Do you think Hillary's "universal" healthcare system would work?

Question

It sounds good on paper... but then again... so does communism.

I'd like to add that I'm 20 years old. I can't afford healthcare at this time because I just deliver pizzas for a living. But, that fact is a motivation for me to make something of myself so that one day I can help to take care of my family. If the gov't does everything for us, then what's the point of trying??

In the mean time, however, there is a nice clinic for low income families and people w/out insurance. Not to mention the charity hospital I was born in.

To Sylvie- I suggest you start researching the healthcare sysytems in Canada and England. You are so wrong it makes my head hurt.

Could someone ask PIE what about my question is racist?? I would ask, but I don't want to get the "stupid" on me.. It might stick in my hair.

Answer 1

I like how you use "Hilary's universal healthcare system" and "Communism" in the same sentence.

Because that's what it would be...

Answer 2

i'm somewhat astonished via most of the responses here. and that i'm with you in this. the two Hillary and Obama opt to sell us medical well being insurance. i think of the readers could desire to be perplexed once you're saying you opt to refuse healthcare. What you advise is which you particularly opt to refuse being compelled to purchase healthcare insurance. Hillary and Obama intend to make it a call for for each and each individual interior the US to purchase medical well being insurance. this could properly be a patch for the gadget, and not even an excellent one. I, such as you, make an excellent residing (100k income). And nevertheless, i don't opt to be compelled to purchase insurance for an identical reasons you state. And if I made much less, say 30k, I actual would not be for required medical well being insurance. as properly... and that's the 2d maximum intense factor, there will be a extensive descrepency between the fashion of healthcare insurance the wealthy can discover the money for, and the type the undesirable could have the skill to discover the money for. fairly, this skill that there will be a extensive difference interior the conventional of look after the undesirable vs the wealthy. I nevertheless don't understand why the US would not undertake a not-for-income healthcare gadget (wherein case, high quality is an identical for all, and it fairly is a loose provider). i've got self belief that effects would be analogous to what occurs in case you do not have automobile insurance. it fairly is a great question, nevertheless. we would in all probability be penalized with expenditures. would not that is insane to flow to reformatory for not identifying to purchase medical well being insurance?!

Answer 3

well, we know that private healthcare is doing: it is not affordable to many, its cost keeps going up and benefits become less. People without it do not get essential care, and it is hard to live next door to someone who can afford it but you can't. Communism provides healthcare services. There are lines to wait in, and it may not be the best. But it gives basic services. Private healthcare sounds good on paper to those who can afford it, and even then it is a rip-off. In a democracy and in communism, those who have money get more than others unless society takes care of those in need.

Answer 4

Hillary's plan isn't really "universal." We need a single payer Universal Health Care system. If the US allowed foreign doctors to come practice medicine here in the US, the US would save $80 billion per year or about $800 per family. That is, of course, if those doctors can pass a test proving they can practice medicine up the US AMA standards. If we ended Corporate Welfare, which cost the US tax payers $92 billion in '06 alone we could pay for a single payer Universal Health Care system that covers EVERY American. We could then eliminate Medicaid and Medicare which are government give-aways to big pharmaceutical companies, because medical treatment and prescription drugs would be covered under Universal Health Care.
The US spends more on Health Care per year than any country with Universal Health Care and those countries cover EVERY citizen.
Universal Health Care guarantees doctors payment.
Universal Health Care guarantees every American can go see a doctor when they need to.
Universal Health Care guarantees no American will ever lose their home due to medical debt.
Universal Health Care guarantees equal access to quality health care for all Americans.
Universal Health Care guarantees no more HMO's that can deny a life saving procedure.
Universal Health Care guarantees no more HMO's that can deny coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions.

Answer 5

No it will not. Universal Health care sounds like a great idea and everyone will be covered, everyone can get medicine ect.

There's a reason as to why there is supply and demand and that's because there's usually a limited supply of anything. It's foolish to think anyone can get care anytime for any illness in a timely manner.

Just as Americans crossed into Canada for cheaper drugs, Canadians were crossing over here to get faster procedures.

Name 3 GOOD things the Government does and does it well? For that matter, name one thing. They'd screw up running a hot dog cart.

If people were more responsible in the first place with eating habits, smoking, drinking, risky behavior ect, there wouldn't be as much a strain on the current system.

Answer 6

Her plan is total BS and extremely disappointing. Then again she has been disappointing ever since becoming a senator...

Only a plan that takes the insurances companies out of the picture totally is worth talking about. The rest is just more of the same old, same old.

I can't imagine what makes it sound good to you, even if just on paper.

Forcing people to have insurance is not going to make a big difference for the end user. We have more under insured people that non insured ones and medical bills are the number one reason of bankruptcy today.

Answer 7

you said it best yourself!

but, no it won't work. the problem is that it would raise taxes (and garnish pay checks as hil said in one of her interviews), among other things.

basically the plan makes hard working people pay for other peoples benefits. THAT IS NOT FAIR. the problem with dems/libs is that they only think about what would benefit them, not this country as a whole.

we need to stop looking for handouts, and take care of ourselfs! the government already has plans in place that assist disabled folks, and the lower class.... why create something else that will motivate more people to become lazy?

also, FREE healthcare won't be GOOD healthcare. Look at the system in europe (i have family there and am familar with the way their system works). the health care is much better here (for now) and will only stay that way if we don't turn this into another freebie.

Answer 8

I haven't studied it completely - but no. Tax incentives and leaving the current employer based system in place is not the answer. Everyone should have some form of minimal health care. Then let employers offer their workers supplemental health insurance (with tax breaks for those who do). That way the poor at least get a system that works and those with good better coverage get to keep theirs.

And you can throw names like "communism", "socialism", etc at it if you choose to. But it is no more than helping those who are less fortunate. You could choose to call it "the Christian thing to do." If you saw someone laying in the street sick and dying...would you just let him die for fear of being called a socialist for helping him?

Answer 9

Like the current healthcare system isn't an unmitigated absurd disaster and a national embarassment?

The notion that hers is a "government" plan is utter nonsense babbled by partisan Republicans who are being showered with money by the HMO's.

Why is requiring people to have health insurance different from requiring people to have car insurance?

From USA Today:

"Clinton's package would also require insurers to provide coverage for anyone who applies for it and would also bar insurance companies from charging people with greater health care costs more for their premiums.

Under Clinton's plan, Americans would be offered the same health care benefits of private health care plans offered to Congress through the federal employee benefits program as well as a public program similar to Medicare.

Americans satisfied with their current coverage will be allowed to keep it, the Clinton campaign said.

To help pay for the plan, Clinton would also eliminate the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 and limit the amount employers can exclude from taxes for health care benefits paid for those making over $250,000."

So, if you have health insurance now that you like, you keep it. The plan would also eliminate the billions of dollars wasted through lack of preventative healthcare and improper use of emergency rooms by people with minor problems who have no coverage currently.

Answer 10

Well in America they population is soo high, 300 million. I don't think a single tier health care system would work, cause celebrities would get mugged if they went to a public hospital. In Canada we have a single tier health care system because everyone agrees to put aside their views and go for one system, in America the poltical ideolgy is far to spread out. Nothing wrong with that but I think a Two Tier health care system would be good. Those who can afford the expense should go private, and those whom cannot should go to public. It may create two classes of people but if the government puts in the proper funding into the public healthcare system it will work. It's a shame 40 million Americans do not have access to health care. America is too great of a country to let this happen. Go Hillary Clinton!

Answer 11

We are the last developed nation without a nationalized health care system. We have one of the worst systems in the world despite having the best health care. But what does it matter if it's the best if you can't afford it. I don't care about it for myself, because I rarely would use it. I'm disgustingly healthy. But I don't think it should be a blanket coverage. I think we should concentrate on pre-natal and early childhood care for everyone. End of life hospice for everyone. And preventive medicine for everyone. But everyone needs to do his/her part in maintaining a healthy lifestyle.