They may not PAY for certain things, but I have news for you... your current insurance doesn't pay for certain things. It all depends upon the plan your employer chose. Government-run health insurance is exactly the same as private insurance... it's just funded by the government.
2007-03-22 09:08:49 · 10 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Stony: You are incorrect; that is not what liberals are talking about.
2007-03-22 09:14:45 · update #1
Exactly....and even in Canada where they have a national health care plan, those who can afford it are able to pay for extra, private healthcare to pay for what the national health care doesn't cover. If we had national health care in the U.S, everyone would get at least a basic amount of health care and then if you wanted more, you could purchase more. It would save businesses money and they would be able to hire more employees. It would save U.S citizens more money because we wouldn't have to spend hundreds of dollars a month to pay for private insurance through work.
2007-03-22 09:16:31 · answer #1 · answered by Katie 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Universal health care is just adding another layer of error onto a system that is fraught with errors.
Think the IRS does a good job? How 'bout the Post Office? Or the Driver's License Bureau? How in Heaven's Sweet Name can anyone believe that the Federal Govt could effectively run something as vital as health care?
what needs to happen is a huge enema! get the insulating layer out that stands between provider and consumer! who ever asks a doctor how much something will cost? nobody, cuz insurance will cover it...and poof! there's goes any free-market forces that govern price and quality, and it winds up in this weird LaLa Land that it now resides.
rebuild the link between customer and provider, then step back and let human nature and the natural market process clean this bloated mess up...should take about three hours.
2007-03-22 09:25:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Universal health care as currently defined is government regulation of the entire medical industry. Because government run bureaucracies are inherently inefficient, this will likely result in shortages of service. The shortage will result in rationing medical services to those who are most 'qualified'. That means if a retired person and a working man need a hip replacement and there is only time and resources for one, the working person will get it and the retired person will have to do without even if they would have had enough money to get the surgery on their own. It can also lead to the eventual politicization of the health care industry where if you aren't of the 'right' party or 'correct' opinion on issues, then your ability to receive health care suddenly disappears. Go down to a busy city DMV office and stand in line and imagine yourself in that same line with those 'friendly' people determining your medical condition and whether or not you will get to see a doctor, RN, LPN, or no one. That's the problem with 'universal healthcare'.
2007-03-22 09:19:55 · answer #3 · answered by Crusader1189 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The problem I have with the concept is that some would like the payment for the coverage compulsory. Why should taxpayers be forced to buy something they may not want?
Given how bad the VA does at healthcare (which is, in effect socialized medical care), is this what we really want?
2007-03-22 09:33:49 · answer #4 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not stop - delay.
Since we have an example of this Utopian medical care just to our north, let's see how well they do....
A snippet from CBS News, that hotbed of radical right wing bias: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705
And here is the Fraser Institute assessments of Canada's system:
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/health/index.asp?snav=he
And no, despite your simpleminded claim that it would be the same, it won't. Because it will now be in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats. Does anybody really believe that people as a rule work better or harder without any profit incentive? No profit incentive and an employee union that makes it almost impossible to fire anybody, and you think you're going to get the same service as from somebody who is working for a promotion or a raise? Yah!
2007-03-22 09:55:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well you trust the goverment to now handle your health how do you like our education system,SSI and any other thing the goverment controls? Ask a Canadian about there health program that is run by the goverment if they aren't rich they will tell you it stinks but if you have afew 1000 to grease a palm with it is wonderfull.
2007-03-22 09:18:10 · answer #6 · answered by mississippi_goat 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It won't stop you, you will just have to go through a ton of red tape to get anything done. Ask your vets how they like all the red tape they have to go through to use the VA.
2007-03-22 09:13:28 · answer #7 · answered by az 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Aren't most dems talking about comprehensive health coverage? Comprehensive meaning that they DO pay for everything.
2007-03-22 09:14:03 · answer #8 · answered by BOOM 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It's just going to cost me more of my hard earned money.
2007-03-22 09:13:31 · answer #9 · answered by Abu 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
And provided for everyone! Thank you for that!
2007-03-22 09:14:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋