Do you support Universal Healthcare?

Question

The man who designed Canada's health care system has recently apoligized for it's failing system and said he thought they could "ration" healthcare. England has denied a drug to help lung cancer patients because it wasn't cost efficent.

Universal Healthcare will never work.

Answer 1

I would take Canada's health care or England's health care before the American one any day! I am canadian and I'm proud of having universal healthcare. I am never denied at the hospital. I get treated in a timely matter. I can choose my doctor. I can choose the hospital I get treated in. And most importantly, I do not have to worry about losing my house if I get sick.

Answer 2

NO I do not support it.  I agree, it will never work.  

But for who?  

For the patience it won't.

For the Health care system...It will.

Let's put our seat belts on....go for the ride.....it is going to be a bumpy one.   Nothing is going to change, it is only going to get worse.   Don't say that I am negative.....I am only stating the "truth."

I was in Europe visiting my in-laws about 15 years ago.....as we  arrived in town we learned that my father-in-law was in the hospital....he had a stroke.   We immediately went to the hospital.......when I got there....I wept...not because of my father-in-law's condition.......but the hospital condition.

A big hospital in a major city......You had to bring your own toilet paper, you own utensils, Kleenex, water, food.  It was very sad.     I asked why is this.....they said the hospital cannot afford these supplies.....I was shocked.....and thanked God that I did no longer lived there.

I have relatives in Canada......if are willing to pay out of pocket, they will give you a hospital bed if you have to stay in the hospital......otherwise.....you sleep on a stretcher, my cousin was telling me.

It is slowly arriving in the U.S. as well, and unfortunately we have no control over it.

My husband has been in the ER 2 times in 4 days....he has been misdiagnosed 3 times.  No one took the responsibility to find out what he had.....everyone just guessed and sent him home.  He could have died.

The hospitals are cutting back.....they are understaffed and the ones that are there are.....are overworked.

I know very little, because I get too upset to find out more.

Answer 3

Yes I do. But I also know that other things in the government need to be cut first before we as a nation could even think about affording to give universal health care. Why don't we start with the IRS? They cost  the tax payers 300 billion a year just to keep this funded. Let alone the compliance costs the public has to pay just to be able to file your taxes. We need to implement the Fair Tax. With the savings we'd have with the Fair Tax, we could afford health care. Wasteful spending in the government also needs to be taken care of. Pork barrel spending is way out of control. Until congress acts responsibly with our dollars how can we as a nation even think of adding another social program to our plates.

Answer 4

yes.  absolutely.  for what the war in iraq has cost us... we could already have it... and as far as 'so called failed' universal care systems... sometimes it takes a few trys to get the plane to fly...

Answer 5

yes i totally support it.  there are a lot of free clinics that provide great healthcare regardless if it's free.

there are a lot of people these days becoming unemployed and can't afford healthcare.  Universal Healthcare is a big help to them, as to myself.

Answer 6

You mean Tommy Douglas?  He died in 1986.  He hasn't done anything recently.  What with him being dead and all.

In the USA, the rich get access to the best care in the world.  The poor get overcrowded, filthy hospitals with bankrupting bills.  I'll take Canada or England's systems any day.  Did you know that bankruptcy because of health care bills is entire unknown in the industrialized world EXCEPT in the USA?  That doesn't sound like success to me.  And yet our friends with universal healthcare have equal or better life expectancy than we do.  Explain that one.

Answer 7

What I say here is somewhat uneven.  But so what?  

First the answer to this question is Yes, but with one important 'caveat emptor': the meaning of universal -- short of any descriptive dictionary's spin on the meaning -- implies that whatever universal is, it crosses all lines; what is true for A, B, and C is true for X, which in turn is true for Y and Z -- universal: to many, this smacks of socialism, and this is why that in the USA Univeral Healthcare is balked at or ever shouted down by profiteers and their lobbyists and venturists.  

For all the money that has been spent upon educating those in the business and medical industries, who have been educated to believe they are due to receive the great salaries but then are prevented from doing so, insinuates they were at least mistaken at the outset of their respective edcations, or worse, gullible fools but with extremely large senses of entitlement.  In other words, in the USA, to institute a universal health care system frightens the greed-smitten, molly-coddled ones that their is a forthcoming bounty, presumed by their educations, and that assumes what is theirs to have and expect will exist no more.  All their efforts will have been wasted, and all that was theirs will be rationed out as to be given to others -- socialism.

There comes now Power to put a crimp in any willingness to facilitate a universal healthcare "system."  But there exists no truths in regard to Power where implemented for its own sake.  Why universal healthcare is not implemented in the USA is just one more testament to the downsides of allowing health to be carried based on panderers and adherents of wholesale profit.    

Where healthcare is regarded as business over service, in a country founded on profit such as in the United States, then a god-complex takes hold in the proponents of the business model, which theirs behooves to do what it can to ensure that the profit model is made a truth, the detractors of which model -- and typically the ones with little if any power at all (and not occasionally lacking bravery) -- are labeled socialists or worse, communists.  

That is, a common pattern found in that of detractors of for-profit healthcare is a lack of leadership and brass to take on the powerful, lack of certainty and follow-through.  They do tend to shrink before the onslaughts of efforts and labels ascribed to them and instead render reams of rhetoric instead, thereby are pasted with names such as Liberal, Naive, Impractical, Socialist, and a gamut of other diecasted turns of speech and intentions --  thought as "bleeding hearts" with their hands out for some relief and looking for some 'deus ex machina' to come and save them.  

But this is the whole game plan in the powerful to do just that -- to ridicule, to typecast and dismiss with extreme prejudice, and then provision the varied amen-corners in Congress and the Boardrooms of Industry with large bank rolls to destroy any detractors that would dare devise to destroy 'them'.

Many now see, of course, the powerful have now to step down and get out of the way, for increasingly these same ones, the heretorfore "haves" are fast becoming the "have-nots" themselves.  The very models that supported this arrogance is crumbling; the executives and captains of the models are finding theirs to be trajectories towards prison sentences instead cozy lives enjoyed in the chalets at Monaco and the French Riviera beaches.  All the assumptions accorded them heretofore by the brown-nose circuit, the ivy-league and the high-brow institutes and trends intelligentsias are now falling apart.

True, universal healthcare will never work if the intrinsic model used is in itself as brought forth cannot work.  The word 'never' is a powerful thing to embrace and often self-fulfilling of anything attached to it.

If based on a governmental model, true -- healthcare will not work: especially is this so of U.S. federal government staffs, which, for example, tend to lack incentive, initiative, creativity and motivation; their mechanisms are leviathans, extremely cumbersome and bureaucratic.  They tend to be without a sense for project management, or do not know how to take the next steps without being directed to; they have little sense of entrepreneurship, which independent sense would sorely be needed amid such a broken healthcare system in dire need of renovation if not sure razing.

If based on a for-profit model -- we see precisely so that this does not work.  For here is a health care industry model and system that has been well-honed, lubricated and historically awash with dollars, well organized -- such as the health maintenance organization models of doing business, the pharmaceutical and biotech corporations as motivated by investment banking and venture capitalists; and there is the logistics companies, who as well enjoy the lion's share of federal government contracts -- all these have proved theirs to share too great an emphasis and a trajectory with sheer profit motivation.  

We might look at the non-profit model, however, which is not by any stretch socialist as much as self-perpetuating, and which tends to work with communities proximal to the needs of the workers themselves in order to do business, as well are observant of the needs of the demographics they serve, and so there is a re-cycling of incentives.  Herewith would appear to be a good commencement wherein trials and experiments for devising a workable healthcare system could be implemented because theirs tends to be the hybrid of all others, for so much do they interchange with all business and social communities to garner donations and general support: there is somewhat Humility in their ways of doing business.  

But razing many of the habits and laws of doing business in the USA have to be first implemented by federal and state legislatures, which will neutralize and suspend -- but not destroy -- what is a centuries-old model.  This will be difficult but can be done.  A universal healthcare system will have to share components of all the models if a working model is to succeed.

Answer 8

absolutely  NO.

Answer 9

nope i dont support it just more tax dollars