Universal health care is an OK idea, but?

Question

How are we going to pay for it? It is easy for politicians to come up with these grandiose ideas, but I would like to hear from just ONE of them how it will actually be implemented. Obviously, the Democratic view is to use tax dollars to fund it, but at what cost?

Answer 1

I know the idea of everyone having access to healthcare seems fabulous, but we need to look at the big picture. Study how it's done in Austria and Canada.

In Austria, they pay 40% sales tax on everything in order to pay for public services. Some of these people suffering from a lack of healthcare here cannot even put food on their table, much less pay an extra 40% sales tax on that food. Unlike what will happen here, Austria also uses this money to provide free college educations to citizens without felonies. It promotes education and a low crime rate. In turn, the free educations breed more doctors, which breeds good, efficient healthcare. But, in saying that, 90% of Austrians are well-educated and can afford to pay the extra taxes. We aren't, and cannot.

Canada has univeral healthcare as well. I'm not sure what they do in order to pay for it, but it's not efficient. People wait months to see specialists for serious conditions. They wait 10 hours in an emergency room to be seen. They wait weeks to see a doctor, and most do not have a primary care physician. It's not an entirely fair system, as those who worked for an education and are productive members of their society are forced to wait weeks behind alcholics, drug addicts and individuals who have never had a job. It devalues the point of an education or bettering one's life.

There are two sides to every coin.

Answer 2

you raise taxes. even though you will be paying more in taxes, the increase will be less than what you would normally pay for insurance. And the first example is just flat out flawed about healthcare and how one person always goes to the doctor and the other doesn't. First, even though the person was eating healthy and not getting sick, chances are that he still has health insurance, so that makes no sense, Second, we do the same thing for education right now. It's not like once your done with Senior year in high school you stop paying that portion of you taxes you always do, so if you're doing it right now whats the big deal??? Maybe you should start a grass roots campaign that makes education a privilege. Having Universal Healthcare doesn't mean that we take the total amount of what citizens pay for healthcare now and add it on to the budget. By nationalizing it, it allows the government to heavily regulate it and negotiate prices for drugs, doctors wages, etc... Doctors may not be making the enormous amount they do now, but they will still be living pretty comfortably. This country prides itself on how we make sure everyone has an education, but yet we refuse to give everyone healthcare...it seems kind of flawed to me.

Answer 3

Socialized medicine is THE WORST thing we could do. It has been proven over and over again that the private sector does things better, more efficiently, cheaper and produces a higher quality product than the goverment. COMPETITION drives companies to do better for the consumer.
First taxes would have to be raised (tremendously) to support all the bureaucratic BS that will go along with Universal Health Care--and not to ensure quality. Why do so many Canadians come to the US for health care? Because it's better here. No waiting months to see your primary care doctor and even longer for a referral to a specialist.

Government regulation does not ensure quality--on the contrary--agencies are not responsive to the consumer but to the pressure of lobbyists. So the government will protect the big guy and quality standards are lost.

Answer 4

Universal health care (government provided) is a bad idea. The only way to pay for it, is the only way all government services are paid for: taxes.

Here's why it's a bad idea: Taxpayer A eats right, exercises, and washes their hands. Taxpayer B eats junk food, doesn't exercise, and doesn't wash their hands. Taxpayer B is sick a lot, and using medical services. Taxpayer A rarely gets sick, and his tax dollars are paying for Taxpayer B's illnesses. It is morally reprehensible to force Taxpayer A to pay for Taxpayer B's health care. Taxpayer A could use that money to get an education, start a business, or feed his children. Instead, he is being forced to pay for the bad choices of somebody else. I believe there is a word for when one person is forced to work for the benefit of another: it's called SLAVERY. I'm pretty sure we all decided that was a bad idea a long time ago.