Will any supporters of socialized health care (universal), admit?

Question

they just want someone else to pay for their coverage?

I'm tired of people saying, "I can't afford health care, YOU pay for it for ME"

If you can't afford health care, why do you think you will pull your own weight with a socialized program?

I'm for programs to assist people who need serious help, but isn't it obvious that socializing the industry will cause a downward spiral?

olmwoom,,

the gov't should provide us with only the things we can not provide for ourselves. Your list is made up of those things, basically millitary defense. Highways and Roads fit under that category, as well.

Answer 1

I am now looking at what is called universal coverage in a different way.
Universal coverage, under a single payer system, does not create socialized medicine. Doctors won't go on federal payrolls, and hospitals don't become federal institutes. All a single payer system does is eliminate for profit health insurance companies.
Here is a tidbit for you. Currently for profit health insurance companies spend about $600 billion a year of the money they collect on expenses not related to healing the sick. These expenses include things like underwriting (deciding who they will insure and who they will not,) political campaign contributions, lobbying congress, bonuses to execs, and so forth. Include this with profits, it represents about 40% of what you pay for health insurance. Almost 1/2 of what you are paying for health insurance isn't even used to take care of health needs. This is an unnecessary expensed being passed on to the consumers.
All a single payer system does is creates a regulated monopoly for insurance coverage. People would be able to buy into this system, either thru their employer or as individuals, and save a ton of money. Healthcare services in the USA would be no different then they are today. It doesn't create a free ride for anybody, just a more affordable coverage.
The health insurance industry in this country is a $2 trillion a year business. They are the ones who are fighting the single payer system. They are the ones who want you to believe it creates socialized medicine and that you will die from lack of health care without them ( the insurance compaines) raking you for all your dough.

Answer 2

No it's no obvious. In fact, it's probably not true at all.

I support universal health care, and my company pays my health care so I don't need the gov't to pay for it for me.

Contrary to popular opinion (and scare tactics), the governemt is very capable of doing some things pretty efficiently (the postal service, police, fire rescue, parks, Dept. of Transportation). No, they aren't perfect, but they do run pretty well.

At least with universal health care, the providers actually CARE if you get well. Health care companies care about profit first and foremost.

Humana, for example, has a responsibility to it's shareholders first and it's customers second. In what other industry do you pay for a service and when you actually need it, it is in the company's best interest NOT TO PROVIDE IT? These companies make hundreds of billions of dollars and deny claims that sentence people to die.

We are the only Western nation in the world that doesn't have universal health care, so it must be working elsewhere. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but it's better than what we have now.

We rank #42 in the world in life expectancy and not much better in infant mortality rate. Most of that is due to the fact that we are one of the worst nations when it comes to preventative medicine. If every American had at least a basic coverage (check ups, prescriptions, etc...), a lot of serious sickness and disease could be stopped before it becomes fatal.

Answer 3

I've got a great job and great healthcare coverage. But I also worked for about 10 years carrying two or three part-time positions (because that's the way a lot of big businesses are going, dontcha know) in order to make ends meet, and I realize how unfair the system is toward the middle class. Despite that I've got great healthcare coverage, and have for 10 years, and expect to continue with it, I think there needs to be some kind of basic, universal healthcare.

Canada and England haven't done so terribly with it. And I dislike being the richest country on earth, and yet having more citizens suffering than countries 25 points down that list. It's embarrassing.

Answer 4

You raise some good points. Particularly about the way the insurance companies (don't) work. And legal reform of malpractice is a must. Another point--20% of the money we pay for prescriptions goes to advertising (no, I'm not joking)--and the "reserch pharmaceutical companies keeps harping on is more for new hayfever medicins than the kind of cutting edge drugs that could be saving lives. My point--should we go back to the old rules--no direct advertising to consumers? That's what drives the current system,not real health needs. Another point--the big flaw with the "socialized" approach is the notion the government ought to be doing everything. But the other end--the opposition to any government health care--is equally flawed. Here's one example--spendig money on ehalth edcuation, preferably by neighborhood clinics that also provide outpatient caare, has been shown to be highly effective in a number of ways (based onhard facts and figures, not hype about what we "ought" to do): >clinics take much of thel load off emergency rooms,etc-and is a more cost effective way to deliver routine care >health education for the poor is effective at reducing long term healt h care costs--the cost to benefit ratio is VERY good. >this directly combats poverty were children are concerned--they learn better if healthy and are less likely to end up on welfare. The point--this is an area where the government DOES have a role--and it is NOT "a giveaway to welfare bums"--its an investment of taxpayer money that has been provento pay off. Therel's lots more--as I think you know. But, indirectly, you made the same basic point I am--namely: liberal or conservative, we need to drop the ideology and start focusing on developing sound policies that actually work.

Answer 5

That's probably 80% of it -- at least for the people who cannot afford their own health care.

But a large number of those who support universal (socialized) health care CAN afford to pay their own share -- and often the share of a couple other people (family or otherwise) and they just think it's a good idea in general.

So, you get both sets -- those who want it because they need it, and those who want it because they believe in govt-sponsored charity.

And no, it's not obvious that it will cause a downward spiral. It may -- as may other govt programs have demonstrated. But it may not -- as there are a few (just a few) govt programs that actually managed not to turn into gaping financial black holes.

Answer 6

First of all socializied health care is not the same as universal insurance. The desire of the right to cloud this issue is bizzarre - not only dishonest but I would have thought counterproductive. Wouldn't big business want a healthy workforce that they didn't have to pay for directly and didn't have to pay the world's highest rates for?
I have never said that. I have health care - depending upon exactly what system is developed I may well stay with private health care. You see the difference between you and me is not that I am a sponge trying to get by without working. The difference is I have compassion. I see nearly 50 million Americans - many of them children who clearly are not just lazy welfare scroungers - who do not have health insurance and instead of blaming them - I look for a better solution.
And then we come to the last line. Frankie said always finish on a song - the right wing always seem to want to finish on a lie - so we reintroduce the idea of socialized medicine.

Answer 7

Do you oppose the "socialized" roads you drive on every day?

Do you oppose the "socialized" fire and police protection you rely on when you need it?

Do you oppose the idea of public schools that are paid for by everyone's taxes whether they have kids or not?

Do you oppose the military? Our taxes pay for that, too, whether or not we're under attack.

Do you think Joe Worker should face the possibility of bankruptcy over one moderate illness or injury?

What about the ones that "Insurance" won't cover?

What about the fact that "insurance" companies have a vested financial interest in denying as much coverage as they can, whereas a national/socialized system has a vested interest in healthy and productive workers (or consumers, if you wish)?

What about the fact that people without insurance end up costing you and me a lot more after their condition has gone critical and they end up in the ER, when a simple visit to a clinic might have done the trick?

Answer 8

I already pay for my own coverage, and poorer peoples too.
Do you have any idea what coverage for a family of four is a month? Close to $2000. Can you afford that? Can I have your job?
The nature of insurance is that losses are spread over a large population. That's why group coverage is more affordable than going it alone. If we wait to assist people with serious problems, (which we already do) it limits our capacity to catch those problems before they become serious or even threaten the lives of people who live in glass houses and never worry about stones.

Answer 9

actually there is every reason to believe public health care systems are generally cheaper. In 2004 the USA had more healthcare spending per capita than every other OECD country. 92% more than any other G7 country, and 19.9% more than Luxembourg, the runner up. For all this the US has the lowest life expectancy and highest infant mortality in the G7(higher infant mortality rate than friggin' Cuba, the only G7 country this can be said about). It's public spending on health is also slightly higher(around 6.7% higher than Germany in 2003, the runner up) than the other G7 countries. Your country is a basket case pure and simple, public is better for the masses, it's cheaper, people live longer, and they're less likely to die in the first year of life, with the ability to control costs even governments save money.

Answer 10

Some might, but the irony is that those who are attracted to socialism here in America are often quite well off. They support such things out of sympathy with the less fortunate. Though they can't solve all the problems of the less fortunate themselves, they figure, if everyone else is forced to contribute, too, things can get done.