Universal Health Care?

Question

With nearly 47 million Americans, or 16 percent of the population without health insurance and that number continuing to rise every year as health care becomes more expensive, what are your issues against universal health care?

Countries that do have universal health care like Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Sweden, and the UK all have higher life exectancies and lower infant mortality rates. As well, they all have lower per capita expenditures on health care (several thousand dollars less per person), lower healthcare costs as a percent of GDP, and less money as a % or government revenuse spent on health care.

My feelings is that universal health care will be very hard to implement in the US as Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical Industry all have a great influence on our politcal parties.

There may be a wait list for some procedures but statistically they still have higher life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates.

To the other person, these countries listed as an example have never been communist countries.

The numbers of those without health care is from the US Census Bureau. As well, I don't consider it much of a choice to have to choose between health care and food for my family.

The 'Healthcare has gotten expensive because of technology' is an economically unfeasable argument. Technology should provide efficiencies to make procedures cheaper. If an advancement in technology means that it now become more expensive then it is not much of an advancement.

As for the socialism comment; welfare, unemployment insurance, and Government subsidized drugs are all forms of socialism. The funny thing is that our President pushed for the subsidized drugs that greatly benifits the drug companies. How many Canadian sneak over to the US to buy pharma drugs?

Answer 1

Let's look at the reasons against universal health care:

(1) If universal health care is implemented, the government will have 100% control over the health care of every American citizen. Freedom of choice for health care will be gone, and once the government takes over health care we're stuck with whatever system they come up with. And as we all know, the only two things the Federal Government is good at are wasting taxpayer dollars and miring every program they administer in miles of red tape.

(2) We already have a picture of what universal health care would look like in America. Do you remember the uproar over the atrocious conditions at Walter Reed Medical Center in DC? That health care facility is run by the government and operates under the same model of socialized medicine that is advocated by universal health care supporters. So we can expect the same standard (substandard at best) level of health care from a system of universal health care.

(3) Michael Moore would have Americans believe universal health care would be the best thing to come along since sliced bread. Nothing could be further from the truth. We need look no further than Canada to see that universal health care is not the answer. Canadians come across the border into the U.S. by the hundreds every day because they can't get the medication or treatment they need from their health care system, so they come here and pay for care out of their own pockets. The wait time for an MRI at Windsor Memorial Hospital right now (and their MRI unit runs 24/7) is six to eight weeks, and you can't get a routine colonoscopy in Canada because the health care system won't authorize the procedure unless you're showing symptoms of a problem. Um, excuse me, but don't these idiots know that by the time you start showing symptoms of colon cancer you're terminal 90% of the time or better? And did I mention that Canadian health care only covers you in the province in which you reside? So if you live in Ontario and take a weekend trip to Montreal and end up needing to see a doctor or go to the ER that comes out of YOUR pocket.

P.S.: I don't buy your assertion that these countries have less per capita expenditures on health care for one second. Their income taxes are at least 10% higher (and as much as 30% higher) than ours, and you can't tell me that all that money is being directed somewhere other than universal health care.

Answer 2

1st of all the number of 47 million is suspicious. It includes people who were between jobs but got healthcare, people who can afford healthcare but would rather spend their money on BMW leases and others.

2nd universal healthcare is no panacea.

3rd the health care discussion is BS. Nobody wants to discuss the real issues.

Healthcare has gotten expensive because of technology. Over 50% of your lifetime healthcare dollars are spent in the last 6 months of your life. Whether you have a government sponsored system like the UK, France or Canada, or a market sponsored one like in the US, health care is rationed.

In 1950 there was no chemo therapy, cardio bypass, MRI, CT's, etc.

The average person could afford it.

The question that should be debated and will never be is when is enough --- enough. No politician will win on the platform Grandma doesn't get chemo and Grandpa doesn't get the bypass.

Untill then the lines will get longer in France, the UK and Canada and Health Insurance will get more expensive in the US.

Answer 3

You do not want Universal health care. That is not the route that Americans should take. But, since it was a fiasco when Hillary Clinton was in office I do not think anything will be done by the current President. Americans will just need to take better care of themselves and quit depending on medication and being hospitalized.

Answer 4

Well three reasons.

1. the 47 million number, includes people who were without health insurance for just a single day.

2. It is not 47 million americans, it is 47 million people in america, 16 million of those 47 million, are not american citizens.

3. The proponets of universial health care, are great at citing various reasons we should have it,

But they can never seem to tell people, what it would cost and specificly how it would be funded or implimented.

Answer 5

That 16% that doesn't have health insurance can go to any emergency room in this country and get the very best of health care. Medicaid takes care of children whose families do not have money for health care insurance. In this country we take care of our sick. Often people are too proud to ask for help, but help is there for those who need it.

The pharmaceutical companies need to take care of the senior citizens. The Insurance companies need to take care of the children or the government needs to regulate them. I believe the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies know this and they can do more than what they are doing or throw America into universal health care.

America has the best of everything. Greed must listen to need and take care of it or go under.

Answer 6

The 47 million number has been proven to be inflated and also that a large portion of the uninsured are already eligible for government insurance but have not signed up and another large percentage can easily afford to buy insurance but CHOOSES not to. The number of people who cannot afford it and dont qualify for government aid is very low comparitively.
I do NOT want the government running my health care. Besides where will the people from those other countries go when they need operations in a hurry but are on a waiting list at home???

Answer 7

You have been duped. The 47 million figure is bogus. For one thing, the government counts a person as uninsured for the year even if he is without insurance for one day. Millions of people can buy health insurance and choose not to. It is a basic freedom; insure or not insure as you wish. There are millions who are eligible for Medicare or Medicaid, who do not apply for it.
Countries with universal health care all have failing systems. The US has the best health care system in the world, regardless of the cost. If you are dying and want to live, you won't worry about the cost.
Universal health care is socialism. It will not be implemented because people in the US value their freedom to choose. The lobbyists have no influence on Mrs. Clinton. She has been advocating socialized medicine Ever since her husband was governor.

Answer 8

If you're rich you don't care because you can go anywhere for healthcare.

If you're middle class or poor you better be prepared for a huge tax increase with National Healthcare.

The countries you mentioned have very high tax rates to pay for their blotted healthscare systems. Not to mention the wait times for routine surgeries and problems. Being from an ex-communist country I saw first hand the "efficiency" of social medicine.

In my country healthcare was free but you had to be willing to wait several months for an appointment with a doctor. And when I was in hospital one time I heard a nurse in the next room apologizing to a patient in great pain because her allotment of anesthesia had run out during surgery.

Answer 9

Before I answer your question I'll ask one of you: Why do you think so many Canadians come to the United States for elective surgical procedures?

Comment on your Additional Information:


A bunch of people can stand barefooted with one foot in a pot of boiling water and the other in a pot of ice water and you can say that statistically all are comfortable since the mean temperature for each person is in the warm range. Statistics don't mean squat when it is your daughter who needs an elective and possibly life saving treatment and some faceless bureaucrat declines to approve your request for treatment.

Answer 10

You paint a rosy picture but ask the folks who are coming from Canada to the US for treatment what their feelings are. The waiting time to see a doctor is getting longer and longer. I know a doctor who moved from Canada to the US to get away from their health care system. These countries charge enormous taxes and I would like to see your data on 'several thousand dollars less per person' as I don't believe it!