Maybe because the rest of the Democratic World has Single-Payer Medical Coverage (not socialized medicine) instead of Private-For-Profit Insurance Companies (which Profit by denying coverage.)
2007-10-22 18:36:23
·
answer #1
·
answered by Richard V 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Germany put in a plan for some low income workers in 1883 and gradually expanded to cover everyone, and the US started a plan to cover injured veterans after the civil war. After WWII most industrialized nations passed some sort of national health care plan. In the 1960's The US passed Medicare for people who are retired, and Medicaid for people who are low income or have some chronic deceases. Now the government pays about half of all medical cost in the US with the other half split between insurance companies and the patients. In the US governments spend over $2000 per capita which is third highest in the world for government spending. Only Iceland and Germany have higher government outlays per capita.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_pub_per_cap-care-funding-public-per-capita
2007-10-23 02:21:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by meg 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well...I agree.
The government should NOT provide heath care. It should also NOT interfer with my right to deal with health providers to get the care I need.
Unfortunately, the government interfers with my right to deal with heath providers and has done so for years. The government prevents me from recovering full value for medical malpractice through tort reform. The government prevents me from otherwise dealing with bad doctors though various criminal laws.
If the government stops protecting health providers, then all would be well. But they don't, becasue of the heathcare lobby.
The government now has to step in and fix the mess.
I'm all in favor of no government intervention. Let's do it. No tort refrom. And if a doctor wants $50,000 for an operation that I'll die without, the government should not interfer when I negotiate more agressively than I'm now allowed.
2007-10-23 01:59:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by tallthatsme 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
The problem with a completely nationalized health care system is the quality suffers and then people are placed in long waiting times just to get approvals. Some people in Canada and other countries with National Health care have died with serious conditions while waiting for approval and were handed a lesser priority then a mass of people worse off then them. In the UK, the NHS is short of dentists cause they are ill paid, so the British are turning to pulling their own teeth then go see a government sponsored dentist. Its that bad. Plus any one remember the walter reed scandal? I was in the Army and all the hospitals are that bad to a certain degree. Military hospitals are governmentally owned, funded and managed and if its bad in the Army, imagine how bad it would be for the public if our health system was left in governmental hands? Not to mention if you ever had to fill out paper work or get approval to receive benefits from the government, you would know handing our lives and health to a government agency is a bad idea in the first place. Most agencies have a lot of tricks to discourage people from applying for benefits (from the old fill out these 300 forms to confusing and highly illogical rules and regulations.) or just flat out denying you benefits just to keep your tax dollars.
However, it know it is expensive to have private health care, but it is of higher quality and many are going by without it and that is not good. The best idea is strike a good balance between the two.
2007-10-23 01:36:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by PeguinBackPacker 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
Americans did'nt, LIberals have a notion that the government needs to provide everything for everyone. In reality, it only creates a slave class of dependants. It is a parents job to provide for their children, not the governments. True, the government provides education, which explains why the liberal public education system is churning out high school graduates that can barely read or write. Do you really want to trust them with your health care?
2007-10-23 01:29:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
4⤋
Since rampant growth in health care costs is causing economic instability which is causing the problem to be inflated even more.
Since antibiotics have been found to not be the miracle they thought they were, and most of us need to do something but cower in our homes from disease, to enjoy our freedom.
2007-10-23 02:26:32
·
answer #6
·
answered by qncyguy21 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
since the time free-market capitalism first started allowing medical care businesses to pass their losses from people who cannot pay on to the rest of us, and our insurance companies, in the form of higher expenses, compounding the problem of higher medical expenses and health care premiums.
AND since the time business owners want another tax incentive for providing better benefits to their employees.
2007-10-23 02:32:05
·
answer #7
·
answered by avail_skillz 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Government of, by and for the people serves the same.
Universal healthcare is simply a good business decision for the people and businesses of America.
Lower administrative costs.
Better outcomes.
Longer, healthier lives.
What a horrible idea!
2007-10-23 01:26:38
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
maybe since we pay them taxes,it would be nice that the money go to better the american life with health care instead of fighting someone elses war
2007-10-23 01:34:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by Kirk Neel 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
Ever since we discovered millions of men, women and children weren't getting any because it is too expensive... Government already provides education, law enforcement, postal service, welfare, social security among many other things... Why not add health care?
2007-10-23 01:24:51
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
3⤋