Why do you oppose Universal Health Care in the US?

Question

Before you answer, please check to see if your objection is addressed in the following link:

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm

Answer 1

because the USA pays the bulk of the cost of pharmaceutical research and development and a price break is given to other countries.

If pharmaceutical companies had to go through the bargaining agreement for Univ Health Care in the USA then many new vaccinations and new medicines would not be developed because the companies would not feel it was worth their money.
And the ones they did develop would now be at a lower price in the USA and to make up the difference in money the companies would then have to charge other countries more money to make up the difference which would then show us how universal health care in other countries is in part ONLY successful because the USA shoulders the majoirty of these costs.

Answer 2

The fact that we spend 40% more per capita on our health care is a GOOD sign. Why is it that if we spend less than other countries on education, that that's a sign of failure, but when we spend more on health care, that's seen as a sign of failure, too? You can't have it both ways. The reason our health care is superior is because it's free market. The reason our health care is superior is because we invest more into it than other countries.

Here's a fact: while we spend a lot on health care in the free market, taxes would have to go up to pay for universal health care. That means more economic stagnation, more government bureaucracy, inefficient and inferior health care, and overall less freedom. Haven't you see how the government mismanages even small tasks? Seriously, you trust the government enough to make all your health care decisions? You sure are naive.

And here's the best point - a point that your article didn't address: whenever the government has an economic interest in you, the government takes an even bigger interest in controlling you. If the government controls health care, and you eat too much, drink too much, smoke too much or engage in other health risk factors, don't you think the government is just a hop, skip, and a jump away from regulating those behaviors? After all, insurance companies deny health care because of those risk behaviors. The difference between insurance companies and the government, though, is that insurance companies have to lobby the government, but the government has the full force of the law on its side. If you're a health liability, your fellow citizens will push for your lifestyle to be restricted or outlawed. And wouldn't that be reasonable since they're the ones paying for your health care? If you burden the system, you'll be seen as damaging to the system. Kiss your freedoms goodbye!

Answer 3

For one opposition is the healthiest thank you to maintain well being care expenses down. the reason well being care expenses are increasing so extreme is due broadly speaking to unlawful Immigration. They use and don't pay for the centers rendered. SO the hospital desires to make up for the loss, in doing so they improve there costs and fee coverage companies which in return they fee us a greater physically powerful top classification. . take a seem at Canada's generally happening well being care gadget. each and every physique is taxed on there earnings there fifty 5%. And the government dictates what assessments or approaches you are able to and can't have. For the a number of better assessments like an MRI there's a 6 month waiting checklist. A canines can get an MRI speedier than a citizen. generally happening well being care looks sturdy on paper, even even though it fairly is extremely high priced, and the place is our government going to get the money for it? you obtain it larger taxes.

Answer 4

Look at other countries that have it. In those countries you have no choice what doctor you go to. The government chooses for you. Her in America, even if you have no health insurance, you have a choice; and if you do have insurance, but have to choose a doctor that is in network, you still have a choice. If you want, you can go to a doctor out of network and just pay. In Universal care, you might now have a choice at all. Also, the government can tell you that you don't need medical attention. In some countries, if you are over a certain age, they say that you are to old for the need of a doctor. Another problem is the waiting period. Sure, the more serious problems are taken first, but do you still want to wait months, or even years, to have minor problems fixed? Universal health care sounds wonderful, but it doesn't work.
I think people should work at fighting the health care problem where the real problem is: the cost of health care. I mean, $100 for a bottle of aspirin in a hospital is ridiculous.

Answer 5

Excuse me if I don't read your attempt to have me visit a web site I have not interest in. But, I have lived in England and I have lived in Canada, both have National Health.

In England one has to wait weeks to get a routine appointment and months and sometimes years to get surgery. Many people who look at National Health in the USA apply todays numbers to the equation. The reality is that with National Health, those who would never have sought health care will now seek care, thus bottling up the system. In England people can't wait to get a good enough job to get private health coverage. This is but another example of socialized medicine.

Much of the same can be said for health care in Canada. There doctors are limited on the amount of money they are allowed to make each year! For that reason there are many Canadian physicians who work in Canada for 6-9 months, then come to practice in the USA for the remainder of the year.

I honestly believe that many of those who seek national health care have a good heart, they just think "coverage" and have not studied the ramifications of such universal coverage. Today our national government cannot adequately take care of Seniors, the poor and the dependents of military. The governemnt provides health care reimbursements so low that many doctors refuse to even see such patients. Imagine a system where there would be government control of health care for everybody? What a mess! Not to mention the inefficiency and overwhelming cost to taxpayers.

Answer 6

I don't click links and I donot support health care, even the current ones that give freebies to the lazy and shiftless in society. Now if you want to give coverage to the working poor, fine. But those that do not work should not be fed, allowed to procreate or even have a decent house. Ship them off to poor farms.

Answer 7

Health care only serves to make people live longer. Americans are living too long as it is.

But seriously, the link /did/ try to address my objections. It failed, completely, but it did try to lie and spin and make invalid comparisons to address them. C- for the effort.

Answer 8

nice link. universal healthcare benefits goverment because they are vest power to control. but in reality its the consumers who get the short end of the stick. sure its lower costs but look to the drug companies that now have to scrounge by just to keep up with production. not to mention that those really benefitting universal healthcare would be people who are immigrants and those who basically suck the time and effort of doctors needed to treat EVERYBODY.

Answer 9

Your cite is left wing liberal loony propaganda. I am opposed to Universal Health care. The US government cannot do anything right. Adding a government bureaucracy on top of health expenses would leave the doors open for more waste, fraud and abuse. We live in a free society. I want the right to choose to buy or not buy insurance. There is no guarantee in the US Constitution for universal health insurance.

Answer 10

I was interested inreading it all until I can to some embelished percentages of people with out INSURANCE, not health care.