Why do you like our health care system as it exists today rather than unifying all of it into one system?

Question

Wouldn't having a unified system enormously reduce the cost of bureaucracy and the vast paperwork from so many different insurance carriers?

Just because other countries have problems with their systems doesn't mean we CAN'T improve on their problems and use what works.

There is a way to approach this to make it beneficial for all involved.
We have very intelligent people in our country in the public and private sector who are up to the challenge.

Isn't this really better for every American in the long run? Less cost for care and less room for the Pharmaceutical companies to strongarm drug prices with only one domestic buyer?

Answer 1

Hmmmmm, so you want Bush in charge of your health insurance ???

Answer 2

One system would not be good, we need competition. I am seeing people go to Sweden, Mexico, all kinds of places to get healthcare. The current system is simply unaffordable for a lot of small businesses and individuals. What we need is a two tier system where we keep the current insurance provided system for those who are happy with it and we merge medicare, medicaid, veterans care and everything else into a giant coop that is run by a management company that is paid based on performance. Everybody who wants to be in the coop would pay $50 per month and have complete healthcare and they would also waive the right to sue the system or Doctors, this would actually cost less than what we pay now. I know Canadiens who love their healthcare system and they tell me that they have clinics around the country and most everything is taken care of in these clinics and you only go to the hospital if it is a big deal, they say $35 is taken from there check each month and thats it, I asked 12 of them sitting around the table if they had any complaints about their system and they all answered no, they loved it, So who ever is spreading these rumors that Canadiens don't like their healthcare system needs to talk to Canadiens.

Answer 3

When you have one system you create a monopoly and that's when the average Joe gets screwed. I just came back from Europe where I discussed health care systems with my old friends and relatives. I had trouble convincing some that in the USA one can get a MRI in less than a month and an operation for a painful but non life threatening condition in less than one year. Most of the time the government run system keeps a tight control on who gets what and when. Switzerland is one of the best though and is an exception, Germany isn't as bad as some others. I'd never want to go back there to live and have a special insurance for emergency repatriation should I get sick when visiting. I was born and raised over there but wouldn't want to live there. I had a nice visit but I am so glad to be back in the USA

Answer 4

It's a wonderful idea, but it would never work. Look at how Medicare and Medicaid are abused. With no competition, costs and quality would soon suffer. Medicare, medicaid, and the VA are the closest things to single payer health care, and the left has been decrying how pathetically the VA has been operated lately. Besides, can you imagine the size of the bureaucracy that would be necessary to oversee the healthcare for 350 million people?

Answer 5

No! A big one system would fail. Most insurance would be hell to deal with and I mean if the computers at this super medicare or medicade failed then you couldn't run anything for the people who need the medicine. And don't think that all the insurance companies are good because the are hell to deal with as well. They don't pay to run the computers or transmit the payments for anyone. This system we have now isn't perfect, but it would be hell if we unified it under one big multifacit branch of the government.

Answer 6

Because, among other things, this is America, land of opportunity and in America, statements such as this should never be acceptable:

"I can't worry about every under capitalized business" -- Hillary Clinton, testifying before congress on the effects of Nationalized Health Care.

If Hillary has it her way, we'll all be ordered to stand in line at Wal-Mart for a physical every year.

... testing for STDs is imperative, you know?

Answer 7

Ask the people in the UK and Canada why they come here to get adequate care. I am pro-choice when it comes to medical care. I don't want to have one system shoved down my throat with no choice, nor do I want my health care rationed the way it is there. People need to wait months for life saving surgery if they can get it all. And another poster is right, a huge amount of our heath care costs go to defending baseless lawsuits. How do you think John (ambulance chasing) Edwards became rich?

Answer 8

Free Enterprise / Competition generates improved services, at lower costs . Monopolies generate lackadaisical service, lower standards, higher costs, and more government / political control / political payoffs !!!
BEAR IN MIND, THAT WHEN ANY GOVERNMENT IS INVOLVED, THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE 'ADMINISTRATION' OF THE PROGRAM IS AT LEAST 1/2 OF ALL AVAILABLE MONIES !!!!
Has anyone noticed any politician mentioning the additional costs ??? NO?? I wonder why ???

Answer 9

When I look at systems run by bureaucracies (DMV, my school district, the federal government, etc.), I see delays, mistakes, apathetic workers, misuse of funds, etc. Why should I believe a universal insurance system run by the federal or state govt would work any better?

Answer 10

try dealing with medicaid or medicare, and youll understand why i dont support universal healthcare in a hurry. and if you strongarm the pharmaceutical companies into lower prices, they will have less money and incentive to do research and you will lose innovation

Answer 11

Government is the most inefficient means to distribute any commodity or service. Food is "essential" like health care, but we would never stand for a government takeover of our food delivery system.

Be very careful what you wish for - what government provides, it can very easily take away.