Do you think federally funded national healthcare for everyone is a good idea? Why or why not?

Question

How will this affect health care practicitioners such as doctors, dentists, and PAs?

Answer 1

I do think that it is becoming necessary. I have a family full of teachers, they take a poll each year of the number of students with health insurance, for the past ten years that percentage has been declining rapidly. Currently less than half of the 8th graders in one particular California School have insurance or see a physician over the course of a year. I think that doctors will not feel it too much money wise as they may get less per visit but they would have many more patients. It will likely create a demand for more people in the healthcare field as individuals that do not currently get care would then be needing care on top of the patients that they currently see.

Answer 2

No. Just look at the systems in place. First in Canada. Good for checkups and colds. If you need a hip replacement you can wait up to six months. If you need heart surgery you can wait up to a year. There is no incentive(money) to make the system work faster. There is a booming business along the boarder for Canadians with money who come to the US for the surgeries and other procedures which such a long wait in Canada. Second in the US look at the Veterans Administration system. It is chronically short of funds. Mental health is a joke. If you need certain surgeries they transfer you to a major center hundreds of miles away. To see your Primary Physician if you have a physician assigned (most of the time you see a Nurse Practitioner or a Physicians Assistant) you may have to wait weeks. If you need to see a specialist, the wait is longer. Once again there is no incentive for the system to work harder. Doctors, dentists and PAs will all be adversely affected.

Answer 3

Yes, with only one condition. Congress should not try to include Social Security and Medicare in this program. Those programs already support themselves. The Federal Plan should stand on it's own for people not covered by these established programs.

My reason, don't gut a successful program, with one that may or may not work.

If the federal government would repay their Social Security loans and bonds, Social Security would be solvent until the year 2195.

The Social Security program is not broken, it's just that Congress keeps using Social Security money to fund the US Government.

Answer 4

Unrestricted and equal access to healthcare resources sounds nice in theory, but it never works in practice. First, you can expect income tax rates to rise to something like 50% like they are in Canada or the UK, and you can also expect to wait nine to twelve months to schedule an appointment with a specialist. So I suppose if you don't work and never get sick, yes it is a good idea. I work at a good, honest job for a living and pay, albeit indirectly, for healthcare through my company's policy. This is a privilege I've earned through hard work.

Answer 5

It's not a good idea. The reason is that it amounts to a guaranteed income stream for the healthcare providers. In practice, this results in longer waiting time to see a doctor and overall lower quality of care.

In my opinion, the free market means competition, and competition drives improvements in quality and availability (meaning I don't have to wait for a week to get seen for the flu).

Answer 6

Good idea and should be but would hate to wait all day to se a doctor behind someone that is to lazy to work.

Answer 7

Hell we need it. I'd like to see Medical School Free,the only catch is to work for the government 10 years. Then they could go to private practise and make it rich.