Is there anyone here against universal health coverage?

Question

Why?

it looks like those against coverage are those who are well off,

and not compassionate enough about those who are not

and who feel entitled

and who don't understand that we pay the price with or without universal health care

and who don't understand the benefit to themselves of controlling disease among the poor

in other words its those who don't see the interconnection of all of us within our culture and don't see that what benefits the poorest among us benefits all

these people are the worst of us, the least virtuous, and we should not be letting them set our policy

Answer 1

I'm for some sort of coverage for all.

There are many families who work full time and don't receive health benefits or are living in poverty and can't afford them. Those people deserve coverage.

The thing most conservatives dont understand is that they are already paying for universal health care now. It's called waiting until it's an emergency and then going to the doctor - That's what those without coverage are forced to do. It's much more expensive than if we covered people for routine checkups and caught things before it became an emergency.

Answer 2

I don't think universal health coverage is a bad idea...in THEORY. But just like everything else the government takes out of our hands...I think in the long run, prices would increase...but either way then it is not left in our hands...

There are already programs out there to help the truly needy such as healthwave and medicaid. It is not the government's fault that people aren't wise with their money...if healthcare became government controlled, all that would happen is our taxes would increase to pay for it (probably more than enough to compensate) and we would not then be able to afford gas. So, then should gas be controlled by the government? Then it's on to food? What you are suggesting here is on the road to Communism...don't you know that?

Oh, and not to mention the lack of incentive for Dr.'s to do their job exceptionally...

Answer 3

Yes I am and I will easily explain why,I lived in both Canada and Great Britain so I have a good basis of comparison.
Universal health care the negatives:
1. Hugh increase in taxes
2. many people will die because of the long waits or the government might not find it worthwhile to treat you it might be cheaper to let you die
3. You will not be able to sue the government when they botch things up because the poorest doctors will be the lowest paid which will be the government.doctors.
4.The upper middle class and the wealthy will go to a private system like in Britain better treatment, better facilities, better doctors because the best doctors will want to be paid what they are worth.
The positives
1. will be able to avoid catastrophic illness cost.
2. might be able to avoid long term illness with regular checkup.
these are the pitfalls be careful what you might wish for.

Answer 4

I have always lived with universal health coverage in Canada and it something that I am really glad that we have. I can get in to see my doctor in 2 or 3 days. If I have an emergency, I could get in during the same day.

It really blows my mind when a country can spend billions of dollars killing people in another country without reason while some of their own people are suffering without affordable health care .

Go figure that one!

Answer 5

I'm against it. Who wants the government telling you how often and what docs to see??? The US has a health care issue, but having the government take it over is a little more than scary. So many are complaining about the way they've handled everything else...why would you want them in charge of your health care? I enjoy my right to choose which health care I want and I am wise enough to use the money the government puts back in my pocket every year come tax time for the purpose of purchasing the coverage I've chosen. It's simple, you can hand over your money to the government who will decide for you, or they can let you keep a little money in your pocket so you can choose. I prefer to choose.

Answer 6

I believe Medi-care is a form of universal health care for seniors. I'm happy to be covered by this program. I had open heart surgery in 2005 and in 2006 I discovered I had cancer. There's no way, at my age, that I could afford these expenses without coverage.

Answer 7

Yes, everyone should be. The government cannot
afford to provide universal health care (tho people
like the idea of Big Daddy paying for their health
care and hospital bills). If you don't like the way
govrernment is running Social Security, Medicare,
and other programs, then what makes you think
you'd like our government running health care?
That is really a scarry thought. Let everyone buy the
kind of health care they need and can afford.

Answer 8

I understand that we need a more comprehensive insurance plan. However, universal health coverage sounds pretty socialist to my fiscal conservative ears. For example, California is going to do universal healthcare which is going to be cover illegal immigrants and will raise taxes for everybody. It is bigger government, tax hikes, and medical coverage to illegals. Massachusetts might go the same way and it sounds good in thought but not in action. Doctors are going to have their revenues deducted from them and they might not get their fair share for the work. Besides, I don't think most people are eager to pay higher taxes for illegal immigrants to get healthcare. This is going to cause runaway inflation and will create socialized healthcare plan. It doesn't sound good to me and I think we need to look for other alternatives.

Answer 9

Why should the working class be responsible for anyone but their owns health care. I believe in compassion, but not by the government forcing my hand. If politicians want to give my money away, why don't you see them digging deeper in their own pockets.

Answer 10

hi Lon - great question. i'm against everyday wellness insurance, yet i'm for reform. maximum folk do no longer comprehend that the presence of for-income insurance does not make our modern wellness care industry a unfastened industry. maximum scientific charges are already paid by potential of one/3 events - insurance companies or the government. additionally, scientific care furnish is artificially constrained by potential of state and native governments. those are the excuses your quotes are increasing. The 0.33 occasion funds drives up call for and the provision barriers constricts furnish. unlock the provision barriers and shrink 0.33 occasion paying and you will see a diverse scientific care industry evolve to furnish somewhat some high quality scientific care thoughts for all budgets. we are residing in a rustic the place a reasonably unfastened industry controlled to get a cellular telephone into almost all of us's pocket in decrease than 20 years (nevertheless, even the provision side in that industry must be extra unfastened), it could ensue with wellness care too. yet, first, people could desire to know that the themes with the present wellness care industry isn't a results of unfastened industry, its a results of the comparable 0.33 occasion funds and furnish regulations that government administration will purely make worse.