What are the pro's and con's of Unerversal Health Care?

Question

besides its free

Ps I don't support it.

Answer 1

I don't call double your tax burden free.

Answer 2

It isn't free. Somebody has to pay for it.

The benefit is that everyone will have access to health care.

The drawbacks are that the government would be tempted to control doctors and other health care providers instead of letting them decide what is best.

The way to go is AFFORDABLE health care. Get the insurance companies involved. Everyone who has an income should pay at least some premium even if it is $10 a month and copay. Those who can most afford the premiums would pay. Elderly people on fixed incomes, often the ones needing the most health care, shoud not have to decide between paying for food or health care. People on welfare should pay something. Unemployed people should pay as long as they are getting a check. Once the money runs out than they, of course can't pay. Those who are working may pay now but some day they will need the medical care and it will be there for them in case of catastrophic illness or in old age. My daughter lost everything when her husband got cancer and the insurance ran out and they refused to pay any more. They worked hard for what they had but his illness and subsequent death caused her to lose nearly everything. Should that have happened? We need a plan that would not allow that. We also need a plan where doctors may get in trouble for foulups but not be sued for millions to be paid for by insurance companies.

Answer 3

Spelling of Universal would start !
Nothing is free, the money comes from the tax paying public. The only possible pro would be lowering the cost per person. Con would be the never ending lines that would appear. Unless some type of controls were put in place, everyone will be lined up for overdue surgeries and not enough medical professionals to serve the need that will drive up the cost.

Answer 4

Universal health care doesn't have to be free. It can be a system that guarantees everyone gets coverage somehow. Massachusetts just implemented a system like it. Everyone is required to get insured, including the very rich and very poor. The very poor can buy cheap policies from the government or get it free. The biggest advantages are that everyone pays into the system so those who are healthy now support those who are sick, and people get preventive care, which is much cheaper than waiting until a disease gets serious. You don't have to have a Canada-style government-controlled system to accomplish this.

Answer 5

Universal health care is not free. It gets paid for out of taxation. In the UK the taxes for health care are one third less for a worker earning average wages than the equivalent American pays in healthcare taxes and insurance. Treatment is comparable.

The UK system has the advantage of being accessible to everyone, regardless of economic position. Although there are wait times longer than in the USA, the whole point is that treatment is based on need, rather than ability to fund the treatment. So, the UK rations its healthcare through the use of waiting lists. The USA rations it by making it impossible for some people to access it. In fact, one family in seven in the USA does not qualify for Medicaid and does not earn enough to pay for health insurance. That is alarming. That is why I support universal health care

Answer 6

Pros include:
*Preventative care which translates into less long-term care.
*Prenatal care for healthy babies and informed parenting.
*Seniors on a fixed income that don't have to choose between prescription medicine and food or electricity.
*Life saving surgeries that people whose employers don't offer healthcare or are on HMOs and can't afford higher coverage and hospitals who turn down patients who can't afford it (think of that Denzel Washington movie John Q).
*Wasteful and needless procedures would be curbed - i.e. getting an MRI when all you need is a CT scan but the doctor is trying to pay for his MRI machine.
*Standardization of software and records keeping which would allow hospitals and doctor's offices to provide better care and reduce doctor shopping for pills a la Rush Limbaugh.

Cons might include:
*Higher taxes, but I'm good with that since I pay almost $500 per month for health care for my family. Even if I had to pay an extra $200 in taxes per month, which would be way out of the ball park, I'd be saving money.
*They anticipate longer waiting periods to see doctors and specialists, which could be problematic if I didn't have to wait 3 months or longer to see these doctors now.
*They also anticipate potentially longer waiting periods in emergency rooms, but I think more people will go to a regular family physician than waiting until something gets so bad they have no choice but to go to the emergency room.
* I think some sheisty people will try to abuse it and justify, I don't know, breast augmentation with treatment for depression because of a lack of self esteem or some such nonsense!

PS I do support it, in case you couldn't tell!

Answer 7

Pro: It couldn't be any worse than what we have now, which is a combination of a heavily regulated industry with high barriers to entry (limits suply), with a tax-favored insurance-based payor system that insulates consumers from cost (maximizes demand), resulting in runaway costs that have risen at double or more the rate of inflation for two decades.

Con: Actually, it could be worse. Remember, Congress will design it.

Answer 8

actually, Universal health care is not free( at least in Canada). We pay provincial and federal taxes, from which our health care is funded. It is not free, but it is funded by taxes so that people that can't afford treatment, can still get it. Can you imagine something like that in the United States. I think not.

Answer 9

It's not free.

1) the richest of the rich pay for it.
2) the richest rich move to a capitalist country
3) with them go the wealth and jobs they create
4) the government taxes the next level down
5) the next level down moves

repeat with standard of living and number of jobs going down repeatedly.

Solution of socialism (what universal health care is based on)?

6) prevent companies from leaving
7) prevent them from raising prices to pay for it
8) business go out of business
9) government nationalizes them to keep them running
10) when the standard of living is low enough for bread lines for a few generations, revolt.
11) violent oppression of the ungrateful masses who put socialism in place to begin with

Not a smart way to go. Has never worked. Not once do you hear a supporter say, "This other nation has a better health care system that is less expensive, & the people have lower taxes as well!"

Not true anywhere.

There is a cost. They don't want you to think that far ahead.

Short term thinking gives them what they want from you.

Answer 10

It is necessary now,as a rich person , but for the rich,just vote for fair tax to offset it...times are changing,Dow is up at the expense of the little guy.I mean shiit you try eating baloney day and night ,...chow,,good luck...F.P

Answer 11

Pros - You are guaranteed that you are covered
Cons - The insurance companies don't make huge profits from refusing to pay your claims

What I find funny is we are already taxed, we pay co-pays and yet we are still not guaranteed coverage....WTF and some people are just too blind to see that this system BS