do you think the U.s Should have a universal health care system?
why or why not?
2007-03-09 02:46:39 · 9 answers · asked by Tangerine 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Right now we pay more for health care than any other industrial nation yet we have a higher death rate for infants and a shorter life expectancy. People say that government would make it cost too much and they don't want to pay higher taxes. The problem is that they are paying that "higher tax" to the HMOs. If we continue as we are now health care cost will only get higher. A universal health care system would solve the problem.
2007-03-09 02:56:39 · answer #1 · answered by diogenese_97 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem with universal health care in this country is we would not accept the level of care we could afford. I have lived in two countries with national health care. It is a good thing, but the level of care would be seen as far below standard for here and most would not accept it.
The only way it could work in this country is for the govenment to take control of the entire system and cut costs. That would mean all nurses, doctors, drug companies, etc., etc. would have to make less. In our "Fat, Dumb, & Happy" society that would not work.
2007-03-09 03:00:08 · answer #2 · answered by GABY 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO! People are dying in Canada & England because they cant get the care they need. The governmnet will be in charge of your health. The wait time for a regular DR appointment is 1 to 3 months. The wait time for an operation is 6 months to 3 years. DR's are paid so much per patient on his contract. He gets paid whether he sees you or not. So do you think he is going to care if he helps you? Also he doesn't have to see you to get paid. I have heard that the number of patients per DR is extremely high. Hince the long wait periods. Do you really want the Government to be in charge of your health care. Haven't you heard of the problems with the VA medical centers lately? I heard that Hillary also wants to make it illegal to go to a private DR and pay with your own money.
2007-03-09 03:14:48 · answer #3 · answered by nosouix 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. It is a drain on the system. It will cost tax payers too much money. Like Canada you will need to wait awhile to see a doctor and even longer for a specialist. If for example, a woman is found with a lump in her breast it can take 6 months for a biopsy. Then it will take even longer for treatment to begin if is is cancerous. Here whether you have insurance or not, a biopsy will be taken within a couple weeks and if it is cancerous you will being treatment almost immediately. You may owe doctors bills, but you will get the treatment you need quickly. I would rather be alive and in debt than dead or dying and not owe doctors bills.
2007-03-09 02:53:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is time for the U.S. to take control of health care, because in the U.S. in the freedom of charge what you want is ramped. Other countries have taken control and have very good health care even when you compare it to ours.
Drug companies over charge for drugs as well as medical care.
2007-03-12 22:50:07 · answer #5 · answered by allen w 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think of the NHS is a superb company and that's something that many British people show delight in. i think of that in the time of any civilised society guard the ill could be a genuine somewhat than a privilege and that i plenty desire our equipment to the u . s . a . the place you get much less on your money and not something is certain. The NHS isn't ideal, like maximum structures there are flaws in spite of the certainty that those flaws are enormously minor and commonly the NHS is an incredible agency with stable priorities and a intense everyday of care. there is likewise inner maximum sector for people who pick to pay extra for extra interest, luxury and so on. so some distance as I understood Obama replaced into in simple terms bringing in some new style of coverage over there that's a shame because of the fact i myself think of your united states of america as an entire could be extra perfect off in case you accompanied a equipment such as ours. i hit upon it unhappy that alot of people are treating this as a political left vs authentic wing concern and attempting to type nationwide healthcare as socialism the actual concern could be determining on the equipment under which the ill could be extra perfect off and that i think of the statistics coach overwhelmingly that equipment is everyday well-being care.
2016-11-23 17:16:43 · answer #6 · answered by goettle 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO!!
see the fiasco at Walter Reed as a stern warning against any universal (national) healthcare system.
2007-03-09 03:55:16 · answer #7 · answered by George in Texas 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Universal or national?
If universal...
No.
2007-03-09 02:48:53 · answer #8 · answered by Gottlos 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, for one government run medicine would be a disaster
2 - not fair to make repsonsible people pay for the irresponsible ones.
3 - tax rates would syrocket
2007-03-09 02:49:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋