Given what I know about other government administered programs - YES - I am scared s***less. Let's see, there were the $600 toilet seats at the Pentagon, there is the minor affair of billions of $s that went missing in Iraq and then there's just plain old fashioned graft in every function of gov't. Whenever there is no competition for a product or service the cost goes up and the quality goes DOWN. Thus it has ever been.
2007-05-11 06:01:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by mikey 6
·
0⤊
3⤋
Well it works well in Canada. No one tells me what doctor or specialist I can or cannot see. If a doctor says I need to see the specialist, well, off I go. I see a specialist and don't pay any money. Well not quite true, we do pay a monthly amount, I thinks it's about $54.00/month for a family.
But, then again, if I was on Social Assistance, I would pay nothing and still get all the services available at absolutely no cost. Or, if my income was below a certain level I would receive partial or full subsidy.
Yeah, we still whine and complain about the waiting time in emergency rooms, but that's just life. And yes, we do wait to see specialists, again, that's life.
We still have to pay for our own perscriptions and that' s where private insurance companies come into play. We also have Dr.'s who ask if you can afford the meds and if not will not just send you away but give you the drugs you need from the samples the pharmecutical companies give them.
If I'm injured anywhere in the country, I will be treated, no questions asked, that is rather comforting, don't you think?
Anyway the system works here and though there are muttering about changing it I don't think the average Canadian would go for it. I'm not saying it is perfect, but then what is?
2007-05-11 06:16:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by Choqs 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Ready for some good news? It doesn't matter 'cause it ain't gonna happen.
Right now, at this moment, the AARP and NAACP are telling the Democrat Party politicians to FORGET about getting rid of the private parts of Medicare. And if that's going on there's no way we'll ever see universal health care in any form remotely like that dreamed up by Hillary Clinton.
In effect, the Republicans have won this battle and it's all over without the shouting. Unlike members of the Democrat Party, the Republicans declare victory at their country clubs instead of before the cameras of the media.
2007-05-11 05:58:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't like the idea of universal healthcare if totally managed by the government. I am more in favor of affordable healthcare. This means that everyone pays something in premium and co-pay. It would be managed by a combination of insurance companies and the government. Limits on law suits would be imposed and they would be able to negotiate the cost of drugs and medical supplies for hospitals, clinics, pharmacies and the like. Those who are retired and on fixed incomes such as Social Security may have to pay only 20 or 30 a month for their premium and a 5 copay when they go to the doctor or get prescription medication. Those more able to afford it like Bill Gates, for example, might pay $1000 a month in premium and the same for copay or ever so slightly more for the copay. Companies large and small would be required to offer healthcare for their employees at a very reasonable cost based on company and employee contributions. For younger people a combination of health savings plan and a ppo type plan would be recommended as they probably won't need it right away but will later. I am sure that if Congress and the private industry work together they can come up with a healtcare system that provides quality healthcare at affordable prices for everyone.
2007-05-11 06:03:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
Universal health care can be implemented in a responsible fashion. It can't be a total free ride though, as that would have way too many people with room temperature IQs going to the doctor's office at the first sniffle of a cold rather than taking some aspirin, forcing fluids and resting. The premiums, deductibles and co-pays need to be low enough to be affordable, yet high enough to discourage abuse of the system.
As far as the government increasing their authority over what risks you can take, that's a slippery slope we've been on for a long time, from seat belt laws and helmet laws to dictating to business owners that they can't allow smoking in their establishment to mandating emissions standards and safety standards on auto manufacturers and mandating the famous CONTENTS MAY BE HOT McDonald's warning on your Styrofoam coffee cup.
I agree some of these things may seem over the top, but the fact is, we have a safer country because of these requirements. In days gone by, people would tell you to rely on your common sense. Unfortunately, our technological advancements and over protective tendencies have eliminated common sense from our society.
Anyhow, after addressing some of your concerns, I would say I'm not afraid of Universal Health care, but the mismanagement and probability of irresponsible implementations scares the dickens out of me.
2007-05-11 06:07:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by Jim 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Maybe you should visit places where a single payer system actually exists, such as Canada or France, and you might find that your fears are not justified. Those countries spend less and have better health care than in the US. The reason is because a single payer system is much more efficient that the Rube Goldberg contraption we have in the US, where we have Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, VA health care for veterans, private insurance for most others, and nothing for everyone else who falls through the cracks, meaning that the rest of us have to pay in one way or another for the uninsured. The administrative costs and waste of the US system are horrendous.
And how could the government do worse at regulating health care than private insurance companies, whose main motivations are to sign up people who don't need health care, and decline treatment for those who do.
2007-05-11 05:58:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by rollo_tomassi423 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
Your argument, while interesting, smacks of a Hannityism. It's ironic that the same people who are against national health care for the reasons you've listed are also against abortion and stem cell research.
People who want universal health care are not necessarily concerned with FORCING you to use the national system. It would be in place for people who have no or bad insurance. It would be meant to prevent the kinds of deaths that should only happen in third world countries.
2007-05-11 07:38:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by Mister Shock 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
I'm concerned about healthcare in general.
Not sure universal is the answer to our problems, but *something* has to be done!
Have you noticed your premiums going up?
Notice your co-pays have gone up?
Notice what's being covered is ever shrinking?
Ever notice that less and less prescriptions are on the lists?
If something doesn't change, a whole lot of us are going to have serious problems with healthcare. We're either going to get stuck with huge bills or we won't receive the proper care needed which could result in a whole host of medical problems.
2007-05-11 05:59:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by Josh 3
·
4⤊
0⤋
I'm not afraid of it because I will fight it tooth and nail. I do not want to pay for it and anyone with even an ounce of intelligence understands that the care would be worse that what we have today. We have a good system, it just needs to have the insurance companies and the lawyers strung up for creating the high costs we are seeing today. Do people understand that you will not be able to sue a government entity? So why not keep the good care, and get rid of the lawsuits with the high payouts today.
2007-05-11 05:56:12
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
im afraid of the cost and the quality of care that will suffer. If you want to see nationla healthcare in the USA at work. Visit a public clinic run by the govenment. Its a disaster.
2007-05-11 05:54:48
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋