should the U.S government provide national health care insurance for all americans?

Question

i wanna know the pros and cons of this

Answer 1

Sure. The only problem is that the government wouldn't be providing it. Taxpayers would.

I would love to have a system where everyone has healthcare, but the worst thing that can happen is for the gov't to handle it. Name one thing that the Government hasn't completely screwed up.

We shouldn't have Universal healthcare because the cost will be much higher than it is now, and the care will be worse. Every Western Country that has Universal healthcare exemplifies these problems. The heads of state from those countries get healthcare in the United States because we have the best medicine, medical facilities, best treatments, and best Doctors on Earth.

Universal Healthcare is also called standardized healthcare for a reason. It means that Healthcare will be based on a standard, and not exceptional achievement.

It is because of the laws of supply and demand.
When supply is only limited by how much a business can handle, and the demand is higher than that supply, prices go up to reduce demand to the level at which profits are maximized.
So, as soon as the gov't is paying for healthcare, doctors can charge whatever they want, and the lines in the waiting room will only get longer.

Also, the gov't would outsource to the lowest bidder, which is a TERRIBLE idea when it comes to healthcare.
Prices would either be fixed or the gov't would have to fork over more money for the best doctors.

If prices were fixed, the best doctors, who deserve the most money, would not have any patients, or not get fair pay. On the other hand, crummy doctors just out of medical school would be the only ones getting your business.

If prices weren't fixed, only the very best doctors would have business because nobody would go to cheaper, less experienced doctors. Then young doctors could not gain experience.

It would also mean that the Gov't could be liable in cases of medical malpractice, so costs would be driven even higher.

There is a solution to the problem out there, that doesn't involve insurance raquets or gov't's completely eliminating competition.

The goal of providing every American with healthcare is a good and necessary endeavor, but putting it in the hands of the government is a BAD idea.

The best way to do it would be to allow all American citizens to have a portion of their paychecks extracted and sent to medical care providers, like HMOs, instead of the Gov't or Insurance. Leave the government and insurance companies out of it.

Middlemen only drive costs up.
Government involvement would drive costs even higher, and that would affect you in the form of taxes.
At least with insurance, medical care and treatment is better.
But insurance should be canned and government provided healthcare shouldn't even be a consideration.

Answer 2

"I've noticed that when it comes to material possessions and the luxuries that Americans get to enjoy each day that no other country can compare but I've also noticed that when it comes to the cost of health care & things like college America isn't that great." I disagree with your statement completely! BTW I'm not American. America has the absolute best health care IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT. If money is no object than the health care and health facilities cannot be beat. As for college the same is true. IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT. The colleges of MIT, Cambridge, Harvard, and Yale are known the world over. America has the best services around if you have the money. So the statement of whether or not Americans deserve these thinks is irrelevant. Americans who can afford them, deserve them and therefore get them. Whether or not these services could benefit the whole country IF MADE AFFORDABLE is a whole different argument. Edit: someone said "I do not remember the quote from the founding fathers, life liberty and a HMO plan" LOL ... that's why George Washington has wooden teeth!

Answer 3

The key word is "Americans".
Pros: Affordable healthcare to the forgotten middle class.
Cons: Not illegals just dropping off their children so they can later join them through back door policy or every outcast/criminal unwanted by their home land.
I believe imposing a new system would be ridiculously expensive and create larger government. As it is, their involvement in tax-payers affairs is a mess. What makes anyone think the government could run a healthcare program efficiently?
DOLPHINE: How in the world could taxes be lower with an influx of untold millions of people already unable to pay for services? I guess you prefer to be anally raped by the government and the ensuing over-sized bureaucracy that would come with it. You need a serious reality check.

Answer 4

Health care should be the number one priorty. Taking care of its citizens in the longrun will not hurt but help America by providing healthier people who eventually wont be having to take so much medication and unnecessary operations. A manditory national health care system which should be applied for and provided with medical cards with photo. No medical attention will be provided without card and persons trying to should be reported to different government agencies. Illegals will be noticed. For humanitarian reasons, persons without cards will be provided care but should be reported to different government agecies. Action will be taken. Cost of health care should be a monthly "donation" of fixed nature that can be payed for by all classes. Meaning one price fits all.( If the US government has had all these billions all this time to fight the war in Iraq, then why hasn't US had the money for national health care system or even to better the educational system.) Malpractice suits in national health care system should also be limited, meaning each different law suit has fixed amount a person can obtain. Hospitals should be built (with the billions US has) in order to decrease long lines, long appointments. Minihospitals is also an option with outpatient services. Doctors, nurses should be offered incentives.

With the high cost of medical services now in US, and
" the people" being the most important asset a country has, providing exceptional health care to all should be highly considered.

Answer 5

Pros
Taxes will be considerable less than what we pay for private coverage now.
Everyone will have the ability to get healthcare when they need it
Costs of services will be less as the administrative/Clerical areas on Private Insurance disappear
Lack of a for profit system will encourage preventative medical attention (diet change etc) vs. "Wait till I have to get an operation to fix it" style health care

Cons
Large Pharmacetical companies will no longer be able to analy rape consumers with patented pills mostly developed with Tax dollars. This will cause their shareholders to have smaller portfolios.

Large Insurance Companies will no longer be able to deny medical attention via cost restrictions and refusal to cover proceedures which would result in smaller profits for them.
This will cause their shareholders to have smaller portfolios.

You may have to wait a day or a week or so for an appointment if it is a non-life threatining illness or injury.

It will be harder to get a boob/nose/erection job.

Answer 6

Do you have a good experience when you get your drivers license renewed? That is what government healthcare will be like.

It hasn't worked anywhere else it has been tried. In Europe travel agencies offer surgery tours where you fly to another country like India, get your surgery while on vacation. England has too long a waiting list.

Nothing is free. We will all pay for it and the employees that run it just like we do the DMV.

Answer 7

Nonononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononono.

nope, absolutely positively without a doubt or reservation, NO!

The government never has run a single social welfare program that is not completely bogged down in red tape, a million pages of regulations, is totally inefficient, is horribly bloated in both personnel and budget and NEVER has enough money to get it right. Everything they run is always on the verge of bankrutpcy and never covers enough people, does enough for the people it covers, or covers enough problems.

Answer 8

yes, healthcare should not be for profit. Every human being deserves to be healthy. Anyone who says no really does not understand the problem. Government red tape does not concern me. What concerns me is the fact that people are under insured and do not realize it till the really need it. Is our health any less important than that of the citizens of the many wiser nations who take care of their own.

Answer 9

Pros:

- everyone gets health insurance

Cons:

- makes government bigger and bulkier
- quality of care typically decreases under these systems
- wait times typically increases under these systems
- availability of doctors typically decreases
- taxes are going to go up substantially
- incentive to invest in the health care industry decreases, resulting in fewer advances in health care (and we are practically the last pioneer in health care available on the planet).

Answer 10

I recommend you to try this web page where you can get quotes from different companies: http://COVERAGEQUOTES.NET/index.html?src=5YArwfkwWA451

RE :Should the U.S government provide national health care insurance for all americans?
i wanna know the pros and cons of this
1 following 9 answers