Government health care?

Question

Do you think it would be better if the government paid for our health care?
What are the pros and cons?
Would doctors and people in the insurance business make less money?
Please explain this to me.
Thanks!!

Answer 1

1. "Do you think it would be better if the government paid for our health care?" Answer: No

2. "What are the pros and cons?"

Answer:

Pros:

1. The very poorest and disadvantaged in society get rudimentary basic health care at no cost for them.

Cons:

1. Government waste
2. Added average cost to the american taxpayer
3. Government decrease of physician wages will lead to a shortage of Doctors.
4. Lack of advancement in new Medicines.
5. Lack of choice in Doctor selection, followed by lack of accountability.
6. Poor quality of health care from above reasons
7. Higher taxes (much higher) will lead to a general slowdown in the economy, leading to job losses, leading to more people on governement assistance, etc. causing a vicious cycle which will end in the government cutting services drastically.
8. It's unconstitutional in the first place, though I know politicians stopped caring about that a long time ago.


3. Would doctors and people in the insurance business make less money? Answer: Sort of. Insurance companies would overnight fail, causing immense damage to the economy, and presumably doctors would be paid less by the government. This would simply lead to less doctors overall however, and the government would take the place as the only "insurance company" allowed.. and trust me.. it would be bringing in more cash than all current insurance companies combined.

Answer 2

I am fortunate enough to have good health insurance through my husband's work. But it would be great if others shared my good fortune...I'm all for it. This is my take:
My brother is a physician, and he's against it. So I'm guessing that government-funded healthcare would place a cap on what doctors could charge per patient. That wouldn't be a bad thing, in my opinion: my own doctor gets $100 per office visit, and I he's rarely with me more than ten minutes. I see nothing to justify such an expense.
The "con" is obvious: somebody's gotta pay for everyone to have health insurance, and that would undoubtedly be in the form of higher taxes. The "pro" is that everyone's covered!
I know uninsured people whose catastrophic illnesses have bankrupted them, including a couple whose three-year-old boy had brain cancer. The government should be involved in some things, shouldn't in others; making sure that American can see a doctor and be in hospital when they need to is something it SHOULD be involved in.
I'd also like to address the skyrocketing cost of some healthcare providers and services, which would probably come down if the governemnt is willing to pay only a certain amount for such services. Case in point...I needed a dye-contrast MRI of the brain after an auto accident several years ago. It took about half an hour, and the service provider charged my Blue Cross FIVE THOUSAND dollars for it. That's insane; it wasn't open-heart surgery. These costs that our insurance companies are getting billed are waaaaaay out of line, but they charge it because they can get it.

Answer 3

The money would 100% come from taxes. But the question of if insurance companies and doctors would make more is really depends on what of the many different versions of government run health care your talking about.

In some the government would be a "single payer". In this model it would be jut like medicare, where your insurance company would gt paid by submitting claims to the government to get reimbursed for services. This means that we are adding yet another level of bureaucracy to the picture and that can only cost more money. Also the #1 way insurance companies has traditionally made money is on these government programs.

The other way people are proposing would be that the government would administer the benefits and in that case there would be no insurance companies in the health care market. This may sound good but you remove one set of costs (for profit) for another set of costs (inefficient).

When it comes to health costs there is no really good answer. Just pick who you want to take your money and live with it. Oh and BTW the US is 36th in the world for our health care...Kind of sad if you think about how much we spend on it.

Answer 4

No.

Pros: 'free' health care for everyone.
Cons: Greatly increases demand for health care, increasing the burden on the system, and thus costs, while degrading the quality of care. Invites mirco-management of the industry by the government by making the government agency a health-care monopsony.

Doctors would probably make more money, at first, due to rising demand. If the government kicks in price controlls, they might make less - if it's enough less, or if regulations are otherwise sufficiently onerous, you might find the number of people entering the proffession dropping.

Depending on how it's implemented, the insurance industry to miss out or cash in. If the system is completely nationalized, obviously, they lose out big-time. Instead of offering a product that's virtually manditory and tax-favored, they'd be cut out completely. More likely, the government would tap the existing insurance aparatus to create a universal health insurance system, with the government paying the 'premiums' of the currently uninsured, in which case the industry would cash in bigtime (often, those who don't carry insurance are those who don't need it, like the relatively young and healthy, but getting money for 'covering' them, the industry would fatten it's proffits).

Answer 5

Health care is not a right.
When the government runs health care, then there will be longer waiting times, and will result in more deaths.
There will be a poorer quality of health care.
Beauacratic oversight of healthcare will lead to less doctor-patient visits.
Profit motives competition and enginuity that leads to better health care and advanced discoveries in science. Like it or not the pharmecuitical companies have been the companies that have made the most medical achievements in the last century
Healthy people who can actually take care of themselves will have to pay for people who smoke, or are obese.
It makes the health care system inefficient, less than cutting edge, and not cost-effective.

Answer 6

Absolutely not. One reason is the privacy issues involved. Do you really want the government to have access to your personal medical information. Moreover, would you really trust the government to protect your information?

Secondly. look at recent news articles about how bad conditions are at VA hospitals. If this is any indication of the type of health-care we can expect under a national system then forget it.

Another issue to consider is who and how are we as a nation going to pay for and maintain a national health-care system? Along those lines exactly what will the government plan cover? Would it cover just basic services or would it cover major medical issues, long term care, hospital visits etc...

Lastly, think about this. Think of a time when you have had to deal with a government agency at any level for any reason, like the hassle you get at the DMV, do you really want your health-care to be handled in the same manner? Just something to think about.

Answer 7

No

The government wouldn't pay for it, we would in the form of oppressive tax increases. Suppose we did pass national healthcare...

Now your taxes will have to be increased. Suppose you never get sick for several years. Too bad. All that extra tax you just paid goes into a general fund to pay for other people's medical costs.

And the costs only increase, because now you have a massive new bureacracy to administer the program. And you think the line at a doctor's office is long now? Just wait until you pass this nonsense. Ever been to the DMV? Yea, like that but worse.

Bad, bad, bad Idea.

Answer 8

A government-financed health care system would still be racked by the same kind of fraud and abuse we now see in the Medicare and Medicaid programs (25% losses due to fraud.) The only real difference--and a vital one indeed---is that the public would not be able to sue when injured or killed by practitioners, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Currently, America's health care system is the single largest cause of death and injury in the USA: 800,000 wrongful deaths and 20 million injuries every year.

Clearly, the problem is not who pays for this, the problem is the system is corrupt to its core.

The Canadian system has proven itself a dismal failure. Unable to purchase private health care for conditions that won't wait 6 or 8 months, Canadians must turn to health care brokers who make deals to get them treatment in the USA and Europe.

Answer 9

The government already pays for health care, only they do it in the most expensive setting (the Emergency room). No one entering an emergency room is denied treatment for inability to pay, That cost is passed on to your insurance company, they pass it onto your employer, and your employer passes it on to you. Its our choice, we can either pay $1200.00 a pop at the ER, or pay a family doctor $150..,,,,,,but either way, we pay

Answer 10

IN British Columbia Canada We pay$ 96.00 per month for two people for medicare . prescriptions have a deductable based on income. hospital paid from sales tax.,Low income and seniors get a break..I fell on the street was rushed to hospital > spent 6 hours in ER given Free cab ride home.. total cost $ 56.00 for ambulance. If my Income was lower it would have been free.. Seniors get a bus pass $ 45.00 Per year.. We also get free ferry rides.. Eat your heart out America....