pros and cons of socialized medicine?

Question

what are the effects of a national health care program to our country? What is the best for of socialized medicine and which countries have it?

Answer 1

I'm in Canada and find that the socialized system works perfectly. If you're sick, you just go to the doctor. You still receive exceptional care. The doctors are adequately compensated through the government. I never have to worry about how I'm going to pay for medications or how much a trip to the doctor is going to cost me. If you get in a car accident, you just go to the hospital and let your insurance company and the government sort out the extras.

Granted, our system still has flaws. Like waitlists are long for some non-life-threatening surgeries. I've been waiting a year for foot surgery, however, I also had the option of paying for the surgery myself and I could have had the surgery within a week!

I don't think the quality of our doctors is sacrificed, our doctors do receive adequate compensation for the government. When we go to the hospitals, the doctors don't see the dollar signs, they see actual people and they help us knowing that they will receive the same amount of money regardless.

I do like the compromise of a mixed system. If you have the money, then feel free to pay for health care. I'm certaintly not poor by any means, but I'm a student and I'd rather not have to worry about being able to afford healthcare if I get ill.

Answer 2

Socialized Medicine Pros And Cons

Answer 3

1

Answer 4

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
pros and cons of socialized medicine?
what are the effects of a national health care program to our country? What is the best for of socialized medicine and which countries have it?

Answer 5

pros: everyone gets equal medicine, everyone gets medicine, everyone gets opportunities.

cons: everyone gets the SAME medicine, so more wealthy can't have better, even though they can afford it. while this seems reasonable, why pull a robin hood, when it's unnecessary.

Note: the Clinton's tried pulling for a universal medical program like Canada's, but with the system we already have, it was unnecessary. the U.S. already has an act: EMTALA, (google it), that lets all people have emergence medical care, whether they can afford it or not, and if they can't, the government picks up the funds. also, there's the Veteran's Medical Association, which picks up veterans med. bills; medicare and medicaid are for the same purposes.


socialized medicine is reasonable in theory, but not practical, especially for the US

Answer 6

Pro the uninsured who can not afford premiums will get subsidized one by the employer or federal or state governments.
Con: costly to provide.

Answer 7

Cons:
-fewer doctors will be motivated to specialize because there will be less rewards for them.
-We as patients will have to wait forever to get surgery if we do need it.
-Our quality of health care will go way down as the quantity goes up.

Pros:
Everyone gets healthcare, even if it's sucky healthcare.

Answer 8

The pros are the progressives who support it and the professionals whose hands would no longer be tied by insurance quacks. The cons are the artists and neo-artists whose propaganda has con-vinced gullible middle-of-the-roadkill that socialized medicine is a threat.

Answer 9

Like the above answer, the pros are very limited and calling them "pros" is a stretch; there isn't much good, or point, in giving everybody a good or service if the quality is sacrificed. All governments are doing by giving everyone health insurance is wasting taxpayer money because governments operate like any corporation would: they're looking to make it as cost effective as they can, hence the decline in quality because the product is extended to literally everyone. Look at countries with existing universal health care policies; in Canada for example, a person in need of critical medical care has to wait something like 120 days on average for treatment whereas in the U.S., you're treated in 1.2 days on average. To ask the obvious question, how does that make any sense at all?

The problem is that not everyone needs all encompassing health coverage, but by granting it to them, you get people going to the doctor for every little thing, like a cold or flu. In turn, you get the obscene waiting times for people that might be in need of immediate medical care all because some benevolent bureaucrat made a promise that can't be kept. Furthermore, universal health care, along with any government subsidized program, blurs market signals and invariably creates inefficiency. The end result is that everyone is insured, but society as a whole loses even more than it would under the status quo. The goal should be to minimize losses to society instead of trying to eradicate them entirely because the latter is simply impossible to achieve. The biggest hindrance to prosperity is trying to force it through government intervention. Unfortunately, people appeal to emotions than logic, which as previously described, has more adverse and damaging affects.
----------------------------------------------------------
***Jerry M, your psuedo-intellectualism doesn't impress anyone. Do some actual research instead of clinging to rhetoric, that is of course, if you're capable of objective research, which, I'm sure you're not. Past that, let's talk about qualifications; I'm an economist, you're a stoner. Who do you think is more qualified to comment on this...me or you? Hmm...Just have another bowl, keep thinking the world is out to get you, cook up another conspiracy theory, keep quiet, and enjoy the welfare you get from honest taxpayers around the nation, and (my favorite of all) get a job, loser.