "baby boomers" getting older this will only increase for the next 30 years or so.

Answer 10

When Bill was in the Whitehouse, Hillary tried to help create a better health plan. We probably could have a national health plan if the Government didn't spend so much money on the wars.