I'm against it, because I don't want healthcare ran like my local DMV office. Long wait times with poor service.
Plus I had a relative who died last year in Canada due to Covid and their crappy healthcare system. He was trying to get back to the states to get better help but due to borders being closed they wouldn't let him.
The Canadian Healthcare system failed him.
That said, I could be convinced to support Universal Health care if specific requirements were guaranteed under law.
1. Short wait times, you call today you get in today to see a well qualified doctor... same as I currently can call my family doctor and get in today. Even when he is busy, it is never more than a week out. If you can't get in within a week you get paid $10,000 dollars a day by the government for failing to live up to fast and good service. Same applies to specialists.
2. No limits on spending, none of this crap of your too old to save here is some documentation on how to get used to the fact your going to die.
3. No rationing of medications, I've seen that in Canada when the government sends daily medications to various clinics and tells people to come back tomorrow to see if they can get a already prescribed drug. I don't know why they do that, but there is even YouTube video's of people going into clinics and secretly recording them saying, we are out of penicillin today you can try tomorrow or try another location. One cannot fake that. If out, also 10 grand a day penalty for each day.
4. No laws that try to help people be healthier, like when France outlawed refills on sugary drinks to try and help its population be healthier while trying to save money on their healthcare. NO loss of any type of rights or inference allowed at all or it nullifies the entire law. No laws to try and force people to be healthier.
5. If a government doctor screws up, millions in compensation immediately paid out.
There is a way to actually do both, keep the current system and have universal healthcare. Same could be done for 'free' college education. You opt in, when you opt in for universal health care you can never ever opt out... EVER. Then you pay an extra tax, like FICA that automatically adjusts up and down based on revenues. That fund can never go into debt, and thus automatically adjusts up if its too low or adjusts down if its too high.
We have the technology to track who does what, who would opt in and who didn't. This way it gives people the choice if they want it, just they need to understand they might be paying a extra 10% UHC (universal Healthcare tax.) that those who didn't opt in don't have to pay, for the rest of their lives.
Most Helpful Opinions
I'm not exactly for or against. It does not make me happy to see people who aren't well-off become crippled in debt by a medical emergency. Yet at the same time, for me to be for something requires me to believe not only in the idea but in the effective execution of those who attempt to implement it. I have a lot of doubts there when it comes to the US government.
I'm an engineer by trade and I've always been a conservative and iterative type of engineer. I meet an endless share of talented young engineers who have bold ideas that seek to redesign entire systems. I have no doubt that their ideas have tremendous potential, but the boldest and most ambitious ideas tend to fail far more often than they succeed in my experience, and often toss the baby out with the bathwater. So I favor modest ideas which are far less bold in nature and more in the realm of seeking improvements rather than revolutionizing systems. We can still revolutionize the system eventually but one little baby step at a time.
I tend to think universal healthcare in the US is a wildly ambitious idea. I would prefer to at least start with a less ambitious one like having laws that require hospitals to provide transparent pricing upfront so that patients aren't sticker-shocked when handed the hospital bill, or expediting FDA approval of pharmaceuticals by only testing for safety rather than efficacy, or combatting the obesity epidemic. That might at least have some effect in driving medical costs down. Then if many of such modest initiatives are competently executed with good results, we gradually reach a point where universal healthcare no longer seems like such a wildly ambitious idea.
I'm from the UK were we have the NHS so I have pretty mixed views. On one hand I think because we have free health care a lot of people in my country are entitled and don't think they need to take responsibility for their health or safety as too why my country has so many issues like knife crime, drugs and obesity if they knew they had to pay for the medical treatment themselves they might think again. Also most of UKs best doctors and nurses go abord to earn more and have a better way of life so no offence I still think nurses and doctors are amazing people but we sometimes get left with under trained, under skilled staff at the NHS who can't even speak the language sometimes. Plus they some how always find the money to buy comfy office chairs over £200 for themselves yet not a single penny for a child's brain cancer treatment. I know people who've worked with the NHS and it's not all sun shine and rainbows and not all the staff are good people.
On the other hand I have the resources if something bad was to ever happen to me I'd be taken care of and wouldn't have to worry about the bill at the end of it
I am pro because this system exists in my country and everything works out just fine. If I am not mistaken, 10% of what we earn goes to the healthcare system, monthly. It's not a big amount of money. With our universal health insurance we can go both to public hospitals & private hospitals. Most (90%) of the private doctors/clinics accept our public insurance plan. In addition to that, our government finances all kind of public health campaigns everyone can access (like HPV screening, breast cancer screening etc.). If we need anything from blood tests to MRIs, our system covers that. It doesn't cover all investigations (like genetic sampling), but it covers the majority. If we need an ambulance ride, it's free. If we need emergency surgery, that's free as well, for everyone. If we need a treatment, even when it's not free, we can get discounts, depending on the disease/drug.
Also, doctors are extremely rich, most of them work for public clinics and private ones, they are paid very well, so I haven't heard them complaining about the system either.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
94Opinion
I am for it. I've spoken to both my British and Canadian friends about their system, and the only person who had any complaints was very wealthy and their complaint was that they are treated like anyone else.
In America if the poor are sick they go to the hospital emergency room where they cannot be refused that's a horrible burden on this hospital system and a huge unnecessary inpaid expense that lur hospitals are forced to eat. Which raises medical costs for the test of us.
The next pooest have Medicaid or Medicare which is already tax supported. Further there are large groups of people who cannot work because of medical expenses. If they work they lose their Medicade and cannot afford the Dr bills for various chronic diseases.
Next pooest are workers who use government assisted medical insurance...
Etc. Seems like the tax payer already pays the medical expenses of the most poor. So look at us, my wife and I have insurance through my work. It costs me roughly %30 of my gross for medical, dental and vision. Plus our copay fees. Even if my taxes doubled (60%) due to a universal healthcare I would still come out about even because I wouldn't have to pay that 30% a month. But they're talking a 10% to 15% at most tax hike so I come out ahead as do most middle class Americans.
Okay another sobering thought. I am, right now, in dispute with one of our local hospitals over a $1000.00 copay. We paid it, insurance company says we didn't owe it, hospital refuses to return it. Now a thousand bucks isn't going to break us but its not an insignificant amount.- u
The simple answer to this question would be yes, that would be fucking nice.
But I have to be realistic, and the reality in the USA is that healthcare does not exist, because it doesn't care for health one bit. Health is a business, pharmaceutics are a business, doctors are in the field mostly for the business (they don't have much of a choice) and the manufacturing companies involved are also there for business, and of course... insurance companies are there for the big business, and all of the are there for the profit.
Healthcare is not a service, is not a right, it is not care one bit... it is all about the money, and it has been that way for decades now. So, to just declare universal healthcare would create a lot, and I mean a lot lot of serious problems for everyone and everything that is deepily rooted into this dynamic. Declaring universal healthcare won't solve anything the way it has to be solved.
A better way to start to address this complicated situation has to be within the structure, it has to be done level by level, just like you would take a big building apart that is surrounded by many other buildings, you can just implode the whole thing at the base. There's a lot of things that have to be changed first, in order for healthcare to be fixed, the way it should be fixed.
Intricate problems require comprehensive reforms, approaches and solutions all at once, and not popular solutions that just look nice and fair on paper. For Universal health care. 2/3 of all medical spending is already paid by government tax money. Government jobs don't necessarily pay well but the benefits are better then most. So the American tax payers are basically paying $100 to someone to pay the beneficiary $50 as a metaphor.
Then the next big cost comes from Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) from the Ronald reagan. Basically if you go to an ER you are treated regardless of ability to pay. ER as a primary care is an ass backwards and expensive cost to tax payers almost 10 fold. So if a universal Healthcare policy is a thing, a person can get stitches that is cost effective compared to an ER vist that needs an amputation from an infection.
Bottom line is the government gives money to the people as an overall investment. We currently give that money to billionaires with limited returns. Giving that same money to the average citizen is an overall better investment. A father getting the help he needs with his diabete to pass on his excellent work ethic to his children. A child getting cancer getting treatment to grow up to cure cancer possibly. That's my opinion on this.I'm in favor of baseline health insurance coexisting with premium health care programs.
On one hand, universal healthcare guarantees that everyone will receive the essential health care, on the other hand... it means your grandpa will have to live in pain and misery for eight months waiting for his hernia surgery because it's not a "life threatening condition" and there are others ahead of him on the waiting list.
The obvious downside of the state dictating the maximum price for health care services is that health care providers can't actually offer you the better, more costly services.
Look at how badly universal care is implemented in some European countries, people are staying at dilapidated facilities, they are using outdated knowledge and equipment, their doctors are hacks because the better ones are all leaving to the west where they get paid more, et cetera.
And the worst thing is, not only you are throwing like 12%+ of your monthly income down the drain in those countries, if you DO want a better service you have to pay everything out of pocket in a private clinic anyway because NONE of those funds you gave your government can be spent on services which do not meet the prices agreed on by them.
Even here in Canada, our waiting times and the availability of health care are infamous for not being what they should be in a first world country in the west.
And let's not kid ourselves, corruption in the government and poor efficiency in government spending are just as big issues (if not bigger) as is price gouging committed by private corporations.For.
why?
-Most of us want some level of income redistribution, to not have people starving in the streets. Then when we have redistribution people worry about what the money gets used for. Funding universal healthcare is one useful mechanism to offer some income equalization (since it's tax funded but everyone gets a value that's not income linked) while ensuring the transfer of income is used effectively.
- the market for health insurance is not efficient because consumers aren't armed with information to really choose intelligently between providers so the benefits that competition could generate don't accrue rapidly
- the cost efficiency of single payer versus a network of insurance companies with their own pricing schemes and administration requirements is so large that it overwhelms any efficiency gains private insurers can create.
America stands out as the developed nation without universal health insurance... except of course for the elderly (who are the most expensive group!) and the poor (via Medicaid). Theoretically the benefit of the American system is to allow lower middle class Americans to decide for themselves what sort of insurance they like but it's not a real decision. Wealthier Americans don't really choose either - they get whatever their employer provides in most cases. All in, American governments actually spend more per person on healthcare then the governments of countries with universal systems!The main divide in US is because many employer health plans are way better than what is offered by the public marketplace, medicare, or medicaid, and yes some even better than Canada. That if we went to universal the people who work good jobs lose better access than those who take up one of those "less stellar" public plans. Like if you work for Microsoft, the health plans are free, no deductions from your paycheck. This is the cream of the crop in benefits. One could believe if the government provided this for everyone, it's going to get rationed. In the US if you want to see a specialist this week and you got good insurance, you won't have to wait that long.
I do think there is a middle ground. Obamacare did put us on a better track but it's expensive for those who have to rely on it, the government could pitch in more here and account accordingly to a person's job/pay/situation. I also feel every job should provide decent healthcare to all their workers, there is a sense of taking care of their workforce means better retention and take home pay. There is a lot in play, bi am for universal health care in the sense that "health care" is compulsory for everyone to have. of course there should be exeptions and variety. for example someone who is currently short term unemployed should be able to pay less for the same service as someone who is full time employed. so payment according to theindividual income.
also there should be a distinction between "private" and "public" healthcare, so that there's competition between the providers of services.
this system works really well and creates a self regulative system, that can't be abused by insurance policies. at the same time, it creates a strong counter balance for the outrageous prices in the pharma industry, cause if the pharma industry has to compete for insurance support, they are more likely to have to lower their prices than if there was no strong institutionalized player that helps regulating the prices they can ask. the free market apparently is unable to do that. i mean just look at the prices for medical natriumchloride solution. which is basically a plastic bag full of saltwater, that you pay fucking 500 bucks for. and 2000 bucks just for "lying in a bed in a hospital for one night" with no service included in that price. this usury should not be possible.People should pay for their own things, not look to "society" to pay for them, but because of those same people who want everything to be free, we've gotten to a point in this country where most people can't earn enough money to pay for their own healthcare, so because of that, I'm for free healthcare for everyone. Unfortunately that means the quality of U. S. healthcare will go way down, and fewer and fewer people will want to become doctors, but as of right now there just is no other answer.
My grandmother told me in the 1950s you could go into the hospital for something major and have a bill for like $210 or something. The average person was able to make enough money for a house and a car and clothes and things they needed, nowadays that's not possible, plus people "require" so many luxuries.
Most people today don't care about getting a good education, or a meaningful career, they're content to just work at Walmart and that's it. Plus there are way too many people to be able to earn a good living in our country, because everyone thinks they have to have 5 or 6 kids. The U. S. population has gone from 150 million people in 1950 to 350 million people today. That is ridiculous.Every industrialised country in the World provides primary healthcare for its population except one arrogant, ignorant, gun-toting nation of highly taxed morons who don't even provide adequate healthcare for their injured veterans.
You don't have to be Communists to provide basic affordable healthcare for your citizens when your tax rates are as high as the USA has and you have the majority of the world's billionaire population.
The nation continues to demonstrate it may be financially wealthy, but it is morally bankrupt when it comes to providing basic human rights.I'm from Canada. Without universal healthcare, I would be dead or in a mountain of debt right now. My dad too. I had liver failure, his thyroid gave out. Neither of us ever could have paid off the hospital bills that would have come from that.
Just the sheer amount of emergency room visits I've had in the last few months would have put me in debt for years. I don't understand why anyone is against tax paid healthcare. Why wouldn't you want to know that if your health fails you will be cared for without having to even think about money or worry about insurance?I am very much for countries having a free at point of use approach to healthcare.
Even if it’s not for everything, then certain things such as giving birth (and associated stuff), accidents, emergencies, medically approved operations, mental health, investigations in to problems, check ups, should simply be free.
why should there be a social barrier for having a baby?
The UK NHS was founded on three core principles:
that it meet the needs of everyone;
that it be free at the point of delivery;
that it be based on clinical need, not ability
it’s not per effect, I still pay for BUPA to queue jump if required.
But it removes the financial burden on many for simple routine things such as dental care (I go private because I can and other reasons lol)I am for it. Or at least something closer to Switzerland's healthcare. But to be honest i am so effing tired seeing so many people struggling to get healthcare. Especially the elderly. Oh yeah they got medicate, and they got private insurance but to have to choose between buying groceries versus meds that you need to live that week tears me up inside. I have seen too many people struggling because the health industry is raping the people of their hard earned money and we can get anywhere. At least with universal healthcare it would regulate pharmaceutical companies and hospitals and clinics to offer better more humane prices so that we can all benefit from a right to our health. I mean you can go to Mexico and get the exact same care and meds for 5 times cheaper than we Americans.
For it mostly because many other countries have it and its more beneficial for the citizens and not as many people go without Healthcare. And I know people all scream but the taxes ahhh the taxes but honestly we pay a shiy ton in taxes as is and yet they keep taking the funds that taxes put toward social security and use them for other things all the time we pay incredible amounts of tax but they never use it to help fund fixing roads 🙄 as is the majority of taxes goes to finding the military. I personally have a few friends in different countries that have socialized medicine and they pay less taxes and make more money than I do and they can still live comfortably and not struggle I haven't seen that in America everyone seems to struggle inside their families working 4 jobs between 2 people and still don't make enough to pay for medical insurance and medical bills -_-
I'm for universal health coverage because nearly every other developed country already does it and it's nothing like the fear mongering people have been saying in the US. I support universal healthcare because no one should have to put together a GoFundMe to be and to afford their cancer treatment, die because they can't pay for insulin anymore, or go into serious debt just because of a medical emergency. Privatized healthcare helps no one other than pharmaceutical companies that care more about profit margins than people's lives.
Against. Insurance was cheaper before government was at the heart of controlling it and mandating it. Also, when you accepted certain risks in life, and frivolous lawsuits were less common, doctors weren't required by underwriters to charge exorbitant fees.
Which would you prefer? Accepting the risk that surgery can backfire and kill you , or having some pencil pusher threaten to jail you over an extortion fee you can't pay, for procedures you have to pay for regardless of whether or not you need or want them, from a system that can abscond your claim funds to pay for starting frivolous wars in Syria. End universal healthcare. Do your part to kill the pig.Universal healthcare run by the government is the only way it will ever be affordable to the 25% of the population who has the lowest income. I've not had it for years and if I ever get cancer again I'm a dead man. That is the reality. Do we as a society feel that poor people should just go without and die at a younger age or de we follow the right and moral path and make sure everyone can life a full and long life with good healthcare. The selfish conservatives claim that doing so would result in rationing healthcare. But we are already rationing healthcare only permitting it for those who have means or happen to be the lucky few with a good enough job to get it. They blame people for not having a good job but only a fraction of existing jobs are good so in other words it's the people's fault that good jobs don't exist in the first place. Why should healthcare be tied to jobs at all?
Against. 1) I like to choose if I want to carry health insurance or not. It’s a basic freedom under the commerce clause that I can choose what I want to spend my money on. 2) When I want health insurance, I want to choose which company I use. Insurance always rises in price over time if you don’t make companies compete against each other for your business. Thus different options in the market are needed to keep costs low including the option to not be insured at all if all companies are colluding. 3) I currently work in a health related field and government control would stifle innovation, reduce number of high technology jobs, and reduce pay within the industry. If government took over, I’d find a new career. It wouldn’t be good for my career personally nor would it be good for future technology developments in healthcare. 4) I'm not a totalitarian communist as you can see from my positions on personal liberty, market competition, and technological advancement.
I'd say yes to universal healthcare because we already have so many medical bills and debt... the only fear would be that we would lose the quality but people would stop avoid going because they can't afford it and lives might even be saved in the process
Don't Yanks spend twice as much of their GDP than Britain on their health care? There's the efficiency of the market...
It's not really a debate anywhere outside of the US.
Sure, universal healthcare is far from perfect, but it's better than the alternative.
Personally, I avoid the doctors at all cost. But if I do something stupid, it's nice to know it's there, and it won't bankrupt me.There are two way you could argue this from :
A philosophical point of you, you could say people deserve healthcare but desrrve is an odd term. What is really fundamentally happening is you're taking someone else's hardwork to treat the health and care for someone else's health. What if the person paying taxes doesn't want his/hers money used that way..
Secondly, there's the economic or maybe practical prespective, you could argue when the seller (med companies) and the buyer (gov.) Doesn't care about the price of something, the person who is paying for it, ie the people pay the price.
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!