Isn't Universal Health Care the right thing to do ethically?

Question

I've always had health care provided by employment and so has my husband. I've been wondering why there is such a negative backlash against the thought of universal health care. The arguments i've heard center around not wanting to foot someone else's bill. But, currently, isn't that what our taxes are doing anyways. Ethically, why wouldn't it be more honorable to provide health care for everyone and eliminate the need for health insurance altogether. It seems to work in other countries, why haven't we adopted it here? Is it because of greed? Selfishness? Our money goes to so many programs that are don't necessarily benefit us individually. Social security, for instance...Many say those of us paying for it now won't even have it by the time we need it.

What do you think. Please don't bash me. I'm really just trying to understand why people are so against it when it seems to be working great in other parts of the world.

For those against it, the citizens of other countries just dont' seem to mind paying the extra cost? Why are we different?

Answer 1

I'd gladly pay higher taxes for universal health care. I don't have ins right now and it's scary. The work premiums are $1000 a month and we can't afford that. No one else will insure me because of my health problems. I lived in Denmark and loved their health care. There were no long waits or overcrowded hospitals when I live there. Watch the movie Sicko. Health insurance companies are crooked and have ruined it for everyone.

Answer 2

Universal healthcare only makes sense. We pay 4-7 times per person what other countries pay. With a single payer plan, this waste/profit could be put into healtcare. This money and the money people already spend on insurance, prescription, co-pays etc. means the actual costs to most people would be no more than they are paying now.

Plus US companies cannot compete in a market where everyone else has no healthcare costs for their employees.

My big question is "Why should someone die just because they are poor?" And don't say it doesn't happen. My sister was denied the test necessary to diagnose her cancer because she had no insurance. She had to move to another state and wait to get accepted by their plan. The tests showed cancer and she died a year later of a cancer that could most likely have been cured if treated when she first went in for diagnosis.

Answer 3

Taxes do that but health insurance ALSO asks someone else to foot the bill for your healthcare.

People object to government run healthcare because they think it will be less efficient than private health insurance. But private insurance is already hugely inefficient and denies services, to boot.

Private insurers have to make a profit and they have huge overhead for processing claims. A single payer provider would have no processing division. They would just pay providers their salary and people would just get the care they needed.

Doctors take advantage of it by submitting false claims for services not delivered. If all doctors were just salaried by a universal system there would be no way they could do that.

Answer 4

Not every country has health insurance for all. In fact, some countries have NO insurance, and guess what - the price of medical care is pennies on the dollar what it is in the U.S.

This is the reason why Americans are travelling overseas for major medical procedures. I needed surgery that my insurance would not pay for, and I ended up having my surgery in Costa Rica. There is no insurance there, and the government steps in to help only the poorest of poor.

The cost of my surgery was about 1/3 of what it would be in the U.S., and the care I received was SUPERIOR to anything I have ever received in the U.S.

The discussion of health care for all needs to include the possiblity that insurance HINDERS the ability of all of us to AFFORD health care, rather than facilitate it. The reality is, having insurance as the middle man between patient and doctor GREATLY increases our overall health care costs.

Answer 5

I agree with your sentiment, and I think many feel, when put this way, it is the ethical thing to do, but you can't ignore the issue itself. Running a society, and the institutions within, is strategy game that relies on money and political maneuvering.

In a way we do have universal health care with Medicaid/Medicare and it proved to suit us well until the 70s when the Nixon administration opened it up to scarcely regulated business. If we could get it back in order by breaking away from the corporate structure tht is HMOs and hospitals these days, by giving internal decision making to the board and doctors along with their repective communities, it could be very efficient and provide better to everyone. The devil is in the details though (like most things) and you would have to explore this issue much more in depth - at a graduate level of understanding I feel.

One thing that is largely ignored is psychology. Americans are a cure, rather than prevent, culture. This proves expensive no matter what system is applied, but is more so under universal. This do to the fact that if our citizens feel thay always feel they have a "safety net" in terms of health insurance they will treat their bodies with less care. It's this "easy" mentality that makes most go eat fast-food rather than healhty food. Differ countires prove this. The Japanese for example, are very preventative people - they take heart what the doctor says and eat well and exercise regularly - this has proven to keep their system cheap and efficient; while many western countries with universal care have shown the opposite: quality decreases because costs are spread more, and overall attitude changes because they feel they can let themselves go until they absolutely need a doctor. I think this is one point severley overlooked in all of our policy/issues: psychology.

Anyway, besides, I live in NYC and the homeless here are bascially individuals with mental problems. The poor people in the neighborhoods always look fine. There was a massive study on poverty in the US, and while disturbing to high-living Americans, the real situation is not that horrific say, compare to thrid world countries. They find most poor people still have TVs and money for food and alcohol. My point is, I see the people at the free clinics here and it always amazes me that they have an ipod, name brand clothes, nice cars all these things I do not have even though I am not poor! I do not feel good about paying more of my taxes when those who have health issues spend most of their money and wasteful items while not trying to better themselves nor trying to prevent future issues. You can't trust that everyone plays by the rules, and the moment you give an out people take it - it lowers the overall productivity of a society and this is not good nor fair to those who do play by the rules.

Happy Holidays!

Answer 6

People should not be losing their homes, retirement, savings...simpley because they got sick or had an accident. That's adding insult to injury... This is the richest nation on earth...and one of the few countries that doesn't look out for it's own citizens health and well being..

It's horrible that what he have is a system that is designed to DENY care...not provide it. Even if you have insurance..they look for every excuse not to pay...or they pay so slow that you are constantly harrassed by the doctors' offices... who really want nothing more than to just stay in business. So you can't go for the follow up, until you pay the bill...and keep your fingers crossed that your insurance ponies up and pays you back. IT'S BS !

The people who argue against it, would be the first ones wishing we had it if something happened to them or someone they love.

Answer 7

1) It's not working great in the rest of the world. There are waiting lines for service that is sub par. Why do you think anyone rich comes to America for health care? And don't give me Cuba. Fidel had a Spanish doctor flown over. Isn't Cuba's the best?

2) These other countries pay taxes like they were led by Hillary. I would rather use my money where I want, not where social services says I should.

3) Poor people in America get health services. Believe it. That's why hospitals are hurting and everyone else's health premiums are skyrocketing.

4) And you're right; social security is another socialist program that makes no sense and needs to be replaced by private savings accounts. But then, the poor people would get the shaft because they aren't responsible enough to save.

Answer 8

If done correctly it only hurts health care insurance industry, but what Clinton is talking about does just the opposite as he helps health care insurance industry and thy bleed everyone to death.
A well run single payer plan could help providers, limit amount of organs to be sold to highest bidder, improve the general health and lower state, county and city taxes, and allow good employers to increase salaries. That sure sounds ethical.

Answer 9

i think its great and should be implemented asap
why?
lets see no doctors being stiffed payment= lower costs
the outrageous prices will be capped if the government gets at it and does the right thing.
less favoritism for the rich
we will all be paying for it , i dont care what some greedy selfish people say-we have to foot ur bill-its crap , you foot the bill already for medicaid,why not >?
the long term effects will be greater then the beginning cost

Answer 10

i finished analyzing after "should not be for earnings." In a capitalist usa, those agencies and persons that supply centers and products get carry of revenue. revenue are an outstanding element. well being care expenditures could be decreased if we open up a aggressive marketplace in that industry. For the respond decrease than mine, government does not pay for issues. think of! the place does the government get money from?