Universal health-care, why are so many conservatives against it?

Question

France has it and their care is considered the best in the world (WHO report 2000). Every industrialized nation in the world has it...except the US. So, what is the problem? BTW, these other countries provide it at a cheaper rate than the US, by over half per citizen.

Also, where does the US rank? 37th...

Let me break it down for everyone. The answer is...there's too many folks who are making a killing (literally) on the sufferring of others. They get paid big bucks to charge you $50 for a damn, heart pill or similar product.

Really, folks, you think the care of a doctor in Canada or France is SO DIFFERENT than one here in the US? You are deluding yourselves.

Go watch "Sicko" and get back to me...

BTW, as for the physicians going to school and having debt due to their schooling, etc. Most of these countries pay for the education of their future doctors (as long as their GPA stays up). Therefore, they do not have an outstanding debt when they go into practice.

Lastly, Arnie is now arguing for it in California. Proves that he's not a Bush-conservative by a long shot...

Okay, let me add this. I do NOT agree with providing care to ILLEGALS. So, for me, that arguement is moot. I feel that illegals are just that, illegal, they should not have free health-care nor should they vote. Now, if they go through the immigration process, then they are legal and can do those things.

As for the cost, here's an idea, stop spending so much on defense?

Answer 1

Its a good question, especially considering that we have socialized other services. Police and fire, for example.

That's what makes Vanilla Troll's argument fail. Conservatives are more than happy to support a "socialized" police force in which all citizens pay taxes. The rich who already have private security have to pay taxes which go to a police force which they do not need. He may have asked about socialized car care, but it apparently never occurred to him to ask about police or fire services. How does it, if we are to accept his libertarian argument, make any sense that we should happily agree to pay for a police service or fire service which benefits others, some of whom do not pay taxes? If his answer is that we benefit by having socialized fire and police services (fires do not burn out of control, criminals do not own the streets) we could respond that socialized health care also has similar benefits - a healthy public can be as much a benefit to taxpayers (fewer contagious diseases going around, less costs in emergency care since more people have adequate preventative care, etc.) Also a person with a contract with a private fire or police service would not have to worry about out of control fires or criminals, plus they would not be paying for others' services. So why do we support some socialized services but not others? I'm betting the answer is money. There is a lot to be made in privatized health care. It is just a historical accident that we ended up with a society which takes socialized police and fire services for granted but is scandalized by social medicine and not vice versa.

Outraged: I have spoken with people that live in such countries and they are shocked that Americans have to have insurance or risk going broke if they need medical care. Everybody that I have talked to about it would not trade their system for ours. Of course personal anecdotes are not good evidence, but you asked for them.

dave b: fema might have been incompetent, but do you think the people of New Orleans would have preferred getting no government aid? At most you are making a case for making sure such agencies are competent. This requires even more government oversight, doesn't it? So you are arguing for more governmental agencies, not fewer.

Answer 2

I currently live in a country with such a system. The level of health care is below that of the US- probably in part due to a culture that doesn't value education. So although the Docs don't have huge student loans to pay off, they don't have the best education either!

Some patients have to wait for months to get much needed surgery or treatments. The low-paid health workers often go on strike, which has led to patients DYING! And, you'd be very surprised to find out what some of these countries consider "elective" procedures.

Before moving to NZ I had been very pro-universal health care. Now I know better!

Answer 3

The Republicans since the beginning of the 20th century have not done a thing for the poor or middle class America. All of the worthwhile programs we have today were put there by Democrats. No, I am not a Democrat but I am definitely not a Republican either. Comes this next election I will vote for the best man (not woman) and hope that he will do what is right for America....which is highly unlikely.

Answer 4

To placed it quick and candy, I do not believe that supplying wellness care is what a central authority exists for. I consider that a central authority must exist for matters that it's unimaginable for any individual to achieve on their possess: it must furnish a army and police/court docket approach to preserve the residents and and infrastructure (roads/highways, sewer/electrical traces ect). Beyond the ones matters men and women can absolutely control different matters on their possess. Remember, the fewer tax cash taken from men and women, the extra they would must spend on scientific and matters of that nature. Now, while a conservative (Libertarian above all), I consider the federal government must be worried in law at the scientific enterprise since it sort of feels from my point of view that there's severe cost gouging going on everywhere the position.

Answer 5

The 'wingers are going to really beat you up on this one. The words that get them so angry is HEALTH CARE. All you're going to get with that is 'Canada', 'socialism' and 'pay for your own'. Even those of us who really mean HEALTH INSURANCE often fall into the trap of calling it HEALTH CARE. Insurance pays for care, it isn't care itself. The problem is payment for care. One federally funded HEALTH INSURANCE single payer system would cure the problem. Everyone would pay...everyone would be covered. Now, everyone pays one way or another, but NOT everyone is covered. So....always be certain to say HEALTH INSURANCE, not CARE. These are two seperate things, and no matter how many times the 'wingers smear the idea with their nonsense objections, keep the faith.....HEALTH INSURANCE for all..that's the ticket!

Answer 6

The same people that bitched, and still do, about FEMA's incompetence want yet another government entity to provide "universal health care" in the US?

It's great in theory, but I think it would be a complete disaster in practice, plus the tax increase would be over the top.

Not only that,but I think a huge driver for this is to provide health care for the millions of illegals coming into the US as well.

I'm tired of paying for criminals health care., and apparently that makes me a racist.

So be it.

EDIT: student, I am not arguing for more gov't agencies but I see the upshot of what will be unavoidable mass complaining that somehow one party is responsible for the problems of the systems inadequate performance.

Answer 7

I would say the top republicans get paid off by the insurance companies and the rest (like the republicans on this site) are sheep parrot like follows who just follow whatever they are told.

The whole government excluding Hilary Clinton at one time are denying people health care.

A major reason I believe though is more people taking advantage of it in this country and therefore it would be unbelievably expensive and create problems.

There are alot of minority black people and hispanic people especially who would take advantage and misuse the universial healthcare or just overuse and I honestly believe that is the major impediment in this country.

Australia, Canada, Germany, Most European countries don't have this problem so most of their citizens treat the system with respect and only use it when they need it.

Answer 8

Conservatives generally refuse to study the issue in depth because the word "social" is in it. They let knee jerk reactions do their thinking for them. There are many websites that have studied the question in depth, and most of them have supported Universal Health Care. I would also be willing to bet most of the ones who don't want universal coverage have health insurance which their employers are paying for, or Medicaid, or Medicare. If they had to make the medical payments themselves, they would be all over Universal care.

Answer 9

The main problem is that it will cause us to not have the best health care system in the world. Yes it needs to be fixed so that we can all afford to go to the doctor.

Answer 10

It's just plain unethical to have a health care system that's not for profit. If we made our health care system not for profit the cost in savings from that one move could pay for most if not all of the health care in this country. For profit health care is not only unethical but immoral, that's my take on it all.