A question about government health care?

Question

Okay, I must start by saying I've always been against universal health care. "Flip Flop" Clinton's plan resembles Canada's and they're considering their system to be in a state of crisis - so I think that'd be setting ourselves up for failure.
Here's my question.
For those who WANT to participate in free healthcare. FINE.
For those who don't - what if we were given a tax credit and the option to seek private health care and continue to purchase health insurance?
That suits me just fine.
I've invested in myself through higher education and can afford the cost associated with my health care. I personally don't like the idea of waiting in lines that resemble the DMV or post office just to see a doctor. We all know everything slows down once the government controls it. I also don't want some moron in the government deciding what's medically necessary for me.
Would a plan like this make everyone happy?

one_for_the_doctor:
They make meds for ADD, you know.
What did you not understand about getting a TAX CREDIT for not participating?

Just another comment for those of you who still say you don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare - how much control do you really have right now over government spending?
Seriously - the mayor of my city has his wife on the payroll for a job she doesn't even do. If we keep electing people at this lower level who spend like this - what makes you think we have ANY control at higher levels?

Answer 1

First of all, I very much appreciate your concerns about government run health care. You are quite correct about the state of affairs in Canada’s system. But if another person does sign up for the system you will, if you pay taxes, be helping to support that system whether you want to or not. Most of the problems in health care that make it unaffordable for some are due to intervention by government. Regulations require doctors and nurses to spend a great deal of their time filling out paperwork. This takes up time and money that could be spent lowering the cost of healthcare and serving more low income people. There are many very generous physicians who would be happy to volunteer their time helping the needy as well. Taxes take up so much of their money that to live the life they wish they cannot afford to. The problems with healthcare are courtesy of the government. Getting government MORE involved will only create more problems.

Answer 2

It's an extraordinarily complex problem, but I'll try to make a couple of points.
First, Clinton's first plan wasn't so radical as a Canadian-style single payer system, and the new version is closer to what Romney did in MA. It's about what you're saying you're in favor of.
If you think there's a huge difference in government-run health care and private, you're deluding yourself. Medicare is the big gorilla in the room, and it actually works pretty well, with high satisfaction and very low administrative costs compared to private insurance. Of course, it presupposes private co-insurance for best satisfaction, and that's an important point.
Insurance by its very nature is about risk-sharing. Using a "social contract" model for insurance keeps everybody insured and costs spread reasonably well. Using a plethora of actuarially-based private programs "cherry-picks" healthy populations leaving diabetics, asthmatics, and others without the option of private insurance at anything like a reasonable rate. This flows down the line, increasing overall insurance costs, forcing hospitals and doctors into ever more complex cost-shifting strategies, and eventually making private insurance affordable to fewer and fewer people. Soon you may find that even if you stay healthy, you'll be spending $1000 a month on your insurance, and employers are finding it more and more difficult to offer affordable insurance. And the government moron actually does a better job of deciding what you need than a corporate moron already does.
We need to keep private insurance, and government programs, and just figure a way to get it all to be less disjointed. It'll be interesting to see if any real problem-solving can find its way through the overblown rhetoric.

Answer 3

You can already deeduct healthcare costs from your income taxes. Adding a tax credit for those choosing private care would amount to a government healthcare program. It would be an indirect program but still government sponsored. Canada is not experiencing a healthcare crisis.
The DMV comparison does not fit, as this is a state government program and is involved with the licensing of drivers and automobiles. The post office is more similar to a national healthcare plan because it is at least providing a service. It should be noted that the postal service has been managing to deliver first class letters for more than a century and the cost of a first class stamp has not risen even one half dollar in that time.

Answer 4

Well that would leave the poor with universal and the everyone else with private. So where is the money going to come from? The only way universal works is if everyone buys in. I wouldn't want to because I only pay 40 a month now but would end up paying more and getting less. Yes more people would be covered but I would be worse off. That would suck.

Answer 5

I do not want one penny of my taxes paying for people to lazy or too stupid to find a job with benefits.

Perhaps you need to learn what a tax credit is before making a fool of yourself again.

And I know they make meds for that. I suppose you want me to buy you some.

Answer 6

Sounds good to me.....i personally never had a decient health care coverage...........and now being on a goverment plan its ok...but goverment run...and alot of red tape...so yeah your plan sounds pretty good !!! Keep it up...get a hold on someone in local levels of goverment to consider it...........who knows.....alot of great things have come about with one persons idea ...put to the test.........Good Luck !!!