Universal Health Care

Good or bad?


Discuss, etc.

 

Very good. A universal, not-for-profit health care system paid directly by taxes would be far superior to the current profit-driven system.

The United States remains the only wealthy industrialized nation to not offer universal health care.

 

I love my Canadian Universal HealthCare =D, but there has been speculation that Universal HealthCare has its downsides because there are 'less professional doctors' but from what i have experienced, that is totally wrong because they are the same and if not more professional, and also trying to be Treated by American Doctors means extremely long lines which also comes with a long ass bill whereas in Canada i walk into a hospital, go straight to the doctor and be like hey this is what's wrong, after about a 15 minute talk depending on the symptoms, the condition will have been deduced and you'll get your FREE medication whereas it would have been like 3+ hours of waiting to even see a doctor, a minimum 150$ fee to see him/her, like 300$ at least to stay overnight in a room and many more fees that they throw at you (like medication). So many peoples conditions worsen while waiting for doctors and i've heard of people dying in waiting rooms in the U.S. For the Privatized Doctors, all they just want your next paycheck.

 

Yeah

Yes but isn't the United states a and of "oppurtunity"? Isn't the U.S. a capatilist nation, where anybody of any social status can climb their way to the top?

*Note* - Not my opinion

 

It technically is, and there's nothing legally preventing you from doing it. If you don't climb to the top, you are most directly to "blame".

 

Canadians have been known to be much slower than american doctors.

 

It's a terrible idea. Sure, everyone has health care, but there are the druggies who abuse the free pills. Plus the health care is nowhere near as good as America's. You pay for the service.

 

but us sucks because we dont get anything but i think we have more doctors

 

Find me a Capitalist Democracy with a population similar to the US and I'll believe it can work in the US. Until then, you're comparing totally different situations (like Sweden and the US) trying to prove your point (this goes both ways).

 

One fact indicates that in the U.S. one person every 30 secs go bankrupt because of medical bills, with universal health care this would never happen.

 

Too many thread on this topic...


Universal heath care is a joke, a political stunt. The Government would pay the doctors too low, so they wouldn't be able to pay their staff for the time they spent seeing the UHC people. All they would be able to see is some cheap foreign doctor who may not be as well educated.

 

So in our society where people are pushing for less government control, we should now have the government take control of our health?

The standing concept is to take an ineffecient government that everyone is pissed at already, add another huge undertaking on to their plate (despite the current national debt, foreign tensions, and the idea that in a capitalist democracy the government should be involved in peoples lives as little as possible), and to make the money by increasing taxes on an already economically troubled country? Why should the people with a lot of money (who obviously got that way by working their ass off, getting super lucky, or having a relative that worked their ass off) have to help those who didn't? We already have free health care to children of low income families, all SCHIP would have done is extend it to families making up to $82,500 a year, which if you ask me is a lot of money.

Beyond that, you would ruin an industry in a country struggling with unemployment. Research isn't free, it costs billions every year. It's obvious in countries that have Universal Health Care programs that the motivation for companies to produce new medicines in low by looking at the number of medical breakthroughs in these countries vs. that of the US. I would challenge anyone to find a country with a UHC program that has had more new medicines, techniques, or tools than the US. They make up for the research costs in the pill price. If the government negotiates too low, they'll stop. Simple as that.

Lastly, with immigration like it is, would we begin to check peoples ID and tax status before treating them? Or is it just open to whomever walks in, whether they're a citizen or not. Then we're paying for people who don't even contribute towards the expenses.

Personally, I'd rather not pay for the expenses of hypochondriacs, a homeless man looking for a warm room, or someone that doesn't even live in the country. I'd rather not pay for unnessecary treatments, "I don't know what that is, but why not, I'm not paying!". I'm not paying for the treatment of someone with lung cancer who ignored countless warnings to stop smoking.

The process to become a doctor is long, hard, and expensive. Why go through that process? Because doctors make a ton of money. You work more, you make more. Period. If people have to work their ass off to make an average salary, then yes, not as many people will do it, the demand will drop, and the quality of care will drop as well.

The_Ace, where'd you get that fact from? I'd be willing to bet that if someone truely didn't have enough to treat their child, they could find a charity to help them (One of the best known being St. Jude's).

Hospitals are efficient right now because it's in their best intrest to. When people have no motivation to make sure they get treatments they actually need, take care of themselves, research new medicines, do the work to become a doctor, or refine spending so that it's used effectively, they won't, and the quality of health care will suffer because of it. Look at the IRS.

So, we go back to my original statement: Find me a Capitalist Democracy with a population similar to the US and I'll believe it can work in the US. Until then, you're comparing totally different situations (like Sweden and the US) trying to prove your point (this goes both ways).