Why would we EVER want government-sponsored health care???

Question

Seriously, can anyone name ONE think the government has NOT, at least slightly, screwed up?

Can anyone name ONE time that government sponsorship has turned into a good thing? NO!

I think we can all agree that our government is slightly, if not greatly, incompetent, and really do not represent us as well as we would like.

So why would we trust them with our health care? How about instead, we lower taxes so that people can afford their own health care? And if some people complain that the rich will get a higher tax break (which makes sense, because they pay more taxes), then we can issue a tax credit, where everyone will get the same amount back.

How much is decent health care? $2000 a year? Mine is somewhat paid for by my company, so I am not sure of the total cost, but say we give everyone a $2500 tax credit for health care. Will that work?

And the funny thing is, the Liberals are the most gung-ho about this, even though they complain about the government the most!!!

Answer 1

It's a bad idea. I imagine the government would get us bottom of the barrel health care, meanwhile the tax and spend machine would go into full force, and oh yeah you bet the liberals would pocket the excess money.

People who work and have benefits don't have to worry about health care as much, it's the people that don't who are all gung-ho about this.

I agree with your ideas concerning taxes, let each unto his own.

Answer 2

Ok, lets try and handle these one at a time:

Why would we ever want the government to provide healthcare? Because there is a high percentage of people in this country that do not have healthcare coverage. The single biggest reason for Chapter 11 filings and out of control debt is health care costs realted to unexpected crisis.

On one hand you have a situation where providing such coverage is the "right" thing, or at least the "good" and "kind," thing to do. On the other hand, it could also wind up being a cost savings. We already provide emergency services for free in the US based on humane need - yet ER services are by far the most expensive way to provide health care. When these debts do not get paid, it is those with insurances and federal tax subsidies (that could be used elsewhere) that cover the difference. So, from a financial perspective, we would take a huge chunk out of Bankruptcy filings, and save ER services for the more appropriate uses. There are good arguments from either side of the politcal spectrum as to why we would want this (and yes, there are reasons why not as well, but that's not what you asked).

As to the government running things? The ability for any large organization to efficently manage large projects has it's share of problems - this would probably be key in looking at the cons of any such program. But to say that the government has never sponsored anything that has turned out well? Despite current problems, the Military would certainly come as a government sponsored success (WW2 probably standing as it's height of operation); Social Security has it's share of problems (primary being that it is too often used to fund other thigns), but it has worked very much as FDR imagined; Criminal and civil justice - again, plenty of spots you can point at that could be better, but it defnitely stands as one of the best judiciary systems ever put forth... and that's not even starting in to lower levels of government where you'll find a quick rise in the number of major successes.

From a personal stand point, I am not sure just what a final working version would look like, but there is a potential for enough plusses that it is something that should be looked at and studied... and if the numbers add up right, there would be no reason not to try. Though the reality will most likely be that the numbers will merely come close and the political climate will sway things one way or the other.

Answer 3

Well, lack of healthcare to the poor is a major problem in this country. I agree that tax breaks (to the poor only), might be one way to help. The rich DO NOT pay more taxes. They receive more tax breaks in which they are provided more places to hide the money they make.

One thing that seems to be working somewhat decently is Medicare. They should expand this to healthcare for the poor also. I think it would work.

Since the poor may have paid taxes or are working poor and cannot afford health insurance, I believe the govt. owes working people some kind of benefits. After all, they're wasting tax payer money in so many places.

Answer 4

It is true that the government makes blunders but I sure don't trust corporate America any more. Long story short 1/3 of Americans are currently uninsured or underinsured with their health coverage. The government could ensure a more fair distribution of services unless you think the current system of neglect is fair?

Not only does the US have the collectively worst health care but also the highest cost when compared with other nations. Free market traits do not always work or as has happened become exploited for profit at the expense of service (HMO).

Answer 5

lots of the reason that well being care is so extreme priced might want to be linked without delay or in a roundabout thanks to the authorities. because the authorities is the entity this is inflating the costs, it has change into no longer a threat for all people else to discover the money for it. we are going to finally end up with a unmarried payer gadget basically by potential of default. even as which will change into the case, there basically isn't any more effective multi-million greenback malpractice judgments, huge malpractice charges, or clinical innovation. starting to be a well being care specialist will change right into a 4 year degree, basically because it really is in England, we are able to have drugs by potential of assembly line, and some human beings received't get any care in any respect, in the adventure that they are too previous, or too ill, or too extreme priced. all the greed that has plagued our clinical gadget could have earned us marginal clinical care.

Answer 6

Your points about government inneptitude are well taken and completely valid, but ask yourself if a $2000 tax break is going to be of any use to a minimum wage earner who's working two jobs just to keep afloat and can't afford medicare anyway.

As a society, we have a responsibility to those less fortunate than us. It's the flipside of that freedom we prize so highly. Freedom which we have because of an ordered civilization where we don't have to worry about raiding parties, warlords and every other bugger who would just take what they needed, when they needed it.

Unfortunately government is the only mechanism we have to address that responsibility at the moment, as poor as it is.

Answer 7

I don't get your tax argument at all. It's not that simple at all. We are the only 1st world country in the world who does not have basic universal health care coverage.

Answer 8

You have health care.... so of course you have no clue what its like to need health care and cant get it.....The third world countries have health care... why not the strongest country in the world? Are our citizens not important enough to take care of.

Answer 9

Government sponsored health care is better than no health care. PS I like hippies!

Answer 10

seems your side gets worked up over non issues. there will be no national health care,the insurance companies will not allow it. in case you are not aware they have a lobbying group and dems and repubs are controlled by lobbyists and corporations.