Is allowing the government to control health care really a good idea?

Question

Please read the details befoe answering.

If the government controls health care they will also be granted full access to your medical records. This will be necessary to determine claim payments and validity of care. It won't be long before they compile real statistics which draw conclusions about what is good for your health. After all your health will become an issue of public concern at this point because your care will be funded by tax dollars. The city of New York is banning transfat. Transfat is bad to be sure, but are we not adults who can make decisions about what we consider best for our health. How long would it be before you are told what kinds of food you can eat and even more importantly where you can eat those foods, based on a standard set by the government about what best serves the public interest. Now I realize this is an extreme position, but it is intended as a thought experiment. Feel good solutions and well meaning legislation have a tendency to go to far.

Again please read the details before answering. This is not a question of the benefits or problems associated with Health care and costs.

Derek D: Transfats were just a recent example. It was aimed towards what happen when the government decides you pose a health and financial risk because you are overweight. Further, If you think the government is good at protecting priviledged information you are not paying attention. I am one of those Veterans who had the potential to have his privilegded information violated because someone took a hard drive home they shouldn't. Government secrecy is an oxymoron. If they want to use the information they will craft legislation that will allow them to do it.

Answer 1

It's a very bad idea for two very basic reasons: (1) I can cite you numerous examples of social and/or health programs that were taken over by the Federal Government and became ten times worse than they ever were before. Take one look at Capitol Hill and you'll see that the only thing our government is REALLY good at is miring everything they get their hands on in bureaucratic red tape, all the while wasting taxpayer dollars at the speed of light. (2) If we hand our health care program over to our government, we're stuck with whatever they come up with. Just like a monopoly is not good in a capitalist system because it allows the monopolist to control prices, it's not good for our government to have complete control over our health care because they can do whatever they want with it whenever they want without the approval of John or Jane Q. Public and we would realistically have NO SAY over the program whatsoever.

"People listen to me and think I want to overthrow the government...NO!!! I want to FIRE 'EM!!!" -- Gallagher

Answer 2

Yes. and I will defend my answer.

1. Trans fat is food science, it is not food. It does not exist naturally. It's like saying, I'm an adult, I should be allowed to eat mercury if I want. Go ahead, but it's not food so it's really not a good idea for anyone.

2. The same laws that would allow gov't to control healthcare can be designed in a way to protect a person's medical information (prevent it from falling into the wrong hands). We have laws like that all over the place. (this is why it was so hard for the CIA to share info with the FBI before 9/11)

3. Babies don't deserve to be denied medical attention. (Yes, in this country, the uninsured are able to get treatment in certain places) But it has been proven time and again that preventative care is much more efficient and effective than emergency care. I've got news for you, when you are among the 48 million in the US without insurance, preventative care is as common as flying pigs.

Single payer systems, like in Canada, are the most fair because if you need basic things, it's available to everyone. If you are wealthy, and want to see the high technology, you can go to the US and get treatment from a system that produces expensive, for profit, medical care.

Answer 3

Disclaimer: i'm no longer American and that i don't understand what Obama's concept is All i'm going to assert is the NHS in Britain, in spite of the reality that no longer suitable (we even have the alternative of finding out to purchase inner maximum healthcare; we are no longer tied to the gadget) has performed a million circumstances greater good than it quite is performed undesirable, and it quite is not the suitable gadget interior the international. there is fairly some issues I dislike approximately usa, yet something no-physique can deny is that the yank persons are the main passionate and inventive whilst it comprises doing good issues. I have not have been given any doubt that, interior the long term, a US tax-funded healthcare gadget may be the suitable interior the international... yet provided that the persons help it. there will be problems interior the quick term, yet as quickly as the infrastructure is there, issues will basically save getting greater much less high priced and greater suitable. Now be at liberty to grant me the thumbs down and/or shout at me for no longer information the question i'm answering.

Answer 4

Total governmental control is never a good thing .. I read where Canada is doing fine... Really? lets look a little further into this marvolous institutional health care system...
Canadian health insurance is administered by the various provincial governments under strict control of the federal government. It is illegal for a Canadian citizen to carry private insurance coverage for any health care services covered by the government. Physicians are told by the government how much they can charge for their services; drug prices are set by the government. The supply of medical services in Canada is completely rationed, with no significant private alternative.Canadians may not pay the price in dollar terms ... but they pay a steep price indeed in terms of care denied or delayed and the poor quality of service provided by unhappy medical practitioners whose incomes do not match their skill and training.
Long waiting lines are the worst flaw in the system. The Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, calculated in 2003 the average Canadian waited more than four months for treatment by a specialist once the referral was made by a general practitioner. According to the Fraser Institute's work, the shortest median wait was 6.1 weeks for oncology (cancer) treatment without radiation. In some provinces, neurosurgery patients waited more than a year. A simple MRI requires, on average, a three-month wait in Canada. No thanks.....

Answer 5

I don't think it would ever get to that point... mainly because senators would like to get re-elected again, and if they did this... they never would be... and whoever was re-elected, would just overturn it...

the simple fact is... the voters draw lines... and if they cross the lines... they lose their job... it's still a democracy...

and, just as a side note... the FDA does already say certain foods that are harmfull can't be served now... food safety issues... so, they already have that power if they wanted to use it... but it would be regulated at the source, not at the consumer...

the real facts of government health care are: millions don't have a standard level of health care in the U.S. and the services are way overpriced compared to every other nation in the world...

Answer 6

Aside from the bureacracy doing so would create, with no accountability, I hadn't thought about the information issues.

The fact that competition generally creates efficiency out of necessity would disappear as well.

To those who believe Canada's system is great, try getting an MRI when you need one. The wait list is staggering and apparently there aren't that many machines there. That's just an example of 'free' healthcare.

Answer 7

It is not really a question of whether they control it. It is more of how they control it. See, Canada had a policy of free health care. The government pays for it. In FULL. And they are doing fine. USA is so caught up in the financial concededness, that they won't do that. We love moneytoo much.

Answer 8

No it is awful.. Because the FDA does not consider a natural remedy a drug.. Like for instance a few years ago a canadian drug research facility found a natural cure for cancer but the FDA paid them i believe 50 million dollars to not allow it in the US. Just imagine the length the government would go to, to make more money.. And they would just be doing what the FDA is doing but worse.

Answer 9

The government shouldn't be controlling healthcare, anyways.

The only control that they have is financial right now, and as it is, with them controlling Medicaid, and such, they're taxing us blue and purple to help pay for those who WON'T pay their medical bills.

I'm not interested in their ideas to "regulate" any more of our healthcare system, thank you. They barely know how to run a government.

The government can go on and ban trans fat... They just need to make sure that they do that AFTER they can stop illegal immigration.

Answer 10

I don't think is a good idea. Just ask Fidel Castro and his brother Raul. They have free health insurance but no Human Rights.