What would a universal health care system do for the United States?

Question

There are positives and negatives to this question. I'd like to know what you all think.

Answer 1

bring your country to the same standards as other first world nations,

Answer 2

Obviously give much needed health care to ALL Americans. A system of national health care works great for Canada, Great Britian, France, and Australia. I know many Canadians and they tell me they never are told what doctor they can see, they never have more than 45 minute wait to see a doctor, and for 99% of the things you need health care for their system is top notch. The only things stopping the US from taking care of it's people the way it should are 1) Insurance companies, 2) the AMA, and 3) pharmaceutical companies. The privatizing of health care in the US has resulted in overall poor care, at tremendously bloated costs. You'll hear people scream "I don't want socialized medicine" or "I don't want the government controlling my health care", why? We already have socialized fire protection, socialized law inforcement, socialized education system. Where are the cries against those programs? Many people are against a national health care system because of the propaganda the 3 parties that would stand to lose the most from such a system, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and doctors. If you do not believe me just go and look at how much lobbying and advertising money those three groups have spent into fighting against national health care.

Answer 3

I see all these horror stories about our health care system ending up like Canada's or Europe's, but those countries seem to like their system okay. A lot of the info you see out there is scare mongering.

That doesn't mean they couldn't be more efficient. In general the private sector is more efficient, while the government can more easily ensure access to all. So the best thing to do is to merge the two. Make health insurance mandatory, help low income people out with their insurance bills, make it harder to sue for frivolous reasons, but not so hard that incompetant doctors can still commit malpractice, and start spending much, much, much more on PREVENTION rather than trying to cure something after it appears.

Answer 4

in Canada here, you don't go to the hospital for sniffles or the like, you go to a walk in clinic, which is free and you don't need an appointment. As a health care worker here for years, I have a very good understanding of the system. Emergency surgery is done for free, seeing a specialist is free, any transplant is free, doctor visit is free, and lastly hospital visits and stays are free. free for the rich or homeless everyone is covered. my taxes dropped last year, 3 years in a row now. wait time in a hospital here for me is about 15-60 min, not so bad. I get a Dr. appointment in a week or less on average.

It would definitely help Americans, but will they resist change. Alot of companies and people get rich off the inefficient American system and will say anything to keep that money a flowing.

Answer 5

America has been able to flourish and surpass so many other countries economically because we have a type of competition that is seen no where else. If we take health care and make it a government entity then there is sure to be more corruption, money stealing and fraud then there is now. The best way to go is to keep the same frame now and keep health care into private hands with better government enforcement not government control.

Answer 6

Let's put the question another way: If something is working badly, would you think that making it federal would IMPROVE the situation? Have you EVER know that to happen?

The healthcare and insurance industries are raking in the bucks because of the damocles sword of "universal" health care. Nobody gains from resolving the issue, follow the money.

The U.S. has the best of the best medical professionals in the world because they are well paid and respected here. I'm afraid to think about what would happen if it became a government function.

I don't want to be told what doctor I can see or when, do you? Ask a Canadian how they feel about it.

Answer 7

The tax burdens would break our backs, it would throw us even further down the list of healthcare. If you have a cold you would be fine, but if it is major you would more than likely be dead before you got the attention you need. The elderly in this country would suffer more, becasue the government would seriously curtail the end of life care to cut costs as it has done in every socilized medical program in the world. There are no positives to this program that I can rationally come up with.

Answer 8

It would enable people to seek treatment for minor maladies like the sniffles before they turn into expensive ones like pneumonia. This would eliminate the horrendous waiting time in emergency rooms, which have become the first line of medical intervention for those who can't afford preventative care. People who can't afford to go to the doctor can't afford the ER either, and the rest of us end up paying more to cover it. In the cruelest irony, those with no insurance currently pay more for a given service than those with insurance, because of the insurer's collective bargaining advantage.

It would eliminate the fear (and real possibility) of bankruptcy and loss of your home if you get sick or injured just once.

It would surely cost less than the vastly inflated (and rising) price of for-profit healthcare in the US today. We Americans pay more for our healthcare than any other country on Earth, and we do not receive the best care for it; in fact we are down around number thirty in quality of care received. This fact alone should get us looking at universal health care more closely. It is incomprehensible to me that forty separate bureaucracies are better than one, especially when they are in an increasingly adversarial relationship to the customer as our current healthcare companies are.
Does anybody really think that a government-run plan would cost more than the total paid today in premiums by the entire population? Or that the quality of care would plummet? Considering some of the horrors friends have experienced in the US hospital system in the last few years, I doubt that either is possible.

The basic difference seems to me to be this: the current system owes its primary allegiance to the investors who have purchased its stock, and are willing to scrimp on ur treatments to return more of the money we spend to the shareholders. In a national system, we are the shareholders. It's an investment I'd be happy to make.

Answer 9

I don't believe there would be anything positive. Our income taxes would shoot way up. We would have to pay for a huge bureaucracy to manage the health system. Care would be rationed. Quality and speed of services would drop. Many people would get out of the health care industry. Just like Great Britain.

Answer 10

We would get to wait in line for our medical treatment, have the government decide what that treatment would be, and pay for it regardless if we wanted it or not. It would however give the poor and social drop outs health care at the expense of the productive, so I guess from their point of view it would be a good thing. Imagine a hospital near you run the same way as your local motor vehicle department

Answer 11

The negative; Raise the death rate of our citizens. One must wait in a 3 week line at least, to see a doctor. Ask England. They'll tell you.
The so-called positive; you will save money, but your doctors, mostly will be foreign, and if you're lucky enough to understand them, you won't be told you're dying in 3 months, like "English doctors told a man, who spent his life-savings, thinking he had cancer, told to him by them, and now he is penniless. That kind of medical "care" is unacceptable for anyone! Not just Americans.