Free universal health care?

Question

Are you willing to pay higher taxes if it means free universal health care?

Why or why not?

Answer 1

Health care should be every one in the worlds GOD given right. It should be a civil right. All people should be entitled to healthcare. It should be free to all. And doctors should be payed like government employees.

And NO tax increase should be necessary, why not just do some budget cuts in certain areas that already exsist, like the military budget, NOT SOLDIER PAY! But research and development, we are so far ahead of ever other nation in that aspect that we could afford to spend a little less on research of bigger and badder weapons. EVERYONE should have the right to a better life through health care, if they want it! But also they need to look at what is causing all the illnesses and try putting a stop to it, so the American public wouldnt need so much healthcare to begin with. We are only trying to fix certain parts of the problem instead of fixing the entire problem. You cant take bits and peices of our health issues and think your going to fix it, you have to look at the problem as a whole and then make decisions on how to go about fixing the problem.

Answer 2

No. Primary reason is actually because UHC is ALWAYS rationed--some folks are told they're not worth treating

AND it's always BANKRUPT.

Superior system to anything else on the table:

There is one:

http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.htm...

Nathan has a way to reform the system--logically:

enforce CONTRACT law--right now too many legit claims are denied by companies with impunity because paying what they OWE would be "expensive"--see http://www.thenationalcoalition.org/DrPe... for one person who came clean on just that subject

enforce ANTITRUST law--in about half the 300 major markets there is one large insurer who CONTROLS the market and basically sets prices including what we taxpayers fork over for Medicaid, etc.

Nathan would require PRICE TRANSPARENCY which no honest man need fear or should object to. All those prices HIDDEN from the patient in the computer--let us see them NOW. We should shop around, especially the uninsured. The only game you can play where you get to charge whatever you FEEL like AFTER THE FACT instead of providing honest info up front. There's a MAJOR cause of bankruptcies right there. More than half the bankruptcies are over medical bills AND 75% of those folks HAVE insurance.

Nathan would also like to offer up a plan that stops the hemorraghing of taxpayer money and FIX the broken systems of Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP and END the problem of the uninsured and more importantly the uninsurABLE (folks who can't get insurance at ANY price). It's a VOLUNTARY, NO fines, NO employer mandates, NO new taxes on people.

It's catastrophic care PLUS. The plus is that EVERYONE on the plan gets:

a physical with follow up each year for a co-pay. They can have discounted prescription meds. They can have one NEEDED ER visit (ending ER abuse is important) per year with co-pay. Better than the other plans out there by far.

It's AFFORDABLE. How? Means-tested with a sliding fee scale--no way you can't afford it. The co-pays are based on what you can afford. The CATASTROPHIC LEVEL is also set by that. The working poor may only be able to shell out $2K in a year on med expenses--THEN the insurance would kick in. Someone making good money might have to shell out $10K before it kicked in. It's fair because it's going to save the well-off anyway because now they get robbed with every paycheck for BS like Medicaid which leaves lots of folks with NO coverage options and sends them into bankruptcy which COSTS US ALL.

Also by catching things early, which WOULD happen with a physical each year, we'll cut costs.

By making people pay their own way UNLESS and UNTIL they hit a catastrophic level of med expense, the nonsense of running to the doc for the sniffles or the ER for a stubbed toe ENDS because they have to pay for that themselves. This happens now with people who either have overly generous insurance plans or with illegals who use the ER as a doctor's office and because of spineless administrators, the abuse continues. Spineless administrators because federal law requires LIFE THREATENING conditions to be treated and stabilized without regard to payment. It does NOT, NOT, NOT say that any jerk who shows up at the ER and says "my toe hurts" gets seen at an ER. It is misapplied that way all the time, but that is the FAULT of spineless fools. Once the nonsense stops--or the administrator has to pay for that so it WILL stop--we'll see a reduction in who is going to the ER.

Then and this is KEY: Nathan says we need to greatly increase the number of doctors, nurses, and other allied health care professionals in the US. Right now we IDIOTICALLY turn away THOUSANDS of well-qualified students for NO good reason at all--then we rely on 25% of our RESIDENCIES to be filled by grads of foreign med schools--STEALING students from poor countries who provided those people with a free to them ed in many cases. They now get NOTHING for that expense they can ill afford.

Because of this we DENY a legit ed to qualified students in the US as well by relying on the fact that we will always have thousands of foreign med students who want to live HERE instead of their home country.

Just stupid as well as immoral.

Nathan's plan if implemented as she describes it would likely address more than 90% of ALL the problems with health care in the US and drop prices substantially. And ALL legit docs and facilities are automatically ON the plan so patients can see the doc or go to the facility of their choice. Funding IS explained.

It's doable, but there is no graft or patronage, no FORCE against the public, so no one seems interested. We'll see a rise in medical bankruptcies, though it's harder since 2006's new law to declare bankruptcy. Of those who do, half are over med expenses and 75% of them HAVE insurance, so having "insurance" is NOT the answer when it's NOT done right. Nathan does it right.

There has to be a reason why people ignore the best plan and want to bring a repeatedly FAILED system here--apparently "magical words" are more important than solid ideas--or maybe it's that Nathan faces facts--there is a lot of corruption in the system. Now we've got overly powerful insurers AND some patients who are irresponsible and either use the ER as a personal doctor or refuse to pay bills or go for NOTHING because THEY have a good plan with a low office co-pay. Nathan takes care of all of that BS with her plan.

Anyone who knows anything about economics (that writes off Congress and the majority of the press and public apparently) understands that we NEED more doctors and other health care professionals as well. When people who don't know the essentials or understand logic, econ, etc. are making policy it's no wonder we're in a world of hurt.

Answer 3

Yes



1.  Health Insurance companies are absolutely horribly corrupt.  They are a business- looking at the bottom line.  My friend has cancer- there is no way in h**l any insurance company would cover him(at least until he is cancer free for at least 10 years- by then wtf is the point?)

2.  Universal health care could act as a subsidy to business, at no cost thereto. (Indeed, the Big Three of U.S. car manufacturers cite health-care provision as a reason for their ongoing financial travails. The cost of health insurance to U.S. car manufacturers adds between USD 900 and USD 1,400 to each car made in the U.S.A.)[

3. America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country but has worse ratings on such criteria as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, and wait times, according to the Commonwealth Fund

4.  Estimates range from 25% - 50% of total health care costs go to various middlemen and Administration costs in this system. This blows.

5.  USA is the only industrialized nation in the WORLD  that does not have universal health care. THE ONLY ONE.  That's embarrasing.

6.  Since the Gov't would be paying the cost, regulation would surely crack down on Pharmacuticals- their overblown prices and terrible regulation.

7.  Universal healthcare does not replace ALL private medicine.  You can still pay for your own health care on your own terms if you so choose.

Answer 4

No, I am not willing to pay higher taxes for anything!!!

The concept of taxing being the base of a People's economy has, is, and ever shall be ineffective and inefficient...actually, historically ridiculous.

If you are talking about health care by means of modern medicine and it's misguided theories & therapies, along with it's power partners into chemical pharmacology, and concepts based in fear of death, the longevity of life over-riding the quality of it, and treating symptoms of parts rather than curing the whole organism...you can keep it!!!  I wouldn't support it even if "free".  They are great for emergency services, cosmetic and last ditch effort surgery, and for that alone are they of use to the general public.

Health care is a personal responsibility, and just like any other  creature on this planet, is provided for it's well-being through nature and it's many means.  I would whole-heartedly support the educational needs toward greater knowing & use of that fact.

For the time being, if we were also preparing to restore our food, water, and air sources back to healthful states, support socialized medical services, which would have to include all methods by personal choice...a yearly charge per person would cover whatever one might need to regain/maintain a more healthful beingness during that process.

Health care should not be "free", mainly based in human nature as it is today...when we acquire anything "free", we tend to negate it as something of value...it would only support people's mind-set of not needing to be personally responsible for the welfare of their body vehicles, plus those who provide those services must have some  way to be paid for their knowledge and time.  I can see using the yearly fee of the public, while having a more logical economic base, like one that creates profits, compensating for that income need.

Good thought, though...we're just not in a mass situation at this time to fully appreciate such a concept.

Good Journey!!!

Answer 5

Before any viable, affordable form of government initiated healthcare plan is implemented, they must first investigate the reason why healthcare costs are so high to begin with. How can a healthcare provider charge a patient $6 for one pill, when you can buy the same thing over-the-counter for $6 for 100 pills? How can a healthcare provider charge a patient for services it never provided. Come on $10 for a box of facial tissue, with only 20 tissues inside. At least $1,000 per day for a semi-private room, and they chop up the day in such a way, that logically no one gets out of there without being charged for more than one day.

They have money to blow, on constant building modifications. And those modifications do not automatically translate into better, more efficient care. I'd rather it be more affordable, than have the latest waiting room furnishings.

Answer 6

Um, if your paying higher taxes, it isn't free.

Answer 7

no, we need to pay for it ourselves, and not using government's wasteful ways involved.

Answer 8

There's no such thing as free universal health care.  The government can make you pay in such a way that's not so obvious (taxes) so perhaps it'll make you feel better, but you'd still be paying for it.

Answer 9

Not sure why so many of you think our system is the best.  We have a terrible health care system- our doctors are pill jockeys.  I've experienced Canada's system and it's not awful.

So yes to "free" universal health care, because to the people who truly need it and can't afford it, who by the way, will pay less in taxes for it, will be covered.  I'm not selfish enough to say I'd rather deny people health care than pay taxes.

Answer 10

Have you ever gone to the post office or the tag office and had to deal with an incompetent or rude employee?  Is that the type of organization you want administering your health care?

fs

Answer 11

No. Here's why.  Health Care is not a right, it's actually a publically traded commodity (in concept).  Simply put (at the expense of being overly longwinded on this subject), Universal Free Health Care to every individual would bastardize the health care industry (note the word industry a capitalist term), remove the incentives for doctors and nurses who work long, grueling hours (such as financial benefits) etc.  Universal Free Health Care is such a bad idea on so many levels, it would be impossible for me to explain them in detail on this board.  Just remember that when you go to the doctors office you are trading a service with him (i.e. money for his services, no different than trading an auto mechanic to fix your car).  Universal Free Health Care would be another usurpation of the fundamental principles on which our laissez-faire capitalist system was built, and a move further to the corner of the statist, anti-capitalist system known as Marxism.

Answer 12

Excuse me for asking, but how can it be free health care if I have to pay for it through higher taxes? And why should my higher tax dollars go for paying for health care for illegals anyway? You don't seriously believe that the illegals will be turned away? And have you any idea what so ever on how much more in tax dollars its going to cost you for "free health care"? Also, are you willing to risk your health to people who are not doctors or nurses to decide whether or not you need treatment for a special need that might come upon you? They might put you on a waiting list that is not 2 weeks long, but might be closer to 1 year of more.

Free health care is not free.

Answer 13

I don't think we need "free" health care.  We need AFFORDABLE health care.  People who are most impoverished already get various government sponsored health coverage.  It would be nice to have an affordable option for small business, freelance/contract workers, etc.

Answer 14

No one is touting free universal health care. I'd be happy to pay higher taxes, but I'd also pay an affordable premium and a small co-pay.

Answer 15

How high are the taxes, and what will the health care cover?  What will be the waiting period to be seen?  Will coverage vary by location, or will it be a set rate across the country?  If it varies, will tax rates vary as well to account for that?  Or, if it's a set rate, will it be set at the cost for the cheapest place in the country, the most expensive place, or something in between?

Just a few basic questions that need to be answered...

Answer 16

"Universal health care" brought to you by the same government that:

has never soved any domestic problem but prefers to create huge bureaucracies to waste money and buy votes.

has never completed anything on time or on budget.

took our education system from the best in the world to a laughing stock.

can't even balance its own budget.

can't deliver a letter across town in less than 3 days.

If that's who you want to trust your health care to, go for it - in another country.  There is nothing in our Constitution that allows the federal government to interfere in MY health care or force me to pay for yours.