Universal Health Care: Socialism?

Question

What is your opinion on universal health care? I sure wouldn't want to wait in line for 6 weeks for an MRI like in Canada! If you have MSRA staph, and you need to wait for a week to see the doctor, wouldn't you already be dead? Seriously, would you rather pay $500 for treatment, or be dead, where money is no object? I SAY UNIVERDAL HEALTH CARE=BAD!

By the way, Canada is ok with thier system because they have a MUCH smaller population to care for, and plenty of hospitals. My friend ( a nurse) says that she has cared for Canadians who have left to get our healthcare, and they said that the care provided in Canada was terrible, especially the under-funded hospitals.

Answer 1

There seems to be a real misconception that everything takes forever in Canada. In my experience, if you have a problem that can wait you will wait. But people in Canada are not dying waiting for care. If it's very serious, you can be sure that you will get adequate care as soon as possible (and it won't take months). Paying five hundred dollars for treatment is one thing, but think about how many people can't afford it. No Universal Healthcare means no healthcare for those who cannot afford insurance.

And in either case, five hundred dollars isn't the issue. If you have any serious problem at all, you are definitely going to be paying a lot more than that. Someone I know accumulated $250,000 in medical bills because of diabetes. They were okay because they had insurance. If they hadn't they wouldn't have gotten the care they needed, and gotten sicker, and more realistically, died. What average person can really afford healthcare by themselves?

Universal healthcare saves lives. Does it take money to keep national healthcare going? Yes. But I think the lives of people are worth it.

Oh, and an extra note: countries whose citizens have universal healthcare have higher life expectancy rates than those who don't.

Answer 2

Single payer universal health care might not be a good idea but that is not what the Democrats are proposing. The Republicans call it that because they want to use fear tactics to drive people away from the Democrats but if someone actually reads and understands what the proposal is (nothing at all offered by the Republicans- I guess their plan is don't get sick), no pay close atteniton... AFFORDABLE health care. Chances are if you have health care insurance where you work now you won't be able to tell the difference. Maybe your premium may go down a dollar or two or up a dollar or two but it does that now anyway. Money already paid into the federal system would be diverted to help pay for regular insurance provided by regular insurance companies for people who can't afford insurance now. They may pay a premium and deductable and the money from the assistance would augment what they pay. That is one plan. Another is to require all employers to provide health care and the government would reduce the amount paid for medicare and medicaid as they would no longer be necessary. The employer could use that medicaid and medicare money, instead of government run program, to buy affordable insurance for their employees. For those who are retired and no longer working they would be signed up with a regular insurance carrier and that part would be paid from a pool provided by employers. Insurance companies would probably need to reduce the price of premiums, take smaller profits, lawyers would not be able to sue medical providers for the outrageous amounts awarded now and other such things. It is not a perfect plan but it is better than the nothing offered by the Republicans. We cannot allow millions of people to go without health care as if it is some sort of luxury. That is simply inhumane.

Those most opposed to the proposed AFFORDABLE health care plan are usually smug,greedy people who have been fortunate so far as to not have a catastrophic illness that causes their insurance company to drop them like a hot potato and they are stuck having to sell their house, car and everything else to pay medical bills. They will pay one way or another, now or in the hereafter.

Answer 3

And exactly what do you call our current Medicare program?
And what do you call our current medical program for our military? Both would be called socialized medicine by many but they seem to work very well. I have many friends in Canada and never have they had to wait 6 weeks for an MRI. I'm not sure where you're getting that info from but it sounds like something FAKE News would spread.

This is America, land of innovation. How many other great ideas has the US pulled from other countries and made better? Many. So why not do the same with a National Health Care System. Our current medical system is broke and in need of serious over haul. Will the medical, pharmaceutical, and insurance lobbyist allow the needed changes?

Answer 4

Universal healthcare is Socialism. What's wrong with Socialism? Police Departments, Firemen, Mail carriers all work as a Socialist movement.
Britannica Online describes Socialism as: "System of social organization in which property and distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces."
It's not your property or income they talk about. It's the health care industries property and distribution of income which would be affected. The doctors don't want to give up the bonuses they receive from drug providers, some in excess of $50,000 a year, for prescribing specific drugs. The Hospitals also get in on the gravey train from drug companies. They don't want to give up being able to charge exhorbitant prices to thier "customers." The big 3 automakers see the wisdom of UHC by thier actions settling bargaining with thier workers. Why can't you see this?

Answer 5

Universal health care does not work in any country in which it is in practice. You can look country by country for the problems that they have, but whole premise it is built on is illogical as it interferes with supply and demand and makes people think they're getting something for "free" when no such thing exists.

Canada has lots of problems and besides the long wait times they have as well they are going broke:

The Fraser Institute (Canadian) was hired to determine what was going on in Alberta and said by 2016 that HALF of the province's budget would go to health care if they keep the current system. By 2030, 100% of the budget would be consumed by health care. (“Canada’s health
system dream turns to nightmare,” 11 June 2004, Dr. Glueck).

Let's also realize that enough Canadian doctors find the system so stressful that WE get 500 of them a year from that small country coming to the US. (Bell, “Step into the single-payer rabbit hole,” April 2001, amsa.org). Also a 2003 survey of Canadian doctors found that nearly half were burnt out and 12% had thoughts of suicide (staffweb.uleth.ca).

The government is thinking about delisting some services (not offering them anymore). Thankfully there has been a proliferation of ILLEGAL for-profit health centers through Canada so Canadians can get care without leaving Canada. This is so needed that the president of the Canadian Medical Association headed such an ILLEGAL facility. They're illegal not because these are not qualified doctors, but because if the government offers a service, then the private sector is not supposed to in Canada. ("Individual Freedom vs. Government Control,” 1 August 2007, nationalreview.com).

Great Britain has the oldest national health system started in 1948. “Staff are being laid off, and deficits are at an alltime high (£1.07bn for 2005-2006)” (Hazel Blears, LabourParty Chair and Minister Without Portfolio, labourachievements. blogspot.com/2006/08/23-investment-innhs.html).
Alex Smallwood of the British Medical Association was quoted in the
Scotsman as saying: “’Rationing is reduction in choice. Rationing has become a necessary evil. We need to formalise rationing to prevent an unregulated, widening, postcodelottery of care. Government no longer has a choice.’” (Moss,
“NHS rationing is ‘necessary evil,’ says doctors,” 26 June 2007).

In France, 80% of the public have supplemental health insurance through their employers according to their web site (ambafrance-us.org). Private medical care in France is providing more than 50% of the surgeries and more than 60% of cancer case treatment. Vision and dental care are not well covered there. “The public system is facing chronic deficits and recent cost containment policies have not proved very successful.” The government is interested in
having more of the tab picked up by private insurance (Buchmueller & Couffinhall, “Private Health Insurance in France,” 2004, oecd.org).

Yes there are problems in Japan, the Netherlands, and Sweden as well for sure. Universal health care does NOT work. Governments overpromise, jack up taxes, ration medicine, and more.

Consider this plan for a new kind of US health care system--the author has a good deal more to say about fixing health care, but this is enough to think about:
http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.html
The PDF has the basics of a plan, including how to finance it. The book itself has much more to say in the lengthy chapter on health care (and also addresses Social Security, taxation, and more).

Universal health care of any variety is clearly not needed and it fails, especially the vulnerable, everywhere it exists.

Answer 6

If you need critical care it's not denied. I don't know why people think people are dropping dead in the lobby of hospitals in Canada!
And they are talking about a one payer, non profit healthcare INSURANCE here. It's not the government running hospitals.

Answer 7

I think most think it's the wrong way to go with health care, but something has to be done. The Democrats bringing it to the table is very similar to Bush bringing Social Security to the table.... I just a bunch of BS unless someone does something and something that works.

Answer 8

Our current system can be fixed. Social Universal Health care is not it!!! Democrats are not the answer either. Health care is an important issue but, if Hilarycare of just Hilary. Health care will be futher down the line problems for this country.

Answer 9

Ask a Canadian which system he would rather be in. Almost 80% of Canadians, according to polls, view their system favorable. US citizens do not give our system that high a rating.

Answer 10

If you don't think there aren't all ready waiting lines in the US for things like that you are seriously out of it.