Why would anyone be against universal health care?

Question

I understand the rich, and rich talk show hosts being against the plan because they don't want to pay more taxes but with today's American system:

- why is a lawyer, CEO, or high paid employee entitled to more health care than a teacher, firefighter, or store clerk?

- why shouldn't a person with a pre-existing condition be entitled to health care? It's not a person's fault if he/she gets sick and needs extended care.

- why does a person have to lose their home, or all their life's work if they lose their jobs, and suddenly develop medical problems.

- isn't health insurance payments the same as a tax? And a for profit insurance company's objective is to maximize their profits and minimize costs. They don't work in your best interests.

- what good is the health care system if it selectively excludes poorer or "less-insured" legal taxpayers. Illegal immigrants, of course, shouldn't be covered since they have their own health care system back home.

BTW. Why are we entitled to police or fire services if our lives or homes are endangered? What's the difference?

Shouldn't we have proof "of police or fire" insurance coverage to use these services?

In Canada there is no waiting list for life threatening procedures. If the Canadian needs to come to the States for a life-saving operation or procedure, the Canadian medicare pays for it. And no Canadian has EVER LOST A HOME due to health costs.

Answer 1

To answer your question, people are against universal health-care because they simply do not understand it. It costs the average British worker one-third less in taxes for healthcare than it costs the average American worker in taxes and insurance. One-third less. That's a whole pile of money that can be used for even better care.

Much has been made of the British dental problem in the last few days. No-one has thought to comment on the disaster that is American dental care. The average plan covers $1,000 of treatment per person per year at 80% or, more likely, 50%. A couple of check-ups and a filling here and there and you are pushing towards the max in many parts of the country. The sad fact is that lack of dental care for a lot of people is news in Britain, but it is not news in the USA

Now, lets get back to the one-third less that the Brits pay for healthcare. That one-third would fund a proper dental care system for all. It did in the past, until dentists started abusing the system and doing unnecessary work. The government response was to strictly regulate the types of work that could be done before getting authorization. That led many dentists to drop out of the National Health Service or, at least, to not take on any new NHS patients. So, there is a real dogs breakfast of a system in the UK that the USA can actually learn from.

Now, how about waiting times? Nothing wrong with them. In the UK, if you are a priority case you are dealt with quickly. If you are just a fuss-pot who expects to have every little ailment taken care of when there are more deserving cases ahead of you, you can always pay full-price at the few private hospitals that exist - if they do your sort of surgery. I can attest to the speed of surgery. My first surgery was planned at the age of six - they timed it so that I had it at the start of the summer holiday. My next surgery was decided on in late November and carried out in early February. My last surgery was decided on in April and was carried out in June. None was particularly urgent.

When I went to my doctor in the UK, I got to see him in his consulting room. I was not shunted about from room to room and poked at by assorted techs. I saw the Dr first and if he needed a nurse to draw blood or something, he would ask her to do so.

In short, I see nothing in the American "system" to recommend it. It is expensive, it fails to deliver care to those who need it most and the care is no better than in any other industrialized country. Why don't we try a National Health Service. It can't be any worse than what we have now.

Answer 2

If you think the DMV is run effectively and efficiently, then Universal Healthcare is for you. The problem with Universal Healthcare is that there is no magic in this world. Money does not grow on trees. The only options are to either raise taxes by 20% or so to cover the healthcare costs or to force prices down and drive all of the best doctors out of the country. And either way, you can expect long waits for getting any help. The other reason that Universal Healthcare is bad is that it opens up the door for the government to control every aspect of your life. You can figure freedom gets tosses right out the door. They'll be doing continuous studies to determine what activities result in more care costs. If you drive in certain areas or over a certain amount of miles, you might get taxed more because people fitting that criteria average more care costs. Stupid things like that would happen.

Answer 3

- why is a lawyer, CEO, or high paid employee entitled to more health care than a teacher, firefighter, or store clerk?//// Their skills are more sought after by companies so the companies will of course offer more benifits. Also, these professions can afford to pay for greater health care benifits.

- why shouldn't a person with a pre-existing condition be entitled to health care? It's not a person's fault if he/she gets sick and needs extended care.////// Insurance companies make money by not paying benifits. Therefore, they are making a bet that you will not need the benifits while you are making a bet that you will. A person with a pre-existing condition is a bad bet for an insurance company to make.

-why does a person have to lose their home, or all their life's work if they lose their jobs, and suddenly develop medical problems?///// Because medical service does not come for free. It is either they pay for their services or the public pays for their services.

- isn't health insurance payments the same as a tax? And a for profit insurance company's objective is to maximize their profits and minimize costs. They don't work in your best interests.///Health insurance is unlike a tax in that you can choose to have or not have health insurance. An insurance company's objective is to maximize profits but they also have to offer enough of a service to attract and keep customers. A company that does not fullfil their customer's interests will not last long.

- - what good is the health care system if it selectively excludes poorer or "less-insured" legal taxpayers. Illegal immigrants, of course, shouldn't be covered since they have their own health care system back home.////The public health care system is designed to answer the needs of as many people as possible without becoming a burden on the taxpayers.

Answer 4

In Australia we have basic health care for everyone - paid with a 1.25% levy on all income tax - you get sick, you have the right to be treated. it may not be the fastest, but if its an emergency, you get treated. If you can afford it you can get private insurance over & above what th Government provides.

I'm always amazed that a country such as the US doesn't have a universal system - it does work - the Government doesn't look over the doctor's shoulder to see what is being prescribed and we accept that it is the responsibility of each of us to look after the rest.

The main thing is to keep the control OUT of the hands of the insurance companies - good medicine and profit don't go together.

Answer 5

Everyone has a right to BASIC health care...and you have that RIGHT NOW. You can get emergent care at any hospital. There are free clinics for lesser needs.

You compared health care to the police and fire department. They provide BASIC protection, too. If you want 24/7 more in depth protection, you need to hire a personal body guard, or alarm system, install a fire extinguishing system. In other words, you need to take personal responsibility for that higher level of "care."

BTW, I'm not saying that there are not things that need to be fixed about our health care system. There certainly is...but universal health care is NOT the answer.

Answer 6

lol stereotype dude

Our current health care system is efficient and cutting edge?
What a joke.

We already pay for health care for the poor and uninsured through our taxes and higher insurance premiums, and we do it in the most inefficient way when people use ERs for primary care.

Don't let anyone kid you, our system is costing the middle class more now than it would under a single pay provider. The insurance companies will make less money, and all the middle men in our current system will be superfluous, but we will have a better system.

Answer 7

Because it doesn't work - if you ask people what problems they want to address, and then look at the experience of other countries, a national health insurance plan would only make the problems WORSE, not better.

Interesting how people say we are such a rich country and yet we don't have government-run health care. Maybe there is a connection between the two!

I think we're in the mess we're in partly because of wrongheaded government regulation already.

Answer 8

The system we have today provides health care for the poor. It is the middle class that can not afford health care and the government will not provide it for them.

The problem with the universal system you are talking about is control. You will not be able to pick your provider. In Canada and England it is common to wait months or years for tests and procedures.
In fact if they decide you are not a good risk factor they will not provide the service.

So if you are too old you do not get treatment for your cancer or heart condition.
There are many problems with health, but so far no one has found the solution.

Answer 9

You make some good points but keep in mind when the government pays, they decide who get the treatment. the elderly are usually considered un fit for treetment and left to their own. And as well are you willing to pay between 30-35% of YOUR income in taxes to have this? cause that is what it takes, just ask those who live in the UK< FRANCE or anywhere elses that they have it.

Answer 10

If you are talking about Federal Government Universal Health Care, then their is no way for it to happen because we are way too large. Those countries that do have universal health care are about the size of Virginia and smaller, my thought is that it is easier to regulate that way.
I would advocate that states provide universal health care with, government assistance.