Would you support universal health care if it meant...?

Question

...your care, like in many other countries, was prioritized based on your age, existing conditions, and care needed? In other words, if you found a cancerous lump on your skin, you might have to wait months to be seen if your over 60. Or, if you are already deemed high risk, like an aids patient, you may be put on a long waiting list.

Like any many other countries with Universal Care, you really have no say in the doctor you might be assigned either. Is it worth it to you?

Universal health care is a good idea on the surface, but the real issue is high demand and limited resources. I'm really not sure I like the idea the more I look at the practical implications. Besides, if you have an emergency, any ER is by law required to attend to you -- the illegal immigrants are very familiar with this. So what will universal health care really solve? What problems will it introduce? Are they worth it to you?

I bet people will still go to the ER, because they will be unwilling to wait on a waiting list.

Answer 1

It already exists to a degree in the UK. If you smoke or are overweight you are likely to get your treatment delayed. Of course the government deny its happening but believe me it is!!!!

Answer 2

I think that's more fair than being denied proper health care for financial reasons. If a 73-year-old dies before receiving a heart transplant because priority was given to the younger and healthier, it is no worse than a 19-year-old dying of heart failure because they couldn't afford a transplant procedure.

Here in Canada, where nearly all hospital and physician charges are covered by the government, wait times can be long. The tole, however, isn't great. We still have longer lifespans, fewer cancer deaths, etc. In my experience I'd say that universal health care is responsible in part for the high quality of life and the feeling of safety in Canada. Judging by the backlash that followed Conservative suggestions to increase the private sector's role in healthcare funding, I'd say most Canadians prefer our system to that of the US.

I don't think that the American system is horribly unsuitable for their population. It goes without saying that universal healthcare isn't for every country. But I'd say that in the case of Canada's system, the benefits far outweigh the negatives.

Answer 3

ER care is much more costly which drives up the health care costs for everyone else. You make a good point, people without health care have to go to the ER, but that drives YOUR costs up. That's why it makes more sense to give them regular health benefits. It will save YOU money in the end, not to mention freeing up the ER for true emergencies.

Answer 4

I definitely support it. The European systems cover all their citizens at half the cost per capita as our system which covers maybe half of all citizens. Universal health care on a single-payer system (the government) eliminates most of the overhead associated with insurance companies; in addition it improves the health of the country as a whole, which improves the economy as well. To the conservatives who whine about the "high cost" of universal health care (and not even addressing the humanitarian side of the issue which doesn't interest them much anyway), what do you think is the cost of *not* having it?

Answer 5

Universal health care is a dangerous idea; it is the reason that many Canadians cross the border every year to take advantage of our private health care system (which is free of rationed care, long waits, and restraints on innovation).

However, we must address our rising healthcare costs in this country. These are mostly due to frivolous lawsuits and insurance companies (which employ 60% of their employees for the sole purpose of denying insurance claims to doctors and patients, and only 30% to process claims). The greed apparent in these sectors of healthcare is appalling.

Answer 6

There will always be "upper level," insurance policies and health benefits for more expensive private doctors. Universal Healthcare is for those who can't afford current healthcare or not provided it through their work. In my opinion, I would wait 30 days for my cancer to be checked out than have it never checked out.

Answer 7

No,

I do not believe that my efforts to earn a fair living should be taxed so that those unwilling to improve their situation should have health care.

Just so everyone knows, I do not have health ins. I choose to provide other things for my family. I choose to drive 10-15 yr old vehicles so we could buy a house, I choose to pay for things as they arise. I own two timeshares, a house, two trucks, and I make less than $30k each year. I paid over $3500 in ins premiums the year before my first daughter was born, and the hospital bill came to less than $3000. Who benefited???? The insurance companies. For my next daughter I had a "good paying union job with benefits" I paid in over $2500 in ins. and they only paid $1500 towards the bill. Ins is a big rip off when it comes to standard medical procedures. The only time I feel that it is possibly good to have is major medical. If that is the only ins that was offered, the whole system would be better.

This is my opinion from my experience. Take it as you will.

James

Answer 8

I dont like or want it. Ask Canida what they think of it.

Answer 9

No way I beleive in every man for himself,always have always will.Kill or be killed.

Answer 10

no