Questions for those who support universal health care in the USA?
Question:
How do supporters of univeral health care propose to enact a national health care system and maintain the integrity private enterprise in the medical industry?
How do you propose a federal government, which doesn't seem to be able to administer any program with much degree of competence, administer this system?
What are the estimates of increased tax burden on the taxpayers to fund the system?
How would you propose preventing the US treasury from using the system as another revenue base like SS?
What would prevent user abuse of the services?
What would stop coercion by the federal government, like demanding diet changes and other unhealthy practices?
Answer:
Canada?
Why of the top twenty five industrialized nations of the west are we the only one without universal health care? It doesn't have to be on a federal level, it can be on a state level. More importantly why is health care for profit instead of not for profit? Those who argue against it, I hope they or one of their family members never need treatment they can't afford.
THE BIG LIE.
we have the worst health care then 32 other nation . Costa Rica
is 31. no one goes without emergency care. it's the best. everyone is treated. socialize medicine like England and France have the worst dental health.
great questions?
i think to best answer your questions we could look to those countries who already have these systems in place and are doing it right to better answer your questions.
If the budget allocation was shifted towards establishing Universl health Care instead of funding military malpractice, then anything is possible.
Too many stupid questions with idiotic assumptions, so I will stick to rebutting your basic assumption about government: The military making short work of conquering 2 countries on the other side of the world. This shows the government is quite capable of administering programs with a high degree of competence.
I won't cry about trimming private enterprise health care with it's upper executives making $millions a year at the expense of providing proper health care to policy holders. Everything else is quibbling details.
This is such a tough question to answer because there are so many perspectives. I generally think everyone should be entitled to healthcare. However, I also think that it is generally one of the reasons the broad quality of care in many places declines. In Canada and the UK, there are 2 healthcare systems. The publicly available kind and the better care that those who can afford to choose, do.
I like the idea of a state healthcare fund better than a federal because states with higher population densities will need more funding, etc. I don't think funding healthcare like SS would work since I don't think SS will be around much longer.
Since many companies currently subsidize their employees' healthcare, I would not want corporate America to be off the hook for providing quality benefits and a government program may allow them to opt to save those dollars since healthcare would be otherwise available if it were gov't provided.
It always comes down to who can bear the financial burden.
Could we encourage more private sector, religious charities and free clinics to open up in all areas? Can we start with some super luxury tax so that the super rich can subsidize it more? I like the idea of a federal sales tax on super luxury items being used to fund a healthcare program. Call it the health tax and put it on purchases of over $10,000 excluding homes and autos.
Also, people should be allowed to shop around for healthcare. This current insurance regime just pays a flat rate based on treatment types. Consumers should compare doctors and hospitals the same way they can go to different places for any other service and compare prices and quality.
I think prescribing a health care system for the United States would be as difficult as us attempting to prescribe democracy for other countries. Some countries have social health system that work wonderfully, i.e. The Netherlands and Sweden. Others literally suck, i.e. Great Britain. My favorite system is Germany, which is more of a system of mandatory insurance than socialized health care.
The problem in the United States is the inherent attempt to make money off of everything. In my humble opinion, some things should be sacred, such as education, which is an investment in the country's future, and medical care. There is nothing wrong with making a living helping the sick and injured, but it's vulgar to get rich on the suffering of others.
Check out HMOs. I won't say any more. They should be outlawed.
We also have to worry about the health insurance/health care lobby. Without question, they will fight reform tooth and nail. It is too lucrative, and they don't give a damn about humanity.
We also have to consider public opposition. It is amazing how people oppose universal health care, calling it "socialist," but can't afford health insurance.
I guess I would recommend a system of locally administered combination of government and private health insurance. Cities and counties, rather than the state or federal, regimes would administer the program. Premiums would be income based, as in Germany, with the employer bearing a major portion of the cost. As a federal employee, my employer pays two-thirds or more of my premium.
I also think it will be necessary to support medical students and re-initiate a system of county hospitals.
The quest will be challenging, but it is absolutely necessary.
We discovered DNA, landed a man on the moon, and are the wealthiest nation ever created; don't limit your mind to that universal health care has to look like a government sponsered program. Look at Massachusetts, where employer based coverage was augmented with state insurance coverage to those without any coverage, developed under a Republican admin, Romney.
Under the federal government universal insurance will raise the taxes on a family of four from $5K to $8K per year.
You can go out today and shop around and find pretty darn good coverage from $300 to $500 per month, which is a heck of a lot less than what the government is going to gouge you for the same or less coverage.
Getting government involved in health care is just a catastrophe waiting to happen.
We could simply look at a program like Medicare. Medicare is not without it's problems in terms of costs, which is something all nations must grapple with.
However, 100% of seniors get coverage through Medicare. The administrative costs are very small compared to the 30% we face with our current disjointed system. And it is an immensely popular portion of our health care system (the rest is quite unpopular).
In any US proposal I've seen, the delivery of care is the same as it is now in terms of private care. Even insurance is not directly provided by the government, although there may be additional mandates on insurance companies to participate. We may pay for care through taxes, although technically we do that now anyways (Medicare, Medicaid, tax breaks for business health care costs).
Health care is the one area that a private, disjointed system is actually more inefficient. Just look at the basics: We pay 50% more for our care than the next closest country only to get high percentages of people with no or little insurance. And what is the result? - We're barely ahead of Slovenia. If you defend this system, you are ignoring reality.
More Questions & Answers...