Socialized Medicine, Good or Bad?

Question

Is there really anything wrong with it?

I've also heard that the quality of healthcare will go down? Is this because doctors and scientist have no motivation to try to find cures and medicine, if they won't get paid?

Answer 1

Some people want something for free.
They don't see the hidden costs.
Take out competition, which is already the case in many ways, and they don't have a reason to keep their prices low. They'll get paid no matter what.

We already have this with certain forms of insurance and HMOs.

Read up on the costs of socialism.

Three questions:

1) Where do the rich, those who actually produce jobs, go when faced with uneven taxation?
2) What actions does a government have to take when the rich start leaving to keep the money, the jobs, in the country?
3) What happens to the standard of living of the public when big business goes over seas because it is cheaper and more cost efficient to go there rather than here?

Hidden costs.

Answer 2

Bad, First off with a free market the U.S. is able to make medical break troughs in all areas of medicine. Most left wing nuts scream of less government control, but want the government to schedule all health appointments and care by the government which means you lose the right to chose your own doctor for you, kids, etc, and also wouldn't be able to get a second opinion. What about transplants, or emergency surgery, or experimental care or break throughs without a choice or a free market, Even Castro himself flies in Doctors from around the world to attend to his medical care. Why because there better. Also, I understand there is about 10% of the U.S. that can't get covered, why should I have to pay more in an increased medical tax to ensure people who are on welfare get a free ride. Get a job Hippies

Answer 3

Every other industrialized nation has already made the decision that it is in their best interest to have as healthy a worker base as possible. Mothers and children benefit, as do workers and professionals.

The fact that we pay more than anyone else in the worlsd for our medical care and receive the 36th-best coverage says a lot. About 30% of our healthcare dollars currently go to administrative costs, executive salaries, lawyers who figure out ways to deny your claims, commissions, the insured pays for all of that.

Medicare and the VA, on the other hand, pay less than 5% in administrative costs.

In an economy where we spend almost $2 trillion per year, that 30% ends up being a sum of $600 billion. How much more care could be delivered just for the $500 billion that might be saved by expanding current organizations to provide universal coverage?

Socialized police and fire protection work pretty well. The roads aren't all that bad either. We can argue about schools, but they are there for those who need them.

It's a good question, and I suspect you are about to get a bunch of very indignant responses from a bunch of very fearful people.

Try to keep an open mind, and look into how it's done in Western Europe. as to the argument about pharmaceutical advances being stifled in countries with socialized medicine, check out the German and the Swiss pharmaceutical industries. They are among the best in the world, and have been for years.

Answer 4

Yes there is. take a trip to Europe. Go say to ICeland or England and check out the Hospital situations. You have been spoiled in the US, there standards would not do for you, or most other Americans. I lived inIceland for a few years, there hospitals where over crowded, people on gurneys in halways for hours, and that is no joke. the equipment was all old, and the care was poor, same with the system inENgland, had friends there for years, you can't ever get an ap[pointment, until way afte the fact of the illness, the care is sub standard, along with the old equipment, and lack of proffesionalism of the staff. It all looks good on paper, so does socialism "on Paper". but in practise it all falls apart, there is lack of basic care, poor equipment, poor and outdated training and horrible waiting lines, and shoddy and little quality to facilities. So if you want to step back 30 years in care, well maybe it's for you, or if you just want to fill out goverent forms, and still not get anywhere with care, then go for it. but even though our present system is messed up, doesn't mean sicialized medicine is the only real answer.

Answer 5

Every person in a civilised country should have access to the best medical care available based on their need and not on ability to pay. Having said that the system has to be administered by a government who wants it to work and who's members do not have vested interests in a private system.
If run properly a public system should be cheaper to run because you do not have to make profits for share holders or massive payouts to CEO's. It could be anything from 10 to 25% cheaper.

Answer 6

Yes, it is a way for the elitist dems to get votes. And the fact is, like in Canada, private treatment will still be availabe for those willing to pay. Its unconstitutional to deny the private healthcare even when the socialist system is in place. Who has the cash for that? The oligarchs.

We need to work to cut down health costs, not socialize it. I don't trust the bureacracy.

Answer 7

Really, I guess the third option could be Necessary. With more businesses reducing or eliminating health care plans, Americans are in trouble.

I have had to purchase insurance for myself and my family and I can tell your it's outrageous. People end up using the emergency room for regular visits because they know they will be admitted.

Good or bad? Probably somewhere in between.

Answer 8

Nothing at all - in fact all of the other industrialized countries are using it. There are unfortunate stories the conservatives like to point out, but they are far from the rule. The vast majority of people under socialized medicine like it very much - especially when told about the expense we put up with here in the US.

Answer 9

Socialized medicine can insure that everyone gets medical care, regardless of income, insurance, or lack thereof. However, one might question the quality of that care. If it's sub-standard, then it would be wrong. It's never been tried in this country, but is popular in some European countries. And from what I understand, the people are getting quality care. What it boils down to, is who is running the show.

Answer 10

Bad. The government will decide when and where you get your care. Taxes will go up to pay for it. Of course the politicians will say it will only cost so much, but just like medicare, the cost will go through the roof. Long waits. Poor equipment. Etc, etc. Ask someone from England or Canada how bad it is. They've experienced it.