Why support National Health Care?

Question

Why do so many people want the government to control every aspect of their life? If the government controlled our healthcare, what real decisions would we have in life? Why are people willing to give so much power to government when they can't even run programs like social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid, education, and taxation?

Answer 1

NHI has been seen in certain contexts to address, though not perfectly, the two major problems of health care: cost and coverage.

And that's why people talk about national health insurance.

The plans offered recently by politicians, it should be said, are largely universal coverage personal mandates, not national health insurance. (The Massachusetts plan, basically.) They basically require that citizens have private health insurance, and that companies that don't offer it pay into a government fund that helps offer it to uninsured workers who don't have their own individual policies. The insuring agencies in those contexts would be expanded Medicare and the government's federal workers insurance plan.

You'll note that such plans only address coverage, and not cost. Cost is, in my opinion, an exponentially greater problem of higher priority, exerting direct controlling influence over the question of coverage.

National health insurance, to take a look at it, of the Canadian, Japanese, or European varieties, tends to reduce administrative costs by up to half (by cutting out the middlemen insurers), it eliminates the figure of uninsured, and in many forms it allows for prioritizing and rationing of care (see Oregon's or Arizona's Medicaid plans, for examples) as a means of holding down the percentage of GDP spent on health care (in taxes and so on). This would mean no frilly MRIs for stubbed toes, discouragement of hypochondriacs, HMO-style triage treatment, etc.

I'm personally in favor of either a pure private system with price signals, or a pure public system. That will clarify future expectations about healthcare financing, and likely reduce costs the most. Both options, I think, work best when attempting to cut costs and curtail GDP spending on healthcare (which requires rationing; whether in less care to the poor in a purely private arena; or prioritized care in a public system, as described above). (We have rationing now to a great degree, anyhow.)

I think the responsible course of action, therefore, is not to talk about the "evils of socialized medicine," or the "evil tyrannical conservatives," or whatever; but to talk about the macro elements of healthcare economics, to figure out a more simplified (less expensive) system, and to act on all sensible ways to reduce costs and to reduce the rapid rightward shift of the healthcare demand curve.

Neither national health insurance, individual-mandate universal private coverage, the current system, or an entirely pure private marketplace with price signals ... will work at all if the costs exceed the ability to pay. And that's the formula that needs to be worked out, somehow.

(And I also believe, for the health, balance, and diversity of the economy, it's sensible for a nation to hold down healthcare spending below 20 to 25 percent of GDP -- a main reason why I believe in rationing and cost-cutting. [Admittedly, the 20 percent figure will be impossible to achieve in the near term with the Baby Boomer retirement; I think all possible cost-reduction means should nevertheless take place; and a below-20-percent goal should be set for past the year 2040.])

Answer 2

Because the bleeding heart liberal left cannot see past the fact that it a step towards the furtherance of socialism in America. WE ARE HEADING DOWN THE SAME PATH THAT COUNTRIES BEFORE US HAVE HEADED DOWN AND CONSEQUENTLY IMPLODED!

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. Einstein said something like this…

Two comments from two unknown individuals, “Loge” and “Heidenlord” from Skadi Forum the largest Germanic online community forum:


Loge:

“seems that the uneducated immigrants usually vote towards the liberal party, wonder why that is?”


Heidenlord:

It has to do with a number of factors I believe. The first being socialist democracy. Democracy has been called "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" and I think it sums it up nicely.

A "hand-out" system will eventually corrupt even the best work ethic of the most respectable germanics, but for minorities it is a free-for-all. The poor will always outnumber the rich and when the poor are given the same amount of voting power as the rich it is only a matter of time until they vote themselves the national treasury. The framers of the American Constitution understood this and only allowed land-owning males the right to vote because they understood that only those who have a vested interest in the affairs of the government should have a say in government.

The greatest fallacy in the world is to give someone who can't make money, buy land, or lead a normal life a say in government. What makes people believe that individuals who are failures are going to make a wise choice altogether, I will never know. Governments don't run on good intentions but are governed by the same laws of nature that guide everything else here on earth; governments cannot take blood from a stone nor can they create wealth, they really only consume wealth.

When governments start taking orders from those who can't even balance their own checkbook, we know the end is near. All Democracies have ended in a dictatorship because one day the "free lunch" is over and someone has to stand up and say this and be prepared to "bash some heads" when the hangovers start from the democracy/socialism induced free-for-all.

Answer 3

Other than a few conservative radio hate mongers who says the government is trying to control every aspect of your life? Allowing people to buy their own healthcare at a price they can afford is hardly what one could call controlling. What would you prefer people die rather than they have quality health care? Instead of whining about control why not offer a solution that will enable everyone to have quality health care that they can afford without government intervention. I see many on the right pitching a royal fit about universal healthcare and they don't like this or that about it. They don't know the details but don't like it. They don't offer any alternative but sure are eager to criticize. All that attitude does is cement in our minds how little the right cares for the average person and how much they love the corporations.

Answer 4

They are willing to allow the government to control it because the cost of health care has gone through the roof. A good example of this. A simple ride in a helicopter from an accident scene will set you back $10,000 to $20,000. There is no way the average person that cant afford health care can afford to pay a bill like that.

With universal coverage, that problem goes away. People on the lower income scale gain money becuase they no longer have to pay for health care coverage. This makes it popular with the $35k and under crowd.

Answer 5

While I don't support National health care, I am amazed that all the programs you listed that the government can't run are on the conservative hit list. You think they can run a war? Are you just pissed off because you pay taxes for things you disagree with? Me too, like subsidizing corporations.

Answer 6

It seems that we already have a national health care system - it's just not officially controlling the average American's life as yet.
We have free clinics in every major city and a federal law that mandates every hospital with an emergency facility must treat any one who seeks treatment - including those who are not legal citizens.
Apparently, that's just simply not enough control over our medical decisions - so keep a close eye on their next move.

Answer 7

I don't want National Health Care, but I think National Health Ins. is a great idea....all medical practices must participate and accept as full payment what the system pays adjusted for local cost of living....you choose your doc and doc stay in private practice.

Answer 8

I can think of 45 million reasons why UHC is a good thing. It is inconceivable to me that we can have 45 million people in the richest country in the world who don't have access to health care or insurance. Most of the middle class in this country is just one catastrophic illness or horrific car accident away from losing their home and declaring bankruptcy. And these are the ones who DO have insurance. We have insurance companies who are using business people to make medical decisions for people because it is all about the bottom line. So some suit will decide whether or not I need a new heart or cancer treatment or corneal transplants. That doesn't make me comfortable, how about you?

Answer 9

Another socialist program of the left. Nationalized health care would be a nightmare with very long waits to see a doctor and poorer individualized attention, and more taxes from people who earn money to pay for people who don't.

And, sharia_vigilant, you hit the nail on the head!

Answer 10

Soilent Green