English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The health companies in the US are riduculous and there needs to be a serious change made

2007-12-30 05:20:53 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

16 answers

It's all a matter of politics and money. Universal healthcare would restrict docotrs and hospitals from charging unreasonable fee's which they do and it would also hurt the pharmasutical companies by restricting the amount they charge for their meds. It would also hurt the politicians that have interests in theses company's and would put a stop to kickbacks recieved from politicians that are for not supporting universal health care.

2007-12-30 05:48:23 · answer #1 · answered by charles_queen2003 2 · 1 3

Where would the money come form? It is more complex than jsut saying we need a service and making it law. There needs to be money for it, via higher taxes or cutting funding from other areas.

Are you willing to have to pay more in taxes for universal healthcare? Do you really want the government involved in your personal medical business?

If you suggest going the route of cutting funding then which departments do you cut and how much do you cut? Things aren't always so cut and dry.

I don't support universal healthcare but I do support affordable heathcare.

2007-12-30 13:44:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Party affiliation doesn’t change the fact that American government is strongly influenced by private interests. For instance, if Proctor and Gamble decides to push for Hillary-care, we’ll get it. But, our healthcare system has a lot of inefficiencies – ones that benefit insurers and hurt policy holders. Another consideration is with politicians, who are typically lawyers. They aren’t going to support legislation that hinders the practice of law in America. The current system suits their purposes. So ultimately, if the people want a single payer system with universal coverage, they’re going to have to literally force it on government. This is juicy topic, and it’s important to consider that if we change our current system and it loses its profit generating ability, there will be little incentive for private investment leading to medical advances. Still, the issue of nationalized care seems more important as one grows older. Young folks don’t want to think about what’s going to happen when they turn forty. Suddenly, you’ll face 50% coverage and prices that you flat can’t afford. At that point, one focuses on the inefficiencies, and why a pediatrician in Georgia pays 125K per year for liability insurance – so she decides to be a GP instead. It’s all part of the problem and this topic is, like I stated previously, quite juicy. Does anyone wonder why it's become more difficult to get into Vet Schools than Medical Schools? It's because we don't yet have Pet Lawyers; thus, no lawsuits.

2007-12-30 13:35:46 · answer #3 · answered by UrbanOutdoorsman 4 · 1 2

You want the economy to tank and the country to flop within a decade? Fine, go ahead. Institute national health care, which is little more than legalized theft of an even larger portion of one's paycheck than is currently taken, but done in the name of keeping everyone healthy. It never works out quite like that, though, since everyone ends up getting crappy care and becoming hopelessly dependent upon the government.

2007-12-30 14:56:14 · answer #4 · answered by Richard S 5 · 2 0

Because "universal heath care" is a friggin socialist nightmare... maybe instead of forcing sub par health care on an entire nation we should instead regulate the insurance companies, drug companies, and doctors who stuff their pockets with bonuses from both...

If we would have an actual free market system these current failures would disappear within 18 months of ratification...

2007-12-30 13:32:45 · answer #5 · answered by jlohlinger 3 · 3 0

When FDR was considering it think AMA shot it down. Fifteen or twenty years later health insurance fought Medicare till they were cut into action directly and indirectly. it is my belief the biggest obstacles to single payer universal health care are: health care insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry and small number of doctors. Canada, many countries in Europe have had it generations. It would be interesting to know history of health insurance industry in countries mentioned.

2007-12-30 13:46:40 · answer #6 · answered by Mister2-15-2 7 · 0 1

,Being a communist is not a requirement for meeting basic human needs. Being greedy pharmaceutical manufacturers is the main reason we do not have heath care .It is not fair to place health care under the mantel of communistic thinking. The faults of our government operated organizations is the responsibility of our elected officials. Look how well they have used our tax money with Medicare. If tax money used for the betterment of our lives and protection of our well being is so wrong then you might want to take a look at our police and fire agencies, they use taxes, are they communist? When money can be found to fund wars, provide aid to the rest of the world, whats wrong with the basic American needs being met.

2007-12-30 14:00:39 · answer #7 · answered by Mike P 1 · 1 1

The US has universal healthcare right now.

No one gets turned away for treatment that they must have.

2007-12-30 15:07:02 · answer #8 · answered by RTO Trainer 6 · 1 0

because universal health care is a huge headache when it comes to paying the bill and paying the bill is tantamount to socialism, a sure way to destroy the us economy as we know it.

2007-12-30 13:34:45 · answer #9 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 2 0

We can, but observations of other countries who have universal health coverage stops us in our tracks, with the high taxes, waiting for surgeries, not having your own doctor, etc. Last time I looked, anything run by the government is slow and bogged down with red tape. Thanks but no thanks.

2007-12-30 13:26:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers