Many people hear "Universal Health Care" and think Sen. Clinton. But Republicans such as Mitt Romney and Huckabee are in favor of it, and it's being discussed on a bipartisan level. It seems to be almost inevitable, no matter which party wins the White House.
How do you feel about UHC? Do you think we can examine the problems in other country's systems and avoid them here?
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/poll-shows-many-republicans-favor-universal-healthcare-gays-in-military-2007-06-28.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml
2007-07-02 05:01:39 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think it's a good idea. A lot of people who are against it claim that it will diminish the quality of US health care... but as far as I can see what really has already diminished our system of health-care is the concept of endless and unreasonable profit for the drug companies and the medical industry. Health should not be about the maxi profit for a few CEO's... read the Hippocratic oath. Doctors used to have to take that seriously. Now the system serves only the wealthy. Affordable health care has completely been destroyed by the endless need for greater and greater profit.
There are some serious drawbacks to unregulated capitalism. I know just saying those words will piss off a lot of people, but they are true.
Listen: two quick stories, both true. You think about them.
My wife burned her hand. Nothing major, but we wanted to be sure it was not too serious, so we went to an emergency room. The doctor looked at her for five minutes, put Vaseline on it and bandaged it. The hospital sent us a bill for over 1000 dollars! Of course we'll never pay it and they can whistle for the rhino as far as I'm concerned. I'd be delighted to take them to court if they hassle us, because I know we'll win.
Meanwhile, in Europe, my gran-dad went for a heart operation five years ago. They fixed his ticker, and he's fine. Cost? The state paid for it because they have UHC in Italy.
If American businessmen hadn't already destroyed our health care system, we'd have the luxury of thinking our system is the best. It isn't any more; it needs fixing. And until people get their damned heads out of this post-Reagan super wealth vs. slave mentality, the best answer is the widely proven method of socialized medicine.
2007-07-02 05:19:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
I don't know if a universal health care system would truly work. I think HMOs should be regulated more closely.
Every November I go get a flu shot. I asked the medical secretary what the cost of the shot is with and without insurance. If you don't have insurance, you have to pay $10. If you do have insurance, you pay $35.
Here I thought HMOs were supposed to be non-profit. Take a look at what the CEOs make at an HMO! Its ridiculous. I think if HMOs billed only real costs, then the people who couldn't afford the premiums then would be able to.
I'm giving myself a headache just trying to type this. Bottom line, insurance is the problem here.
2007-07-02 05:11:30 · answer #2 · answered by nellbelle7 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Somethings got to change with the current state of healthcare. Do I think universal is the solution, not so much, but its a start. I just see it as a way to make the poor more dependant on the government. Bureacrats in Pennsylvania are going to make a decision on universal coverage for the uninsured soon. Basically everyone that works in PA will have to pay more in taxes so that people without benefits will have them. This is unfair as I already have insurance and would be double paying.
2007-07-02 05:07:46 · answer #3 · answered by danzahn 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
To me...the very first thing that has to happen is to take the emotion out of the issue.
A joint attention be paid on what can be cut from the Federal
Gov't..the legal Profession..and Private Industry must be defined.
Make it illegal for health care companies to solicit political favor..by using profits to lobby the system..this includes civil litigation lawyers..
A budget defined..not by the Federal Gov't..but a reliable
expense must be outlined..and looked into in regards to
culling the current system we have..and increasing quality and services..
this should include the University system..mandated to
educate American Doctors..and Health care professionals
not ones that go out into the world..if they leave..the gov't
they leave to must recompense the cost of the loss
Profit incentives have to be identified as a ratio..between services rendered..and subject to Sarbanes Oxley accounting laws where CEOs go to jail..
The public sector..must get their care..out of pocket from within the system..no more free lunch..nor the chance to be moved to the top of the list by Gov't association..
this has to come out of need..not political expedience..once the outlined objectives are in place..then a system can be implemented..
2007-07-02 05:19:25 · answer #4 · answered by UMD Terps 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Mitt Romney passed Universal Health Care in his home state and now criticizes the idea...what a moron.
2007-07-02 05:11:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I know of no politician supporting universal health CARE. They all speak of universal health COVERAGE.
Not at all the same thing.
Universal coverage means tax subsidy of health insurance companies, which the insurance dweebs are all in favor of too. End result will be that costs shoot up even higher and fewer people will have health care.
2007-07-02 05:09:29 · answer #6 · answered by Gaspode 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
One of the main reasons conservative give for being against universal h/c is a "waiting line" for coverage.
The average wait in a US emergency room is 4 hours and who has ever gotten into his/her doctor on the appointed time.
One of the others is higher taxes, I doubt seriously it would be higher then your premiums now and your employer will pick it up if they do now so it would probably be cheaper.
Gaspod is right we would have to keep insuransce co.'s from being a middle man as they are in the new medicare boondoggle.
2007-07-02 05:10:15 · answer #7 · answered by Steve G 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
It's a crappy idea. There's no need for it because we have a variety of different services already that people can take advantage of, both federal and state programs. I've had many a conversation with people living in countries with universal care and they're pretty screwed.
2007-07-02 05:10:16 · answer #8 · answered by CUrias 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
In the real world each of us are already paying for it.....john doe goes to the emergency room and is treated....john cant pay the bill...the hospital raises their fees to recoup it....the insurance company raises premiums to reflect the increased cost....your employer raises your contribution to recoup their cost.....we already provide the cost (i've never seen anyone left to die in the ER becasue of no insuranxce)...the biggest problem is that we pay for it at the most expensive place possible instead of simply paying for doctors visits
2007-07-02 05:08:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
If this gets passed, your taxes are going to shoot through the roof. This tends to make voters pretty unhappy... politicians don't like unhappy voters. So it’s certainly not inevitable.
The general population likes the IDEA of it, so politicians will voice their support for the IDEA. But don't confuse that with actual implementation.
2007-07-02 05:06:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋