• Simply
  • Where is the government going to get the money for it? They would raise taxes which would take back any raise in salary you would see. Then, you also have to weigh in the fact some people would rather have their current plans because it would be better than the government could offer.
  • yes, money would come from the plan my boss is now paying which he claims cost $1100/month for my family--which is my wife & I--no children. On top of that i pay huge co-pays and pay for my prescrips in full. (that's $13,200 a year or $6,600, per person.) Give me a break. And how much more do we pay in co-pays & for prescriptions?
  • We spend more than twice as much on health care, on average, than the 21 countries in which life expectancy exceeds ours. Canada's single-payer system, which covers everyone, spends less than 17 % on administrave costs. (we could do better) Is it so complicated to explain that Universal Health care would reduce costs substantially, because every additional tax dollar would be offset by an even larger reduction in private insurance spending? Given that such a suystem is so much cheaper OVER ALL, calling it unaffordable makes no sense.
  • Absolutely. It is shameful that any affluent and advanced country does not provide such a scheme for its citizens. The present system only benefits a very few.
  • This will be a bit roundabout...but here goes. In the 17th and 18th centuries, there were no fire departments. Instead, insurance companies would hire private firms to put out fires when they occured. Naturally, these private firms competed with each other. Payment generally went to the fire fighters who go to the scene first and put the fire out. Being good capitalists, these firms wanted to fight as many fires as they could. So some firms started hiring 'goons' to beat up other fire fighters, so that their firm could get the bounty for fighting the fire. Imagine now that you're a property owner watching two or three fire fighting companies having a brawl over who gets paid instead of putting out your fire. Eventually, people concluded that such a system was stupid and made fire protection a basic function of government. I see no reason that health care should not fall into the same general model. Note that the presence of government fire departments, police departments, etc. does NOT preclude the individual from paying for additional protection. Similarly, a health care system that guaranteed all citizens a reasonable level of medical treatment would not preclude people from buying whatever additional care they wanted. It would simply guarantee that all citizens, regardless of economic circumstance are afforded some treatment. . .
  • If we could somehow manage the cost of transition, then yes. I am aware that some hard-core Conservatives believe that any government program that benefits the financially disadvantaged is immoral and that anybody who can't pay their own way is a parasite and deserves to die. There are others, more moderate, that merely oppose UHC just because they don't want to risk increased taxes. However if it is done properly, healthcare costs CAN be managed and lowered, and the overall out-of-pocket expenses FOR EVERYONE will be lower. The downside? Certain executives in certain companies will have to take a pay cut; they will inly earn hundreds of thousands instead of millions. We CAN figure out how to do it right, without the pitfalls some other countries face.
  • "Using the 'Economists World in Figures' I think there is a very interesting and maybe appalling story to tell. In its simplest terms a healthcare system is there to extend the longevity of lives of the population. It is the single best and simplest way to judge it because we can all find examples of where one country is better than another but the longevity stats don't lie. When we use that framework the picture is incredibly different. The US has many of the best doctors and medical care in the world but it doesn't work for the population as a whole and therein lies the problem. "According to the Economist the total US spend on healthcare is 15.4% of GDP including both state and private . With that it gets 2.6 doctors per 1,000 people, 3.3 hospital beds and its people live to an average age of 78.2 "UK - spends 8.1% of GDP, gets 2.3 doctors, 4.2 hospital beds and live to an average age of 79.4. So for roughly half the cost their citizens overall get about the same benefit in terms of longevity of life. "Canada - spends 9.8% of GDP on healthcare, gets 2.1 doctors, 3.6 hospital beds and live until they are 80.6 yrs "Now if we look at the more social model in Europe the results become even more surprising: "France - spends 10.5%, 3.4 docs, 7.5 beds and live until they are 80.6 "Spain - spends 8.1% , 3.3 docs , 3.8 beds and live until they are 81 "As a whole Europe spends 9.6% of GDP on healthcare, has 3.9 doctors per 1,000 people, 6.6 hospital beds and live until they are 81.15 years old. "The list goes on. The truth is that in many cases as is pointed out the healthcare system is better in the US than in some other countries BUT US citizens must therefore get ill more often than any other country in the West in order to achieve the truly appalling statistic that they are the 41 longest living nation on earth with France, Spain, Norway, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Andorra, Holland, Greece and Sweden all featuring in the top 20 longest living nations and the UK and Germany at 22. "This is the big failure of the US system. It is unforgivable. You may get a better chance of recovering from certain diseases but as a whole you will die younger in the US than most developed countries. ... Something is severely broken."
  • It would be great if everybody had adequate health care and I'm not going to say one way or the other if government should pay for it. I would like to suggest that you consider the source of the money the government will use to pay for universal healthcare as well as the source of the money the government is using to pay for things it is already paying for.
  • The Federal Government? No.
  • A UHC plan would be good for business. Conservatives argue against waste, but there is no waste quite like health care. 1. The expense of figuring out separate and unequal plans and the cost to employers to manage them. 2. The cost of denied medical care to employees due to work missed, the thousand phone calls to the insurance companies during business hours and the time HR takes to get in the middle of it. 3. The cost of lawyers to deal with the insurance companies. 4. Profit for hospitals, profit for insurance companies. This can add 20% to 30% to health care costs. 5. Let's not forget the huge cost of foreclosed homes due to medical bills that couldn't be paid. 6. The cost of overuse of emergency room services. And the list goes on. We have a medical system with such an incredible amount of inefficiency built in that it's amazing there is any money left for check ups.
  • Absolutely. Better for the disadvantaged, better for businesses and workers, better for the health of the country as a whole.
  • The government won't pay for Universal Health Care. The taxpayers will. To the tune of $1 TRILLION dollars added to the national debt, according to the CBO. Try reading this link.
  • It's a bad idea for reaons that are well documented and well known. Those who choose to ignore facts are for it. Those with their minds in gear oppose it.
  • -- Switzerland has a mandate requiring everyone to be covered by private insurance. -- Poor people are subsidized as necessary to meet the mandate. -- There is no employer-provided or government-managed coverage. -- Sick persons pay the same price for health insurance as healthy persons in the same demographic category. According to its proponents, the Swiss system results in health care which is comparable to that in the most affluent U.S. states, while its per capita health costs are 40 percent lower than in the U.S.
  • Yes. Its necessary. Its time the rich do something for the working man that they exploit. They can pay for this.
  • That would be great if it were true, but health care currently costs almost $8000 per capita and with 45 million getting less than adequate care. Full socialism would cost around $3,000,000,000,000 annually! And the gov't doesn't pay for payers do.
  • This should show ya what universal health care give us?
  • i think they should , isnt that what canada is doing?

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy