English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Are the rich too afraid of losing money? Are the Insurance companies too greedy and powerful to allow a National Health Care Plan? Many of us believe that Insurance companies and large corporations own our lawmakers from the city level on up to the Capitol building in Washington and the Whitehouse. I think THAT is the reason we do not have health insurance for everyone. Even our wounded Soilders, Sailors and Marines get lousy health care sometimes according to the TV news and news papers. (Ask a few veterans if you think that is not true).

2007-10-19 13:30:43 · 19 answers · asked by OceanBlue0910 2 in Politics & Government Government

19 answers

Socialized medicine is expensive and delivers very poor service. many Canadians end up coming to the US for treatment because if you need a lung transplant you cannot afford to wait forever. The wait times under national health insurance plans are very long and the service is poor. Add to that the very high tax rates to support it. Would you want to pay an income tax rate of 50% and on top of that a VAT of another 10-20%? You could have 60% to 80% of your income taxed away, and people think national health insurance is "free". It ain't such a good deal.

2007-10-19 13:37:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 4

A single-payer system requires one thing which most Americans do not have... trust in their government. Would you trust the various governments of the United States with *your* health care? I'm being serious here. Think about it. The US is running deficits of $1.5T a year and they can't agree to cut anything. Nearly half that money was borrowed from social security, medicare, and other entitlements. Think about that... some American has paid into a retirement fund or for future medical treatment and the US government thought it would be a good idea to spend that money on other things, with the hope that China would lend them the money when you actually retire or need the treatment? The congress, Senate, and president routinely deadlock of the budget and debt ceiling, yet spend billions of bridges to nowhere, airports no one uses, and anti-terrorism bomb shelters in Nebraska. You then have about 40% of the US population which will simply vote down any bill which has any mention of "family planning", "abortion", "AIDs prevention", "birth control", "stem cell", etc. plus any type of "nanny-state" things to like food labeling, supporting fitness programs, drunk driving programs, vehicle insurance laws, etc. This, along with the general drug issues and higher violent crime rates in the US would effectively means any system will probably have twice the usage of say Canada. Then we have the illegal immigrant issue. We have another 40% of the population which will vote against any system actually requires people to show proof of citizenship or verify income (i.e. SSNs) when applying for health insurance. With over 12 million illegals a Canadian system would either be the largest mass deportation in history or effectively mean that anyone can just refuse to verify their incomes and get free health insurance. And there is no support among the US population for the steps necessary to make Canadian-style health care work. State take over of all hospitals, loser-pays legal system, caps of liability lawsuits, state set fees for doctors and other health care workers, centralized control over purchasing, state-wide negotiations with drug companies and other suppliers, etc. Then we have US politicians. Which now require in the range of $8M to run for a congress or Senate seat -- vs. something like $30k for a Canadian to run for parliament. This, combined with a virtually paralyzed two-party system (almost never more than 40% to one party in the past fifty years) means that business lobby groups pretty much have the final say on any of these issues. I wouldn't want the US system for the live of me... but I don't for a second think that the United States is in any position to even think of implementing an UK or Canadian style health care system. It's government is too partisan, too owned by big business, and too inept to be trusted with it. They borrowed from people's retirement funds?!?

2016-05-23 21:17:55 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

United States Constitution.

2007-10-19 14:06:52 · answer #3 · answered by archy 4 · 0 1

That is like copying the dumb kids test paper. Did you not see the reports form England on how people are extracting their own teeth because most dentist' don't want to work for the goverments crappy plan. People need to take care of themselves. i can care less about all the deadbeats and their children they cant afford but yet continue to have. I have been insured since I started working with no problems. As far as Im concerned health care is a non-issue and the goverment needs to stay out of it.

2007-10-19 14:57:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

I've never met a Brit or Canadian who was unhappy with their country's health systems....but my uncle died waiting for surgery for a pacemaker in the U.S. He had 1 heart attack => became too sick to work =>lost his health insurance => and had to wait in insanely long lines in an ER literally praying that he got some--any!--treatment before he died. That's the American way.

Why do you think so many Americans are getting their prescriptions from Canada?!

2007-10-19 15:34:40 · answer #5 · answered by Liliya829 4 · 1 1

Comming from a canadian, i LOVE THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. Yes the wait times are long (that problem lies within the government spending) but the service is perfectly good. I am glad that i can get care when i need it and that i dont have to fight some insurance company to get it.

And no it doesnt costs 50% of your income (thanks for making up random numbers?) Yes it does raise your taxes, but then again, you dont have any health care insurance costs... so it evens itself out.

2007-10-19 13:45:38 · answer #6 · answered by Ali D 3 · 6 2

I just heard about a week ago that in England, all the docs are required to take Sat and Sun off because of lack of funding.

2007-10-19 13:41:48 · answer #7 · answered by doggybag300 6 · 1 1

No, you're wrong. I know the reason why we don't have Universal Health Care. It's because it's been a failure (though not declared one, the people that live in those nations will tell you) in the countries tried, and because the idea itself is Communistic, and if you support Communism you can just move to Cuba because you don't deserve the freedom of America.

2007-10-19 15:49:31 · answer #8 · answered by William E. Roberts 5 · 0 4

Both the UK and Canadian health care systems have major accessibility problems. Why do you think rich Canadians come to the US for treatment?

2007-10-19 15:29:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Because our healthcare system is AWESOME. Theirs sucks! I asked people from the U.K.

Corporations aren't greedy, they just want the profits they work hard for.

I am tired and don't want to answer in further detail, but I would LOVE to debate you on this subject via eMail.

2007-10-19 18:01:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers