Can you write me a bunch of good reasons why national healthcare is bad idea?

Question

I could do it myself, since I support free-market healthcare, but I'm not the best at describing things. So maybe in bulletin form someone could write a bunch of reasons I could use to counter Democrat candidates. Or maybe someone knows a good site for said information.

Thanks!

Um, it's getting rid of corporate-ran competition healthcare and replacing it with abusive government-ran, high tax costing, healthcare.

Answer 1

there is no bad aspects

Answer 2

Go ahead describe things anyway.

In my view, National Health Care is a wonderful idea, everybody gets to go in for free.

The disadvantages are demonstrated in real life if you examine the National Health Care systems that are already running and see how they actually function.

Besides the initial rush of people wanting to get done what they always wanted to get done, but were afreaid of the cost...

The party that brought in the law gets to brag for a long time as being 'for the people'. But then when the system starts running they then have tight budgets and cost overrruns and it becomes much more expensive than they originally planned, and then the first things the party has to do is to cut benefits, meaning the patients have to start paying a portion, and they cut the pay to the doctors, so there are fewer doctors who will work under the system, then there are waiting lists, where patients have to wait for services, and you then start to revert to a system, that 1) doesn't provide service in a timely fashion, 2) asks patients to pay for part of the cost, 3) raises taxes to pay for the other part the patient does not pay for, 4) declines to pay for certain procedures, then takes a lot of the tax money and pays for things the patients won't get and aren't realted to medicine or care, and the final version after it is mature is that it has been so badly raided and cut that it begins to look like a bad insurance company, which it was originally proposed to replace in the first place.

If you think this is all silly and won't happen, just look at the exisiting history of the British National Health Service. It has done all these things and more.

Does America need to make the same mistake? NO!

Answer 3

Can you think of anything the government does well? How about public housing or public schools? Public health care would follow suit as sure as a billy goat follows a doe in heat. The government bureaucrats are impotent save to make the American public miserable and unconvinced. How about leaving medical decisions to the patient and the doctor? It would become a giant HMO except we would long for the old style HMO because this one would be run by bureaucrats the same as run the IRS and the dept. of motor vehicles.

Answer 4

The government is notoriously ineffective as a delivery mechanism for health care services; how do I know? I've been to both an Army hospital and a VA hospital, to get an idea of what the government considers quality medical care, spend some time at the VA.

Likewise, the government is inefficient at managing money. It will cause massive cost overruns and a tremendous decline in the quality of care. How do I know? Look at the health care systems in socialzied countries. Do wealthy Americans go to Canada for their health care? No. Wealthy Canadians, Brits, French, and anyone else who can afford it comes here?

Socialized medicine sucks.

Answer 5

I DO know this: Under monopoly conditions, one pays more than a free-market price, and gets less than one would in a free-market condition. It is just the nature of monopoly conditions. However, some commodities can only be offered under monopoly conditions, due to their nature: electricity; military services are 2 of them.

I don't believe medical care falls into the monopoly-is-most-efficient category.

Answer 6

My thoughts are, I don't think it should be completely free. I think that all people deserve to get health care though if they are in need. I would not want someone to die of cancer because they are too sick to work and they lose their jobs and can't afford to pay their bills. I would want them to get help. I think that we should cover every American with health benefits BUT I think we should require they pay copayments and partial percentage BASED ON INCOME and affordability. I think that way the doctors still get paid and people can get help. Would this be an acceptable solution? I think it might. It would require that people pay SOMETHING. Completely free health care would be abused

Answer 7

It is a great idea, then everyone would be treated equally..big greedy business would get booted out and stop screwing the public..it works well in many other countrys..but the U.S. is controled by big money and crooked politics....same as the IRS...there is a simple way to collect taxes and be fair to all..but in a mofia controled country it will never happen..

Answer 8

"Health Care in a Free Society: Rebutting the Myths of National Health Insurance"
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa532.pdf

Answer 9

If McDonalds started offering free Big Macs to anyone who wanted them, what do you think would happen to the availability and quality of the famous burger?

Answer 10

National Healthcare would lower our medical standards just like it did to Canada

We would have yet another tax to pay, and frankly some Americans cannot pay for illegal Mexicans to have benefits such as this

We are capitalistic in our approach, not socialist, earn healthcare because this will only benefit the lazy and jobless

Answer 11

When people are not required to select (and pay part of the costs of seeing) their own doctor, and patients are just assigned to one, there is little incentive for the doctor to give high quality care.