Public Health Care is better than Private?

Question

I am writing a report on which is the better choice. I have watched the movie Sicko and agree that public healthcare is the better choice. Now I need a 3 point thesis statement containing 3 very bried reasons public is better than private.

Answer 1

Wow, you watch a movie and decide? Scary.

I can't tell you how public is better than private, but I can tell you some of the opposing viewpoints. If you're going to write a good paper, you need to address the opposing viewpoint, too.

Private healthcare is better than public, because public healthcare has no incentive to do their best. If they provide poor service, they get an increased budget. If they spend money too fast, they get a budget increase. They constantly get rewarded for overspending and underperforming, and as a result, a public healthcare service becomes far more expensive and far less caring than it could be. If you can't answer that, you can't prove that public is better. Good luck.

Answer 2

1. The cost per person to deliver health care in Public programs is far less (almost half) of that in Private programs; the cause being the 'profit motive" in Private programs.

2. All people are covered in Private programs. As a result average longevity is greater, infant mortatlity lower and the general health of the citizens better. There is no evidence of quality degradation simply because a program is Public rather than Private. In fact, the profit motive will at times cause needed procedures to be set aside in the interests of the bottom line.

3. Quality of services and facilities will generally be superior when they are controlled and supervised by an independent (government) entity versus a for profit heirarchy.

4. It is important to distinguish between Health Care and the Health Care "System." America has terrific Health Care available to those who can afford it, but the System denies that care to many, many people. Too often the those arguing one way or the other confuse the two issues. They affect another but are very much separate questions.

Don't let the negative respondents bother you. They are simply following the Republican Party line without having done any serious homework.

Answer 3

1--the profit motive detracts from the amount actually delivered in services. Our current healthcare system pays out about half of what it takes in premiums. The rest is spent on redundant overhead, salaries (which may be tied to profits) and in dividends to shareholders. The less actual care they have to provide, the more profit they show, the higher the dividends, and the higher the executive salaries.....you see where this is going.

2--a healthy public is a productive public. Lack of access to affordable healthcare costs our economy in many ways; from needless ER visits that could have been cleared up weeks earlier in a clinic to people who go to work sick because they have no paid leave or insufficient funds to seek care.

3--The whole idea behind insurance is that a whole group pays into it even when they're not sick, so whichever of them are sick can buy treatment with the pooled resources. There is no reason why the government cannot do the same thing, with far less overhead than the private sector. Those without insurance get treated on the public dime anyway. the onl;y motivation for excluding more sickly individuals from coverage is the aforementioned profit motive.

4--a case of strep shouldn't cost more than a week's groceries to treat, and a broken arm shouldn't cost half a year's rent. It's that simple.

good luck with your paper.

Answer 4

i do no longer understand the place you reside, yet you for sure have not been to a u . s . a . positioned up workplace or driving force's License workplace, have you ever? in case you had, you won't be asking this question. government operations are notoriously sluggish, low high quality, annoying and fully incompetent. government workers perform on a strictly "via the e book" foundation and that they take care of anybody as a brilliant selection, quite than a real person. they're getting minimum salary, and don't care one iota approximately you or your issues. case in point, in case you have a project with something and speak to a privately run workplace, possibilities are high you will get solutions and a decision in the present day. while you're no longer pleased with their coping with of the project, you are able to take your business enterprise someplace else. even however, in case you had to call a central authority workplace approximately it, they might likely assist you to realize that they are going to would desire to check out it and wouldn't have the flexibility to come back to you for a pair of months. in case you have a project with that, oh properly. hard success. See the version???

Answer 5

No, I personally think that the private sector has better care.
I have diabetes, and many of the associated health breakdowns are happening to me even as I write this
1) kidney damage
2) diabetic neurapathy
3) loss of vision and bleeding in my right eye (future blindness)
4) Hypertension
5) Chronic arthritis (made worst by diabetes...etc

I have no insurance, and now no one in his right mind will give me any either!
If you can't afford health insurance and medicine and hospital care is so expensive because the Health industry wants to soak the public for every buck they can get their hands on...why must I be denyed all that expensive, high-tech, highly tauted miracle medical treatment, so I wind up crippled or dead?
Some of you libs would love that I'm sure.But what am I suggesting?
They need to provide necessary health care for those that can't help themselves and don't have insurance!
Not just emergency care, but the preventative care, like the high blood preasure medicine and the fast acting insuline I cant get now because it costs too much!

Answer 6

Look at the key points of "Sicko" and go with them to select your 3 points. What are the issues and how are those issues solved in the movie?

Answer 7

go ahead and believe public is better, but you need to admit that freedom isn't very important to you first. government run health care is very anti-freedom. the government screws up almost everything it touches, and it will screw up public health care as well. with sicko, you're only getting one side of the story, and michael moore is certainly known for skewing the truth or at times flat out lying. i believe you should do a lot more research before coming to the conclusion that you like it.

Answer 8

Do some research on Hillary as Senator who passed the govt run program of getting all kids vaccinated with the flu shot a couple of years ago. The end result was that there was a huge shortage of flu shots and people that needed it didnt get it. This was a result of all of the govt regulations and pricing requirements. Scary.

Answer 9

Google 'John Stossel 20/20 Sicko' and get the real story from Cuban activists.

Moore did not go to a hospital for regular citizens where starvation is a regular occurence, he went to a hospital for the elite.


edit--John Stossel is not Republican he is Libertarian

Answer 10

No. Americans would not be happy with government run healthcare.

The U.S. has preventative care. That increases a person's quality of life and increases a person's lifespan. HMO's are motivated by profit to make sure a person does not get sick. Any major illness costs HMOs money. HMO's learned a long time ago it is cheaper to buy the latest million dollar scanners than to deal with diseases after they have progressed. That is the difference between capitalism and socialism

Canada sends their sickest patients to America for treatment. Canada doesn't have the best and newest medical technologies or medicines because there are no financial incentives for them to buy it.

Canadian cancer survivor: "There’s no question that going to the United States saved my life"
Colorectal Cancer Association of Canada - CCAC
http://www.ccac-accc.ca/news.php?id=53

Canadian government:
"Four years ago when Suzanne Aucoin was diagnosed with colorectal cancer, she had to travel every week to the United States to buy life-saving cancer drugs " Medical Tourism Boosted by Long Wait Times - Embassy - Newspaper
http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/march/28/tourism/