Considering that several states are, or are considering, implementing universal health care programs, should we wait, say 5 years, to study how those programs work before implementing a federal health care program(if we should at all). After all, universal health care will offer both positives and negatives to our health care system, and wouldn't it be smart to understand them before we experience them across the country?
2007-01-08 13:31:59 · 8 answers · asked by aDWsd 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with the wait-and-see method. This had better not include illegal immigrants OR able-bodied people or I just might quit my job too and collect unemployement and get free health care. I am tired of paying all the taxes and the extra costs on everything to support every one else. I was just sick when I heard what Arnold has in store. However, I have not studied the issue enough to know if it includes these types of people or just people who truly need the help AND are legal AND have contributed to the greater good if able. Obviously I am not including the disabled as undeserving.
2007-01-08 13:39:56 · answer #1 · answered by Yahoogirl 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
From what I heard about Canada's system is that if you needed treatment you were put on a waiting list. So, if you had cancer you could not just see the doctor and get treatment like you can now. You were put on a list and had to wait for treatment. If you are 60 years old and not in good health you would have to wait until the younger people were treated first. Since they would be more productive to society than you. Universal health care isn't as good as it seems.
2007-01-09 00:47:17 · answer #2 · answered by j 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We are the only civilized, industrial nation that does not have a National Health Care program. The only folks that are against such a program are the Pharmacuetical, Doctor, and Health insurance organizations which have an enormous political lobby. They stand to lose tremendous monies from such a program.
With all the other industrialized nation's engaged in National Health Care programs the research material needed to pick and choose the working aspects of their models is right there--no trials are necessary. It's all about political will.
Consider this--The administrative costs for Blue Cross Blue Shield in Massachusetts alone is equal to the Administrative costs incurred by the entire Canadian Healtcare System.
I'm a Union Member in a group plan that all working members pay into and our coverage extends to our immediate family and retirees/pension members. Everytime we get a new contract the monies are going right into our Health and Welfare funds and not on our checks. That's great if your in need. But when your like me--healthy, out of work and out of benefits-- regardless of the fact that I've only used about 1% of care in relation to the monies I've contributed---national health care asap makes absolute sense to me.
Hearing countless stories of folks who neglected their simple health needs due to lack of insurance only to have their easily preventable symptoms fester into a bankrupting tragedy is an excellent argument for instituting basic care.
2007-01-08 21:51:47 · answer #3 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It should be up to the state to implement Universal Health care not the federal government. Anything that expands the federal government is bad.
2007-01-08 21:37:07 · answer #4 · answered by Nobody Special 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
never have it. Too much corruption possible, too costly, and long lines. My family is canadian, and they have national health care up there, and you have to wait like 6 months for an MRI. It's a stupid system. Anyone who knows a little bit about it, knows that it wouldn't work well in a country of 300 million plus a lot of scammers and illegals
2007-01-08 23:56:15 · answer #5 · answered by John D 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
One can study a number of government run systems in any Western European country and Canada. Those are models that have successfully been working for years. And, despite what the propaganda here says, their citizens would never trade their system for ours.
2007-01-08 21:38:32 · answer #6 · answered by tarro 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sounds like a good idea to me. The American private health care system is a total disaster.
2007-01-08 21:36:30 · answer #7 · answered by SatanicYoda 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The idiotic government in the state of Illinois has decided they want to give universal healthcare to all residents and the bill to all the businesses in the state? How long before there is no business in Illinois? In Illinois it supposed to cover everyone!
2007-01-08 21:39:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋