I'd love to hear people's rationale for why government funded medical care will be better than private insured medical care. Will doctors, nurses, and ancillary staff automatically work harder because it's for the government? Which government facility do you hope this socialized health care mimicks most in efficiency?
Thanks for answering THIS question, and not your own.
2007-12-20 06:45:09 · 11 answers · asked by Yahoo Answer Angel 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Let's see:
Public school system, post office, DMV...
Nope.
2007-12-20 06:49:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 4⤋
The US is the only industrialized western democracy that does not provide universal health care.
Yes, there certainly is reason to believe that "universal health care" will be quality health care. The World Health Organization did a survey in various areas of health care and found that the majority of the top twenty nations rated best for health care have some form of universal health care.
Why would it make a difference who writes the check? As for inefficiency, Medicare and Medicaid have far lower administrative costs than private insurance companies.
Do you really believe that William McGuire, former United Healthcare CEO, deserved $1.6 billion in stock options? And where did that money come from?
2007-12-20 07:04:55 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One big problem we have right now is that insurance companies are not Dr's but are telling our Dr's what services we can have, while they get richer. Drug companies provide false information to the FDA and people die before drugs are removed from the market. Not all people can even get health insurance, even if they have the money to buy it, insurance companies turn down many people for a variety of health reasons, I know I paid for a full years worth of Blue Cross Blue Shield and was turned down when I owned a business, I had to wait until I got enough employees to get a group policy before I could get coverage. It isn't a so much the matter of socialized or not, the current system is broke and needs to be fixed, we pay enough in taxes and health care premiums to have the best system in the world if we would want to stop all the crooks in the business. It would be beneficial for all Americans to be covered as we end up paying through the nosse for the ones who don't have coverage anyway as they can't pay when they receive services they can't afford.
2007-12-20 07:08:18 · answer #3 · answered by Ktcyan 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
well,not necessarily. I think the only advantage would be to make sure every american has good access to health care. It may be an improvement for most americans in especially those who are struggling to pay for high health care costs now or do not have insurance at all but are working. Those americans who are well off and do not have a problem at all, of course, will have a different outlook and say to themselves "hey I am all good, so why should I worry about the rest of those other people".
Govt socialized healthcare actually is not what I have heard proposed. I personally want to keep the present system but I want to make sure everyone has affordable coverage. Families should not have to pay $800 a month for some decent health coverage. We all know health care costs too much...and americans are getting poorer everyday. Its ok to say we dont need socialized healthcare, but clearly there is a problem that needs significant change.
2007-12-20 06:54:02 · answer #4 · answered by sergbelxx 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
LOL! Another Right-Wing troll attempting to re-write history. Yeah, FDR, elected 4 times as our nation's president during one of the most critical times in history was really a bad guy, which by implication would suggest that the Greatest Generation that includes all the heroes of World War II was pretty stupid to vote the guy in so many times. You know, you guys can really take this "Swift Boat" strategy only so far before it just stops working. Dig a little deeper and actually look at the health care in GB, Norway, Finland, Sweden etc. Even Cuba. Your only argument is one dripping in fear with unsubstantiated innuendo. Look at the record. How has managed care worked for you or anyone you know? People are getting denied benefits paid for by their hard-earned cash by money-grubbing corporations intent on increasing their profit margin. Is this really the model you prefer?
2016-05-25 04:50:56 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure, just look at the # 1 health care provider in the U.S. : The Veterans Administration Medical Center. It is completely government run and operated. They are efficient, and provide quality health care across the nation.
2007-12-20 06:51:44 · answer #6 · answered by dopeadevil23 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
No, it won't,
" The federal government decided long ago that it knew how to manage your health care better than you and replaced personal responsibility and accountability with a system that puts corporate interests first. Our free market health care system that was once the envy of the world became a federally-managed disaster.
Few people realize that Congress forced Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) on us. HMOs rose to prominence through federal legislation, incentives, and coercion.
Now, the Food and Drug Administration's bias toward large pharmaceutical companies enlarges their power, limits treatment options, and drives consumers to seek Canadian medicines. Regulations from D.C. make it virtually impossible for small business owners to cover their employees. The unemployed often cannot afford insurance, meaning those who need basic medical attention overcrowd emergency rooms and drive up premiums.
The federal government will not suddenly become efficient managers if universal health care is instituted. Government health care only means long waiting periods, lack of choice, poor quality, and frustration. Many Canadians, fed up with socialized medicine, come to the U.S. in order to obtain care. Socialized medicine will not magically work here.
Health care should not be left up to HMOs, big drug companies, and government bureaucrats.
It is time to take back our health care. This is why I support:
* Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
* Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
* Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
* Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
* Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.
By removing federal regulations, encouraging competition, and presenting real choices, we can make our health care system the envy of the world once again. " taken from http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-care/
2007-12-20 06:50:31 · answer #7 · answered by mommy to be of 3 3 · 3⤊ 4⤋
There is no reason to believe that the quality of care would change. I haven't heard anyone say it would be better. It would just be available to all of us, instead of only the lucky.
You should probably articulate why you think it would be worse, since that appears to be what you think.
2007-12-20 06:59:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
why would it suffer? because more people would be able to recieve the help they deserve?
It will be quality health care.
i'm not saying the QUALITY will be better than private healthcare. There is no reason to think it will be worse.
personally i think people going into life-long debt because they got sick or injured is the symptom of BAD HEALTHCARE.
2007-12-20 06:51:00 · answer #9 · answered by sam f 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Better than nothing, for 47 million people.
2007-12-20 06:55:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Is there any reason to believe it won't be? And we know it will be cheaper and easier to get.
2007-12-20 06:48:43 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋