English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

1) Medical Expenses are the number 1 source of bankruptcy for families in this country.

2) Right now, people rely on their employers for Health Care.
a- This makes it more expensive (and risky) to hire new employees.
b- Keeps Employees stuck in unwanted jobs, because they don't want to lose benefits. Thus, a company misses the opportunity of hiring a more efficient, passionate employee to replace the one who is sticking around, doing the minimum work required to keep benefits.

3) The HMOs are benefiting tremendously from an Oligopoly. They collude to the detriment Physicians and all Americans who are in need of medical care.

2007-02-08 01:36:43 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

11 answers

I've lived under both systems and I know that without a doubt that a universal health care system is far superior. It comes at a price though, but from what I can see, I pay no more in National Insurance than I did in US Social Security and I actually get a tangible benefit from it.

So, I will answer your question with a resounding yes.

BTW to all those who think that we all spend all our time on waiting list in the UK. You're wrong. Elective surgeries are often pushed out but the word 'elective' is your keyword. I have experienced the amazingly fast care and surgery in the UK under the NHS in emergency situations. Thank god I didn't have to worry if my health insurance was in order before and after I was treated.

God bless the NHS.

2007-02-08 01:51:30 · answer #1 · answered by Blitzhund 4 · 0 0

Firstly, the NHS stands for the Nationl Health Service not the British Universal Health Care system. Secondly, its helped our economy rather than bankrupt it. I think the Americans are just too scared of change and an idea that isn't American.

2016-05-24 06:26:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

National Health care is estimated to cost American tax payers 339 billion dollars per year. Imagine the tax hike that would incur.

For all that tax money, we would buy surprisingly little health care.

The one common characteristic of all national health care systems is a shortage of services. For example, in Great Britain, a country with a population of only 55 million, more than 800,000 patients are waiting for surgery. In New Zealand, a country with a population of just 3 million, the surgery waiting list now exceeds 50,000. In Sweden the wait for heart x-rays is more than 11 months. Heart surgery can take an additional 8 months. In Canada the wait for hip replacement surgery is nearly 10 months; for a mammogram, 2.5 months; for a pap smear, 5 months. Surgeons in Canada report that, for heart patients, the danger of dying on the waiting list now exceeds the danger of dying on the operating table. According to Alice Baumgart, president of the Canadian Nurses Association, emergency rooms are so overcrowded that patients awaiting treatment frequently line the corridors.

This is just a few of the follies we would face. I see some people parising theses country's health care systems, yet they really don't know much about them and what really happens.

In the end, we lose money and health care we could have gotten in an emergency room. National health care is not for us....

My suggestion is to educate yourself on how the system would work and see for yourself. Because, I don't want to have to wait for healthcare when I get seen same day now. And i don't want to have to pay for everyone elses health care when they don't work.

2007-02-08 02:06:32 · answer #3 · answered by Q-burt 5 · 0 0

No. The answer to rising insurance costs is to reform litigation. If our society was not so sue happy, expenses would be much lower. Doctors and hospitals are entitled to make a fair profit, unfortunately our system is taxed by illegal immigrants and high priced malpractice insurance. In many cases it is cheaper to settle than fight a suit that has little or no merit and it is purely a business decision. Forcing the loser to pay costs in a suit would help limit this in the long run. Making health care into a universal system will do more to muck up the works. Our system is so screwed up now thanks in large part to Hilliary Clinton and her policies.

2007-02-08 01:53:12 · answer #4 · answered by JAY O 5 · 0 0

No. What's funny about the Liberals is they try stopping monopolies, but at the same time try to form governmentally protected monopolies. Also, just because it's free (not really) health care doesn't mean it will be the best. Competition and free trade has produce some of the best products that Americans use daily and has made their lives easier. Health care costs are up because we are already half way there, there's little competition to ensure great health care at a low price.

2007-02-08 01:52:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The health care system is controlled enough by the government. I shudder at the thought of what the government could require doctors and hospitals to do!
Don't you think it bad enough that the government is trying to pull all the vitamins and supplements off the shelf and make you have a prescription to get them???
People need to get the government OUT of their lives and quit having the government as a babysitter.

2007-02-08 02:05:07 · answer #6 · answered by TexasRose 6 · 0 0

I'm certainly no expert on the subject but I dont think it would help. If the government is paying for everyones healthcare...where are they going to get the money for it? The answer is the US.
Lets say we have universal healthcare for a moment. Who is going to determine who gets their operation first if there are 1000 people who need the same operation? Is there a way that one can value one persons life over the next?

2007-02-08 01:48:07 · answer #7 · answered by This too shall pass 1 · 2 0

The answer is very simple. We will never have universal health care because the politicains are owned by the large health care industries and pill makers. It's so simple and so obvious. When your congressman stands up and says it will never work, what he really is saying is, I will lose millions if they do that. Other words, our politicaians are bought and sold by these large companies. Maybe when Hillary becomes your new Prez and she will, we can try it again.

2007-02-08 02:28:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No, it would increase taxes. I say if you want good health care, get a good job that you enjoy that provides benefits.

2007-02-08 01:46:41 · answer #9 · answered by Pfo 7 · 3 2

Oh Comrade! when people cannot get heart operations because they are waiting in line behind sex changes and Breast enhancements and the bill causes the tax rate to be 86% you will be so pleased..............................

2007-02-08 01:42:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

fedest.com, questions and answers