People confuse "universal" with "unlimited". They want universal but I suspect they are thinking unlimited.
Universal health care (a plan that covers all taxpaying citizens) could be a good idea if the cost to taxpayers doesn't skyrocket...which I suspect it will. Also, it should have an opt-out plan, so that if I choose to keep my group plan through my employer I can do so AND I don't have to pay any taxes into the universal system.
Unlimited healthcare would be "I can go to the doctor whenever I want to for whatever reason and I won't have to pay for it because I have 'universal' health care through the government". erm...NO. It isn't a free pass, people.
Universal health care will be like a group plan--there will still be deductibles, co-pays, and coinsurance...but if you are a citizen you can sign up for the plan.
2007-07-05 10:06:34
·
answer #1
·
answered by Mathsorcerer 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't think its a good idea. First of all I have great insurance now, I pay for it through the nose, but its good if you have to have surgery or a stay in the hospital. Secondly, why should I have to work and pay taxes so someone else can get the same care that I get. I also think that if and when Universal Healthcare comes about, doctors here in the U.S. are going to be looking for another occupation. The system will be so screwed up and they won't be making any money and putting up with alot more crap from the government regulators etc. What has the gov't ever done but screw things up? This will just be another example.
2007-07-05 17:42:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
It's like anything else. Some have had good experiences and some have not. I think it's a great idea. I've had some very bad issues and experiences with insurance. I had a heart attack in Eloy, Arizona which is out in the desert and was flown to Phoenix by helicopter. The company insurance wouldn't pay anything as it wasn't pre-approved for one example. Another is... from where I live is 60 miles from a hospital within the PPO network. The insurance will only pay a portion if I have medical treatment done locally so I had to travel to another state to find treatment within the network.
If it's so bad, why are we the only western civilized country that doesn't offer it?
They also misrepresent themselves and others by confusing the wording such as socializing and universal
2007-07-05 17:04:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by Don W 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
There are pros and cons in any health care plan, private or public. I base my opinion on basic universal health care on the fact that countries who have it, have it for decades... they don't get rid of it, in other words... which means it works for them.
Most against it base that view on what they fear will happen, not what has in other countries (except on what they have 'heard') and most appear to think that is all they will have. Those who can afford to will still be able to supplement for more services, just like Medicare today.
Read all you can on it and I'm sure you will be able to come to the belief that is right for you. You asked the question, that is a start, most don't consider it until they need it. Good luck.
2007-07-05 17:16:35
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Name one thing in the US that the federal government does right. Answer: none. Great Britain is a relatively small country, and the government cannot manage health care services. The Brits imported about 20,000 health care professionals because of shortages. They got a bunch of terrorists in the process. Now no one in that country is going to trust any foreign doctor.
Canada has one tenth the population of the US, and their health care system is unmanageable. People come to the US when they need immediate care. The courts in Canada are constantly hearing legal challenges to the monopoly health care system.
2007-07-05 17:09:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by regerugged 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
the trick is... it would be cheaper for most people... compared to what they are paying now for healthcare...
the average person in the U.S. spends about three times as much on healthcare as those in nations with socialized medicine...
taxes would probably increase some... BUT NO WHERE NEAR DOUBLE... and people looking at tax rates in other nations with socialized medicine, need to remember those nations have MANY more social programs than the U.S. does that go far beyond socialized medicine...
the overall quality seems to be slightly less than the current one, but for roughly a third the price...
2007-07-05 17:29:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I canada where they have socialized healthcare my friend had to go get a hook removed from his arm. The table they used to do it was used my a pig and a vet hours earlier. This is one story among thousands. Mexico has healthcare yet they run over here to have babies, why? Because the quality of healthcare is more important than the cost. Who cares if it's free if it can't save your life?
2007-07-05 17:09:07
·
answer #7
·
answered by John Galt 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
The Government has a poor report card caring for our Veterans in the Government run Veterans Health Care. Imagine the waste and fraud that that would consume on an Nation wide level.
2007-07-05 17:14:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by hedddon 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
traditionally, US government run and funded programs have been a money wasting joke. it could work, some say it has worked but others say that it has been a failure. it creates concerns such as long waiting lists for particular procedures, losing good doctors due to being paid less, poor health care facility condition, and all the things that go along with a government run program.
2007-07-05 17:37:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Massachusetts has it. Almost every western civilized country has it. There are many forms of it though. Many have socialized health care, which is different from universal.
2007-07-05 17:07:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by Take it from Toby 7
·
1⤊
0⤋