Can Americans afford Universal Heathcare?

Question

UHC seemed like a great idea to me at first, but now I am not so sure. Even though the government will be "paying" for our healthcare, who will ultimately be paying the bill? Taxpayers. Can we really afford it with the ovesity crisis as it is? I just can't see myself wanting to pay a tax that helps people who will not even help themselves. Just curious about other people's views.

Answer 1

I'm not in favor of a fully funded government run Universal Health Care, but there are countries like the Netherlands that have a great system.  It's private, but the government has laws that regulate it.  Basically, everyone must have Insurance, the basic insurance (which covers quite a bit) is offered to everyone for the same price...regardless of age or ailment, and everyone has to accept it. You can get help buying the insurance if you cannot afford it, and you can buy more if you want it...but the basics are given to everyone for a really good price.

You should look into it, it's  a really good system

Answer 2

Perhaps the key was in your additional details - "abused" system.

America is a capitalist society. Medical care is simply too expensive because more & more people want to make their dollar. I include those working the system with medical lawsuits. And I include the insurance companies.

Yes, there already is a form of government supported healthcare. Visit an emergency room sometime. Sit around a few hours. See how many people [usually unemployed, government supported people] come in for non-emergency illnesses. Ask hospital people or police officers how often an ambulance brings in a patient for the flu or a cold. Emergency rooms have become clinics for people on government support. Since they do not pay the bill they do not care that ER's have much higher costs than an actual clinic.

A universal healthcare system can work but not until some controls are put on the system. Canada has lower costs & fewer people so it works there.

Shall we also consider:  Should the government have greater control of our lives if we are living an unhealthy life? Tobacco has been proven to be unhealthy yet it is still sold. Should non-smokers be required to pay for healthcare of smokers who know full well the habit doubles or triples healthcare costs? What about alcohol. Or the obese. When you finish your workday, do you like the idea  you worked 1-2 hrs that day just to support the health expenses of a crack head?

IF or when the government pays the bill then maybe it is also time the government controls unhealthy life styles. I believe THAT is an issue that bothers a lot of Americans. I already pay more for police services & insurance because of some lifestyles. Do I really want to pay more to insure those who do not take care of themselves?

This is an issue that is more than just a cost issue. It is a personal responsibility issue. It is a moral issue. It is a morals issue. It is a government control issue. It is a government competence issue [more correctly perhaps, incompetence].

Answer 3

I don't think a fully covered system, like what the UK has, will work here.  We have a bigger population, 50 different states spread out with different laws, a large generational entitlement crowd, and more health problems due to obesity.  It would be a disastrous adventure with a comeback of back alley procedures out of desperation from poor quality and wait times.  

However, something does need to be done.  The cost of health care and frivolous lawsuits are astounding.  We're a whole nation whose afraid to get sick.  I wouldn't mind a system such as Austria's, where a friend of mine informed me she and her husband pay a small monthly premium for government regulated insurance - around 200 dollars a month for all four of them.  If they don't have to see a doctor that month, they get that money back.

Along with that general idea, I'd also love the UK's court system plan.  If you file a lawsuit in the UK, I hear you have to pay a hefty fine if you lose.  I think this would seriously make people think twice about whether trying to earn a quick buck via frivolous lawsuit is really worth it.

Answer 4

I think universal healthcare has its pros and cons but I don't see that it will "break the bank" any more than the system as it works today.  I see private payors bidding for and managing the government-run healthcare, because that is how even Medicare and Medicaid is run today.  You'll still have your Uniteds, your BCBS, your Cigna, your Tenets, etc.  because the government will want to oversee, not actually run, the process.  So you'll still have competition.  And it sounds like most of the candidates are promoting the "if you like your health insurance you have now, keep it." So there will still be private insurance if that happens.  Right now some of our tax money goes to pay for health care costs of the uninsured, and you hear stories all the time of people going to the ER for sore throats and stuff, so maybe it will fix that.  Sure, pros and cons, but all in all I think it's not the disaster that the naysayers are dooming it to be and it may turn out to be a really good thing.

Answer 5

I was uninsured while working 9-5 40 hrs a week for half a year because my position was classed "temporary" and my employers kept making noises about getting me into a "permanent" position with insurance, and it kept taking a little longer and then a little longer. (If I'd known how long it was going to take I would have applied for private coverage).  It was scary.  Thank God I didn't have an accident or get cancer or something in those 6 months, or I would have been buried in bills that I could in no way afford.  I am lucky that those times when I was sick and decided to wait it out instead of going to the doctor to make sure it wasn't serious turned out to be nothing serious.  That's not something I ever want to go through again, and that's not something I wish on anybody.  

I am glad to pay with my tax dollars to create a safety net for myself and others, because you never know what could happen.  I'd rather people got a hand up when they're down, not a kick in the head. We can afford it if we want it and if we make it a priority.

(Edited to add: Also, I've lived in both Canada and the US.  I'd choose the Canadian system in a heartbeat.)

Edited to add:

http://wkrg.com/news/article/or_nurse_ne...

Answer 6

GM has a $1.9 billion annual prescription drug bill for the 1.1 million employees, retirees and family members covered under their health care program.  If you use those numbers and extrapolate, drug coverage alone would cost $518.18 billion annually.  The overall cost of GM's health care program is $5.2 billion annually.  That would make the cost of Universal Health Care $1.42  trillion annually.  Hillary and the rest of that crowd are lying through their teeth when they say it would only cost $110 - $150 billion annually.  A 90% savings is impossible.

Savings from any government managed program is absurd.  And what would we get for our money?  A trip to the hospital would be the medical equivelant of a trip to the DMV.

Edit:  The government is responsible for creating an environment (politically and economically) that encourages life, liberty and the pursuit of private property.  They are not required to provide it.  That answer is ridiculous.  As for the statement of the guy with the screen name of "Rousseau," the GM numbers blow his statement right out of the water.

Answer 7

I don't care what kind of system is put in place, there will always be free-loaders.  The best way to deal with that is factor that in as the cost of doing business.

I believe, most people just want to be healthy and would rather stay out of any medical system.  I know, I am one of them.  I avoid the doctor like the plague.  But when I need them, I worship them.

Therefore, lets put our countries spending habits into persepctive.

Currently we are in two wars.  The reasons for the first one is disputed by some, to justified by others.  The second war, is still being argued about, but the American public has pretty much come to the conclusion we were fed a boat load.  Therefore, how many years of universal health care has gone out the window because of that?

Next, factor in that we have a military presence in 135 countries, be it from embassy staff to war and occupation.  How many years of universal health care is being eaten up by that?

Next, factor in that we are currently the largest exporter of weapons in the world.  How much hate has that produced which helps feed the military industrial machine that you, the tax payer, pays for?  How many years of universal health care has that eaten up?

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/...

Download the 2005 congressional report here.

Therefore, it is not a matter of paying more taxes, it is a matter of resetting our priorities and stop s******g with the world by forcing our agenda's down unwilling throats.

Finally, I don't care which side of the fence one is on, the above is not partisan BS.  Both parties are guilty of malfeasances.

===============

Life is so simple, but we insist on making it complicated

Confucius

551 - 479 BC

===============

Peace

Jim

.

Answer 8

From all that I read about health care in the United States in comparison with European nations that provide health care for its citizens it seems that US citizens pay more for less.

  I can't document that, but just think of what the simplist medical procedure cost us here in the US.

  I have traveled overseas and I can relate this experience.

  When in London, I was traipsing around following my wife in the British museum and wore a nasty blister on my heel.  I went to a pharmacy to get gauze, etc.  An attendent sat me down and had me remove my shoe and wiped my heel and applied medication and a bandage plaster, gave me some replacement salve and stick on plaster and charged about a buck or so.

  In the Phillipines I got sick and couldn't find an immediate doctor and a citizen directed me to a pharmacy and when I went there an attendent listened to my discription of my malady and prescribed the same stuff my doc in the states routinely prescribed.  All for a few bucks; and it was the same prescription medicine that I got in the states.

  The whole approach to medicine is more rational and realistic in Europe and other nations.

  My point of view on this is that the stock owners of pharmacautical firms and the entire medical establishment including insurance firms have a lock on the business in the United States and it will be very painful to get rid of it, but, yes, we should.  Children and working men and women in the United States should have adequate medical care.

Thanks

Answer 9

part of life liberty and the persuit of happiness, is being healthy. our leaders have no problem spending our money on war.insurance companies are financially raping us and most of us don't even get a kiss.our government can protect all their assets except our health , sparing no expense. can we not afford UHC?

Answer 10

The industrialized nations that have universal healthcare spend less per capita on health care than the United States does now, so in that regard it would be affordable.  A country with a budget of over a trillion dollars can afford universal health care, or at least some system which allows for access to complete health care coverage for all its people regardless of economic status.  The military budget alone was just aproved at some $639 billion dollars, you could lop a few billion off of that to pay for if it if necessary and still end up balancing the budget.

Answer 11

Leaving all political issues aside:

If you factor in the amount of money you're giving away to insurance companies, and also the ridiculous bills you're likely to get after a hospital stay, universal health insurance would come out cheaper.

I think that the first problem for the Americans is to recognize that it's not just the lazy that are uninsured. So many factors play into that. Countless families are working, and yet don't have the money for health insurance. At the end of the day, when it comes to choosing between feeding your kids or giving away your money to some rich insurance company, the choice seems easy. Also, even if you happen to be well enough off that you are insured, there is absolutely no certainty that the company would cover your medical bill. more and more people are finding themselves in that position: having given away monthly payments to an insurance company, and then having them flat out refuse to pay your bill due to ridiculous reasons.

I know a woman in new jersey who gave birth to twins, and is now trying to figure out how to pay back the massive hospital bill without going bankrupt. How is that right?

That would never happen here in Canada.

And I'm sure you've heard countless people spreading horror stories about the health care up here,but I urge you to speak to an actual Canadian and see their point of view. I have asked this question on here and have yet to meet one that would rather switch to the US-system. Now, do you think that we'd be so keen on keeping our health care if we couldn't afford it?

The latest 2 questions I asked, just so you can see what Im talking about:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

and

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 12

Americans can afford universal healthcare but the government does not want to adopt it.

Answer 13

How much money is wasted now in redundant billing systems by all the many different insurance companies, and by hospital and doctor's offices having to hire so many people to fill out forms in compliance with each individual insurance provider? Also, you're paying for universal health care now, it's just in your county tax and your health care bill. If people cannot go to the doctor, they will go to ER when they get sick enough. The cost is more, and that cost is passed on to paying patients and citizens.  What if you developed arthritis, then got fired from your job later? The new provider could exempt itself from covering a pre-existing condition.

Answer 14

Can they NOT afford it???

If one does not have an irrevocable trust to protect one's assets, and have it in place for let's say ...at least 7 years......then one's healthcare providers can slap a lien against those assets....if one does not have healthcare insurance.

I guess you could say they will kiss their ASSets goodbye.....

Hello?!!

Answer 15

yes. But it'll need to be a very large chunk of the population finding government-funded insurance is cheaper than private insurance. Most peope are still believieing in expensive private insurance companies.

Its really simple. A health care plan that all americans can particpate in if they want to. All americans are entitled a government plan, much like the ones they have in Tiawan and Canada. But it would only covers the basics, such as dental exams, dotor visits, some small emergancy things much like the cheapest insurance plans have.

For the more expensive the government should leave to private companies- most americans that benefit from this part of the plan is too unhealthy and will really drive costs up too much. It'll force the country to become more heathly since the "free" insurance (covered by increased taxes) doesn't cover that kind of stuff.