Conservative Argument for Universal Health Care?

Question

Doesn’t the lack of universal insurance or affordable health care…
1. Stifle entrepreneurial risk? Who goes into business for themselves if health costs are a risk to their capital, families or homes?
2. Destabilize the low skilled and entry level workforce? A kid gets sick the family loses their home or car and can’t get to work.
3. Force businesses to tax themselves at uncontrollable market prices to cover health insurance for their employees?
4. Cause more bankruptcies than credit cards or sub-prime mortgages?

Brian,

A family man with a good idea and good resources is not going to start a business unless he can afford the $2000/mo insurance premium to cover his family - and he won't be able to even get insurance if anyone in his family has ever been sick.

Businesses are not required to provide insurance, but must to compete. I think business would gladly like to see this uncontrolled cost managed better with all of the competition doing it the same way. Not to mention the cost of simply managing these complicated benefit plans.

The Working poor cannot afford insurance. I am not saying their kids won't get treatment, but their parents will not be able to pay and will lose anything they have and likely go on welfare if they have a major illness in their family

Half of all personal Bankruptcies are for medical bills. 75% of them had at least some insurance.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

Answer 1

Not only that, but we spend more money than any other industrialized nation on health care (which doesn't seem fiscally responsible to me!). Uninsured people either go to the ER when they don't really need to (causing long waits), or, uninsured people don't go to the doctors when they really need to, and end up going to the ER once their symptoms get really bad. Either way, we would've spend less money if a regular doctor (non-ER) had just seen them in their office in the first place.

I don't understand why it makes more sense to spend more money per patient so that HMO's can pocket that extra cash by not insuring people.

Answer 2

Republican health care plan is very simple.....Don't get sick.

I like your post.

It seems to me that we can have AFFORDABLE health care without having a bureaucracy tied to it. Universal health care in the single payer sense won't work in the US but something that involves the insurance companies and people paying into the system yet doing so without high taxes would be the ideal way to go. I believe we can do it. Unfortunately partisan and radical plans on both sides won't fly. A compromise may be what we settle for and that is fine as long as it is open to change. One thing for sure. Our ability to provide quality health care to everyone in the country is very bad. Our system is disgraceful when compared to other industrialized nations. Most people believe something must be done but what we do is where the contention is. Surly with the mix we have in Washington today I am not expecting any changes. After Jan.20, 2009 if the mix is right we will possibly see progress in health care reform. If we don't elect progressives there isn't likely to be progress so vote progressive if you want health care reform.

Don't criticize, for those intent on doing so, the Democratic plan unless you have an alternative. Any plan is better than none. I have not heard of any plan from the right so unless they have a solution to the health care problem they should not complain.

Answer 3

Great arguments, thank you!

Many people still believe in small government and claim the "founding fathers" didn't want it this way, blah, blah, blah.

In fact, after the Revolutionary War, the federal government took on the debt of the states in order to alleviate the burden certain states carried and also to build a stronger national treasury. Without the Federal Government's help, individual land owners would have been responsible for shouldering the debt, thereby making this democratic experiment called The United States of America a failure.

Something should be said for the good that the federal government can do and has done throughout history.

Answer 4

Your arguments make sense so the conservatives will not know what to do with it.

Actually, the Conservative thought would be no employer provided health insurance and everyone just get you own.

"What? You mean because you had a splinter in your foot when you were 5 and the insurance companies say you have a pre-existing condition and will not cover you? Tough! You should take care of yourself and not rely on me! I don't want to pay any more taxes! WAAAAHHHH!"

That is conservative thought for you on health care in a nut shell. Of course until the insurance companies screw them for their bottom line then they will blame liberals for it somehow, someway.

Answer 5

I think you make great points. The problem is that conservatives have knee-jerk reactions any time you try to inform them that maybe market solutions are not always the best way to handle certain sectors of the economy. I happen to believe health care is one of these. Many other areas are handled just fine by markets, this just happens to not be one of them. The business community is even coming around to this view now.

Answer 6

This is a lib trying to reason like a Conservative. Its not working! Along with individual freedom comes self sufficency. If you don't have insureance, work for a company that offers it. If you can't or won't, buy it yourself. Like "Con-Mom" said, where in the Constitution does it say that Government will provide healthcare?

If you feel you need it, "YOU" need to take action, don't expect everyone else to pick up the tab for your insurance.

1) Stifle entrepreneurial risks? No, Companies are not required to provide healthcare, they do it to attrack quality employees. When starting your own business, healthcare won't play apart unless you are already dependent on it.

2)How does a child getting sick destabilize the family (looses the home or car)? No one is denied healthcare now! Noone! If you can't afford it, go to theCounty hospital. If it is an emergency, every er hospital (private or not) is required to by law address the emergency. They may stabilize you and move you to the county, but you received quality healthcare.

3) A universal healthcare system forces business topay higher taxes. again, Busisness are not required to provide healthcare insurance.

4) What are you talking about here? What, lack of insurance? or small business providing insurance will cause bankruptcies? Anyway, your wrong on BOTH counts. Require business to provide healthcare would put more of a financial strain on that company. Not having insurance does not automatically equate to bankruptcies.

Answer 7

Agreed.

However, before we have our lobbyist controlled government handling health care we need to find a way to get rid of Corporate America's influence on our elected officials. Otherwise, we'll still have poor health care but with lots of bureaucratic red tape to boot.

Answer 8

very good point. well presented, and quite true. if our gov't can't do that simple thing, then what good is it. nanny state my foot, blondie. health care could be provided for a fraction of the bush war. there is always money for that. imagine a draft dodger calling someone unpatriotic for withholding funds for the troops.

Answer 9

But on the other side, socialised medicing can lead to longer lines, less specialised care, and also subpar doctors because the better ones go to countries where they can make more money for their skills. There are pros and cons to both styles of medicine.

Answer 10

As much as I would *love* to see everyone with health care, I do NOT want the government getting their grubby little hands involved. Gads. There has to be another way - do you honestly want to have to deal with the federal bureaucracy? I don't - it's just too large and cumbersome to be responsive.

But - something definitely needs to be done. Just not sure what.