Would federally funded health care eliminate freedom of choice?

Question

How many people remember news clips on TV from China during the 1960s & 70s? Do you recall every body dressed in exactly the same clothes, same styling and color?
Isn't this what we would have to look forward to with health care funded by the government?

Answer 1

Yes, there are some of us, old enough to remember those years, and news casts.
Yes, I am afraid that soon, we Americans will massed into a 'health care plan' that will, by example, be the same as those Chinese were then dressed.
HHMMMM, addressing their dress and comparing that to 'our future health care plan' *** Why has the Chinese people abandoned that dress, that was extraordinary under the Communist Regime?
2nd HHMMMM, " UNDER THE /A COMMUNIST REGIME" !!!!
IS THERE A SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE OF WARNING, HERE????

Answer 2

If Social health care was bad then why do the Armed forces have it? Also every elected Politian is also given social health care in the USA, would they really keep something going that wasn't good?

Most American compare The USA with Canada, which is one of the worst public health care systems around. If you look at France, which is considered the best health care system in the world, or Scandinavia and compared them against American they are simply better.

There are lots of myths which are all easy to disprove:

- Costs, it costs more to have a public health care. - False, over the course of someone’s life it would cost that person less to have a public system than a private. Look at monthly payment, office visit, deductibles, coinsurance payments all of which are very expensive. America already spends more per capita on medical care than Canada.

- Lack of Choice - You have more choice in a public health care system than if you were a network insurance plan. People in Europe can choose any doctor they like and request any specialist, from any hospital. I can have treatment anywhere in Europe I wish.

- less advanced - Not true, apart form 4 of the top 7 pharmaceutical companies being European there are lots of medical break through in These countries. Remember the first face transplant was done in France.

- More Administration - Hospitals are administered the same whether in a private system or public. The only difference is that there is a greater enfersis on profit above patient care in a private system.

- Waiting lists - Emergency Treatment waiting times are less in Public countries as there is less time wasted sorting out payment. Treatment is also given on a priority bases instead of a first come this means that the 15 year old will get a heart transplant above the 70 year old. The public health care system also has maximum wait times and people will also be sent to other countries to get treatment at the government’s expense.

Answer 3

ugh.... where to begin with this one..... First, I don't think a blue collar family's kid getting his broken arm fixed at no cost (to his family), has any barring on the freedom of choice. If anything it creates more of a freedom of choice because that family now has roughly 5oo or whatever dollars to put to use else where. Maybe they'll invest it in a college fund, or by groceries, or maybe even a Nintendo Wii.

Second....please just because the government looks interested in helping its own citizens with medical bills, doesn't mean that its truning communist...

Thirdly even if (hopefully a very big IF) it did, and the us becomes same as china (knock on wood) there well be lots of colors and styles of clothing to choose from... In china what you buy in a US store for $20, you can get it there for $1.... again even in China, the choice what one can wear is still plentiful...

So now to aswer your question in a nut shell....

no


btw... buy a tv or something, this is not the 60's nor the 70's

Answer 4

Well, at least we can vote on whether we want to do it or not, because the Democrats are going to put it in their platform this year. I actually look forward to the upcoming debate about it because I'm undecided.

But still, I don't know why everyone's afraid of the healthcare happening, even if a Democrat is elected in 2008 it won't happen for a long time. Because the next President, whoever it is, will inherit a massive defecit and an expensive ongoing war and they will likely have to put many of their programs aside in favor of defecit reduction. So it would take years before we could really get a system like that in place, if we ever do. I don't know why the Democratic candidates are making this such a major issue, because they must know they can't do anything about it yet, I don't know what the hell Obama and Edwards are talking about when they say they're going to have it passed by 2009. No way, wouldn't happen until a hypothetical second term, if at all. And I don't get why they make it such a big issue because if they run on it and get elected and four years later they haven't been able to do anything it could really come back to bite them in the a.ss in 2012.

Answer 5

Probably. Just like HMO's today. You have to stay in the network or you pay more out-of-pocket. Except that there wouldn't be any other network to use. If the health-care system is nationalized and price controls are enforced, it would reduce the overall number of doctors over a period of time. Why would anyone want the payment for their labor capped? We would have a system that over a period of time would have less choice and fewer doctors because there would be no income incentive left. Many would find another profession without pay restrictions.

Now maybe there would be a way to allow addition fees applied to a doctors service. But I doubt that would be allowed.

Answer 6

To some extent Medicare has limited choice, because not all doctors participate. It has increased choice very much more than it limits it. Investment in health care has greatly expanded, because of money Medicare has added to the system. Hillary's plan will put the Blues in complete control of health care and they will bleed it dry rapidly. Obama system may bring original Medicare back but with more efficient way to process clams and payments. The Blues gum up ever thing they touch. The battle is over funding the trillions of dollar reserve the Blue use to reward certain mutual funds. Or developing faster easier to use system.

Answer 7

If you were speaking of nationalized health care as right-wingers keeep claiming it is going to be, rather than the actual proposals of government subsidized health insurance, I would say yes.
BUT, none of the proposals include natioanlization of the medicial industry, or socialized medicine. these are just buzz words that right-wing blow hards use to keep their flocks living in fear.

Public school is funded by the government, and even more socialized, than a subsidy or tax credits for the poor and for small businessed, and you don't see everyone dressing the same in school now!
We subsidize the agriculture industry to keep our food prices low. We don't see the red army out on the farms doing the labor.
The only thing we have to worry about being the same, is our savings on medicial care, as the number of people causing losses to the medicial providers, because they can't pay their bills, are reduced. This way they aren't passing these losses onto the rest of us.


and making the program include portable policies, forces the private insurers to compete with one another.

Answer 8

There is no elimination of freedom of choice. We already have a federally funded health care program, and for those of us with private insurance, most of our doctors do not accept it. So, there would be very little difference from today.


Example: Here's a list of all of the gynecologists that accept Medicare insurance in the state of Alabama.
http://www.medicare.gov/Physician/Search...

There are only 240 available gyno's.

According to BC BS of Alabama, there are 337 doctors that accept their coverage:

https://www.bcbsal.org/webapps/providerf...

So, if you choose one of the 97 doctors that didn't accept Medicaid/Medicare, you wouldn't have any different treatment. (btw, the only reason gynecologists are used is because this is from another question about babies)

Answer 9

It depends on what you mean by "choice." Private health insurers aren't going away (they have too much money and power). They'll go on, paying their ceo's obscene amounts of money. It's just that they'll have a guaranteed customer base, and won't have to compete with each other as much. (Look at Medicare Part D to see an example of how it might work). But there will be some lack of "choice." It's not likely that any form of universal health care will pass muster here in the US if it includes abortion benefits. Not likely at all.

Answer 10

It would introduce unfair advantages to patients whom are able financially honor a doctor's service privately too for gaining a discrimination of more attention of care.