What are the pros and cons of universal health insurance in USA?

Question

Please indicate if you truly believe that either party is really going to tackle this issue before and during the next election.

Answer 1

I am not comfortable paying for the healthcare of people that smoke too much, drink too much, use too many drugs, have unprotected sex with multiple partners, etc. I just don't think it's fair.

Answer 2

No, I don't believe either party will really tackle this issue at any point in time because medical care is big business and they'd be sinking their campaigns. The pros of a well run universal health care system would be to provide medical care to people who aren't getting it. They should be able to get better care sooner and many could eventually be well enough to go to work or back to work and contribute to society. The cons would be if it's not a good system or not run properly. Good intentions of a few won't carry the program if it degenerates under the sabatoge of those who want to ruin it.

Answer 3

Pros - everyone would be covered

Cons - the govt screws everything else up - I really don't want them in charge of my health care. I have a chronic health condition, and with excellent private insurance, it took me FIFTEEN YEARS to get a diagnosis.

And no, I don't think either party will seriously tackle the issue anytime soon. I just watched a documentary about the Alaska pipeline, and there were clips from the 70s, talking about ending our dependence on foreign oil....and we all know how well *that* turned out!

Answer 4

I've heard pro arguments in favor of universal care, but I've heard a lot more cons to it. It sucks not having health care, but it all boils down to economics. Things would be over-crowded. People who didn't need an appointment would be in there anyway. The "I have to live forever" elderly would be an absolute drain on resources. Every doctor would see twice as many people, effectively cutting the quality of care in half. (S)he wouldn't have the time to adequately diagnose, resulting in the wrong prescription being issued. The beauracracy of government would be slow and wasteful. There are many arguments that come to mind, but the ones that make the most sense are the economic ones. After all...

If beer were free wouldn't bars be busier?

Answer 5

Major con is that everyone will get very poor health care. Just like in Cuba and Canada where they have universal health care.

Think about it. Everything the government does costs 20 times as much and doesn't work anyway. Why do we want to ruin health care for our people?

There are steps to reduce costs and the government can be involved in regulating changes, but don't put them in charge of it. The free market can take care of it and it won't cost a fortune either.

I can't think of any pros.

Answer 6

They probably will to some extent as the election gets closer, but I'm not really familiar with the policy proposals that have been suggested thus far.

One con that I could see is the type of things that are covered. Some less common conditions are likely to slip through the cracks of coverage, and it will be an uphill battle trying to get the person the medical care that they need.

Answer 7

Cons:
1. Health care workers (including doctors) may have to form unions in order to protect them from overwork and underpayment.

2. Sacrifice of quality of care if health care workers incomes are capped by government oversight.

3. Neglect of unusual cases that require the attention of a specialist.

4. No incentive for health care workers to excel if they become apathetic to medicine because of their ultimate employer being the government and being treated like any other government employee.

Pros:
1. Those that do not have health care access will have it, and with any luck they'd use it.

Answer 8

Since no such program exists yet it is all speculation on the part of supporters and detractors .
As with any government handled project it may never provide anything near what it promises because to many people will voice in how it is accomplished .
A simple straight forward program That provides care to all people and also insures that doctors and hospitals will be paid can be accomplished . At 18 you decide if you want to be in the government program or the pay when you need it program .
Those who chose pay when you need it will be required to pre pay for services . If you are unable you will be left to die .
A chip will be installed to track those who pay in and those who opt out .
If you go broke when you are 57 and need a 300,000 dollar hospital stay to save your liver from cancer it is to late to sign up . Remember choosing a health care program is up to you .

Answer 9

Pros- It will tend to reel in the out of control outrageous fees the medical profession charges for the simplest procedures

Cons- It will insure that all people will have equal access to the worst medical care in the world (Except the wealthy who will get nothing but the best)
Just like Al Gore Do as I say not as I do

Answer 10

There is no pro for UHC. It is SOCIALISM to the core.

It will turn PROFESSIONALS, who now have a great many incentives to innovate and perform well, into a bunch of glorified government workers, impossible to fire, lazy, doing two hours of work for ten hours of pay.

The real fix for the cost of health care is to shut down 99% of the lawyer mills. Someone tell me why we need more lawyers? They are now inventing new pretend diseases so that they can sue someone for them. If you reduced the number of sharks in the water, malpractice rates would plummet for both private practice docs and public health facilities.

Answer 11

I don't think Americans have the guts to try universal health insurance...

Pros:
- Medical attention is provably subject to economic laws...i.e. when it becomes less expensive, more people seek it and vice versa.
- Universal health insurance would make sure that Americans have equal access to treatment, instead of the current system where those who have money receive superior treatment to those who don't
- It would make malpractice suits more difficult to press, allowing doctor's to spend less time paying for malpractice insurance and more time taking care of patients

Cons:
- Taxes will be significantly higher
- Depending on your view of proper role of government, this may be an infringement of the government's position
- While more people have access to healthcare, the care they receive tends to be of lower quality than is possible under a privatised healthcare scheme (like our current one)