Do You Support UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE? Why Or Why Not?

Question

I personally support it, but that's from the opinion of a typical liberal-Democrat LOL and I know people have very strong opinions about this so what do you think?

Answer 1

Yes, i think it's sad when a country like Cuba, that we mock all the time, has universal health care and about the same health statistics that we have. And we spend 64 times as much!

It should be a right in any decent society. We don't have to have a single-payer plan but we do need something that allows access to all.

What is sad is that we actually pay taxes for people with health care to have it (companies can deduct expenses, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), and yet not everyone gets it. That same money could provide coverage to all and we could eliminate much of that 30% of costs representing administration, must of which is spent on preventing people from getting health care through risk rating.

Answer 2

No! I couldn't support the plan! The idea, yes, but in all reality, the government would end up running it, and that would be disastrous!
HMO'S need to go! Pharmacies charge an arm and a leg for prescriptions, and as for hospitals! They even charge for the band-aids they use! And then we have the pharmacies ripping us off, by charging more for the medications than the pharmaceutical companies pay to make them! I don't know what the solution is, I only know that what we have now, isn't good enough!
ps I am a liberal democrat , too! So I am not putting your ideas down,but I can't agree!

Answer 3

It's a great idea, but having the government do it for you, add's tons of bloat, and cost to it. I was talking with a Canadian friend of mine, and he said a 12 pack of beer cost around $40 (doesn't matter if it's USD or CAN). Taxes are crazy, and the health care is actually better here (he has a heart condition). As long as you have a job, and the free market can keep costs down, and you don't make the government or hospitals pay for illegals, the prices should be affordable enough for everyone that can work.

I could support a law stating that an employer of a certain size has to pay for half your chosen healthcare.

I could also support healthcare for elderly or children, or disabled people (that really can't work, not just because they are too fat to move around).

These are my views, and I'm a moderate conservative.

I will be voting for Dr. Ron Paul

Answer 4

No. There is too much intervention in health care now. There needs to be a whole lot of incremental changes.

The medical courses need to be cut in length, to leave out inessential padding, that is used to cut the number of doctors, so as to raise medical fees.

The State regulations that impose a whole series of mandates so that health insurance is really bad debt insurance for doctors need to be undermined by permitting any health insurance policy approved anywhere in the USA to be sold throughout the USA in interstate commerce. This would be a partial repeal of the legislation passed by Congress to reverse the decision of the Supreme Court in the Polish National case.

Anti-competitve legislation such as that stopping the importation of foreign pharmaceuticals should be repealed. If the drug companies say that the prices are too low in Canada, then they should put them up. Why should the USA be subsidizing Canadians, just because we are richer?

The FTC or the Justice Department should commence an antitrust suit against the AMA for cartel behavior and see how it works out. Why should the AMA have immunity in fact from the antitrust law.

What we need is competition, not the dead hand of government. Going postal is not a solution.

Universal medical insurance is just a way of guaranteeing the receivable of doctors, who are rich enough now.

In Australia, (where I worked for a period), there are long waiting lists for operations, allegations in the State of Queensland that certain surgeons are negligent and kill lots of patients by adccident, chronic doctor shortages, because they leave to go overseas, but worse, more than two thirds of the health budget is spent on management/adminstrators, as opposed to doctors and nurses and hospitals.

Giving more power and money to the government is like giving crack cocaine, a new Maserati, a loaded glock, a crate of Jack Daniels and a high priced call girl to a 16 year old boy.

Why would any customer want to have a monopoly supplier that regulated itself?

Answer 5

there is a huge distinction between everyday wellness care, that's an impossibility, and everyday scientific wellness coverage, which I help in theory. in fact that the U. S. spends plenty greater according to capita on wellness care than each and each individual else, yet our average wellness isn't good adequate to get us into the applicable fifteen countries international, by potential of any of various measures. I certainly have a private stake right here, in case you will permit a disclaimer: as an emergency healthcare expert, i'm required by potential of regulation to paintings (for unfastened if mandatory) on each and each individual who asks. the place everyday coverage has been observed by potential of obstacles on deepest coverage or deepest care, there have been inconveniences and issues almost equivalent each so often to our very own, yet average those countries stay greater healthy countries, and there is no reason we could continually minimize deepest drugs. pondering how plenty greater we spend, i think of we basically choose paintings out the significant factors.

Answer 6

I'd prefer a free-market health-care system, but we don't have that now.

The AMA has succeeded in passing laws that give them a monopoly on prescribing drugs & doing surgery, and that limit the number of new doctors being trained.

Individuals are taxed on health insurance premiums.

The government subsidizes research at universities then gives giant corporations monopolies on the results.

The FDA keeps out competitive drugs from other countries.
And it even prohibits the re-importation of drugs that our own drug companies sell at lower prices in Canada.

People who refuse to buy health insurance are treated at taxpayer's expense when they get sick.

So I'd prefer a free-market health care system, but government-financed universal health care would be no worse than what we have now.

Answer 7

How many horror stories of failed privatized Health Care do we need to go towards a single payer system?
Insurance should be completely out of the picture.
I know of no person I know that has anything nice to say about our insurance run system.
Quit demonizing the government when the private sector has failed spectacularly for decades!

Answer 8

Well coming from a doctor, that would be very bad for health care- it would be very poor quality. I do support a two-tier system for those who can't afford health care, military vets etc....
Let's say that eventually there was an even more corrupt government than there is now (i know i know hard to imagine) but If the government controlled health care- they could essentially vaccinate you and sterilize people. Like the UN did to people in third world countries when they said they were just vaccinating for polio. So you see.

Being poor quality, is bad enough especially because good tax paying americans won't be the ones who benefit but illegals will.

It is very bad idea. I say no.

Answer 9

First off, we really need to have a definition of what we're talking about. This is not going to be "Universal Health Care", it is going to be "Standardized Healthcare".

Standardized Healthcare means, you walk into any hospital in America of comparable size, (not every 2 room country clinic is going to have an MRI scanning room) and you should be able to expect the same service and treatment, no matter what part of the country you are in. A lot of adjustments will have to be made, in not only the Healthcare Industry, but also the Health Insurance Industry, the Pharmacuetical Industry and also, the American People's attitudes about public Health.

We will have to become a country of "Preventative Medicine". This means regular visits to the doctor, even when you feel fine, so a condition or disease does not have the chance to become entrenched in the body. The quicker the condition is discovered and remedied, the quicker the patient can return to work.

With Federally funded Standardized Healthcare in the US, there goes a multi-billion dollar Health Insurance scam, er, oops, I mean Industry. There will be no need for them anymore. So of course, there is going to be a LOT of resistance from the insurance lobbyists in this country, a LOT of pressure put on "our" elected officials to leave things the way they are.
Hospitals are going to have to become a LOT better at paying poor doctors less and good nurses more, not to mention enough with the ludicrous "$8.00 for an aspirin" hospital overcharges we've just gotten used to over the years.
We are facing a terrible nursing shortage (my ex is an RN and I highly respect ANYONE who does this incredibly grueling job) in this country and it is becoming a crisis. Doctors scribble crap on charts and go golfing, Nurses do the work. It's time we stopped importing them from the Phillipines and started treating them MUCH better in the paychecks.
HMOs have GOT to go. This system of "total healthcare" is a miserable failure. Standardized healthcare (the way I understand it anyway, is what HMOs were SUPPOSED to be).
Drug Companies: I know this sucks for your bottom line, but you have to put SOME profit aside and start developing CURES for things again, not "treatment regimens" which last the rest of the patient's life and gross obscene profits. No more "Please ask your doctor if such and such or so and so is right for you." Doctors get ENOUGH pressure form you directly, they dont need patients coming in insisting on getting some drug for which they have no need. Mos ttimes patients don't trust their doctors anyway, because doctors are so overworked, they often prescribe drugs and treatments which interact badly with the drugs or meds he told her to take LAST month. Doctors, your patients are not guinea pigs for you to try Upjohn's latest blood pressure meds out on. Stop shilling for these ridiculously expensive drugs, please.

Answer 10

If by UNIVERSAL healthcare you mean like aliens flying their spaceships into our hospital parking lots I'm gonna say no, you never know what kind of diseases those guys get in the UNIVERSE.

If you mean socialized medicine which is the true term, not the PC "it sells better" term. Then definately not. Why would I want to pay more taxes so that my kids can now get the same crappy medical-care that the unemployed highschool dropouts 10 kids get. Why would I want to work my butt off to give my kids a better life, when what that means is they get average healthcare instead of the best the society has to offer. Why do I want to contibute to the mediocrity of our society instead of to the betterment of our society. Why do I want to stiffle competitiveness it's what made this country great. Having something to aspire to, even if that is better healthcare. is what made America the land of achievers.