This is the same government that bankrupted Social Securtiy, bankrupted Medicare, can't secure the Borders, failed Katrina, Put double the money into education with no results, criminally neglects it's veterans......do you really think they can handle Universal Healthcare ??
a) yes, but it will be a money pit causing great debt and taxes
b) yes, it will be great
c) yes, but it will be a scam for the medical industry and the insurance industry
d) No, just empty promises from candidates
e) No, it will never pass congress and senate
f) your own answer
2007-12-23 08:44:34 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
f) my own answer
I live in the UK and work in the NHS (our universal health care system). It has problems, but not as many as the US healthcare system has. Despite spending much more per head of population than other developed countries, the US has worse health outcomes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care#Economics Life expectancy and infant mortality figures in the US are higher than in other developed countries, despite more money being spent (and wasted) in the USA.
In the UK there are waiting lists for routine problems. Problems that can not wait are treated as emergencies. Also, in the UK, people can also have private health care.
I can understand Americans being proud of living in the richest and most powerful country in the world. What I can not understand is why Amercians settle for an expensive healthcare system where babies die that would have a better chance of life if born in another developed country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2167865,00.html
2007-12-23 16:55:22 · answer #1 · answered by The Patriot 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the answer is a combination of A and C.
Unfortunately, I think we will see some form of national healthcare system in the next 10 years. The effects of the changes will depend on who created the system, but I am sure they will be negative. We'll eventually have to choose between higher costs or health care rationing, and the system will be as abused and mismanaged as most other large Federal programs.
What's even worse is that having a Federal healthcare program will open the door to even greater Federal oversight into our personal lives. Already many intrusive laws, such as mandatory seat belt usage, are defended on the grounds of saving public healthcare expenditure. Imagine when the Feds pay for most of the country's healthcare!
At that point, legislators will have an even greater incentive to regulate what we eat, what we do, and how we live, since all of those things affect our health and will ultimately affect public spending!
2007-12-23 16:56:15 · answer #2 · answered by timm1776 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
F. It will be better than what we have now. As right now I know I won't be able to afford insurance in a couple years from now unless I start making a lot more money. Taking on more hours of work is going to become less and less possible due to my medical condition over the next decade. I have very few options.
It works well in foreign countries, not perfect but well. If the US is the greatest country in the world, why can't we do this as well as them?
2007-12-23 17:02:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
f) It depends on what system is put in place. There are right ways to do it that will save lots of money and give good results. I think a fully national single payer plan is the way, but I am not aware of any major candidates promoting that approach.
They know they can't get it through because of fear mongers such as yourself who love promoting the false idea that all government programs have been a failure.
2007-12-23 16:56:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
f) In order for the New World Order ( a.k.a. North American Union ) to become reality, certain regulations need to be "harmonized". Canada and Mexico has socialized medicine, the U.S.A. does not. It will be interesting to watch if U.S.A. leaders try to convince Canada and Mexico that the U.S.A. health care system is better or convince the medical industry that socialized medicine is better.
2007-12-23 17:04:11 · answer #5 · answered by acedelux 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
f) For the most part it is absolutely necessary, but there will necessarily have to be some intelligence in the way it is set up so that Murphy's Law is suspended. The Repukes are too joined at the hip to the pharmo/insurance industry for them to come out with anything that is not worse than the present.
2007-12-23 16:52:22 · answer #6 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
f)......the current administration endlessly sang the song...government can't get the job done, private enterprise is our only hope. they have done their best to make government in-effective and set business free to exploit consumers.
so what do we have...government agencies lead by individuals who have no idea what they should do. and a health care industry that has profit as the principle reason for existence. the only real solution will be a non-profit system where-in care is provided to all and all pay into it.
2007-12-23 16:58:43 · answer #7 · answered by bilez1 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
F. How much more will come out of my pay check to pay for
minorities to get a taxi / ambulance ride to the ER for a cold ?
2007-12-23 17:27:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
F: Maybe our government won't have to worry about it. I'm noticing that Canadian insurances are moving into the U.S. My newest--and best--car insurance is from a Canadian company.
2007-12-23 16:55:14 · answer #9 · answered by Judi V 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
F
It will only work if it is single provider, not for profit
And those who do not want it should have a choice to do private
2007-12-23 17:09:59 · answer #10 · answered by Darin D 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋