I believe the more involved the gov gets, the less effective the options. Also, won't this limit the doctor's freedoms by keeping some doctors from moving out of smaller rural communities if they want to, because then they will take away health care for those people assigned to them?
2007-08-05 11:29:39 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Health ➔ General Health Care ➔ Other - General Health Care
I don't believe the health care in Canada, France, et al is nearly as good as ours. I personally have heard of the Canadian waiting lists for things like having a bone set. I think it's rediculous, and totally believable judging from governmental efficiency(or lack there of)I've seen throughout my life.
2007-08-05 17:25:40 · update #1
Like most things it's a double edged sword, good for poor people and bad for rich people.
Maybe it could be both ways. Have public health care but don't prevent someone from opening up a private hospital or practice if they want to. Then doctors and people could still have options but poor people could still get health care.
2007-08-05 11:35:59 · answer #1 · answered by LG 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. The free market does not always allocate resources the best, especially when it's the insurance industry making those decisions.
2. One of the reasons that big auto corporations set up in Canada is because they find that because the health care is covered through taxes, it is actually more affordable than the american model.
2007-08-05 18:37:36 · answer #2 · answered by $Sun King$ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the U.S. is the ONLY industrialized country without it. seems canadians,the english,the french, germans,danes, etc are doing fine.... yeah capitalism! top 1% in the U.S. don't mind having health care that noone else can afford, why should the other 99% mind? Senators,Congressmen/women and Assemblymen/women, The Pres,VP, etc,etc all get their health care 100% free. they don't mind that it is not affordable to most either. stay healthy ... your health is your wealth in the US of A
2007-08-05 20:49:50 · answer #3 · answered by schua33460 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Isn't that like the HMO.? thank goodness I'm not under one of those now. I kind of think that it would be kind of a darned if you do and darned if you don't situation. because down the road eventually we're all going to get to the point where we don't have any Insurance , can't get it because of pre-existing health problems , or just can't afford it all togather.
2007-08-05 21:41:20 · answer #4 · answered by fuzzykitty 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think employers should be responsible for healthcare. There should also be a choice (ex. kaiser or blue cross) However in a perfect world everyone would have jobs right?
2007-08-05 18:49:50 · answer #5 · answered by momoftwo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋