Universal Health Care: pros vs. cons?

Question

Universal Health Care: pros vs. cons?

Answer 1

If we were to support a universal Single Payer Health Care program, it would be much less expensive than the care we now receive. There can still exist a privatized plan for the rich who are increasing in never before experience, so they can have their pampered care, while we would receive full care, preventative consultations, basic needs healthcare..

Under our system, if you do not have insurance you go to the emergency room for routine medical care that could have been administered in a clinic, if there were one.

Roll up all our expenses in health care premiums and we would probably save money.ie., Military retirees receive full insurance from private carriers paid by taxpayers..(Socialized Health care) Police and firefighters, game wardens, customs, FBI, US marshals, secret service, retired politicians, presidents included all receive free (FREE) health care, paid for by taxpayers. Large corporations face ever rising costs in providing health care for its workers, this would be unnecessary with universal health care..

.Benefit...everyone is covered..

Con.....I can 't think of one.

Reasoning, I receive Veterans health care for free..I want everyone to have the same...

Answer 2

Pro: It's universal

Con: Almost certainly economically inefficient

Answer 3

Everyone is covered.  Coverage has to be defined in quality.

Taxes will skyrocket to pay for it.

Doctors will be overloaded.

Rationing may be necessary.  (Descretionary treatment)

That means choices for who and who does not receive treatment.

Medicare is already in trouble, and it's NOT entirely FREE.

I'm retired.  Medicare and my supplement, $3,900.00 per year, increasing yearly.

Even postage stamps are taxed in Canada.

London, UK!  1400 pubs have closed this year.

High tax on beer.  (and smoking banned)

(Less taxes on both and the business)

Both countries have Universal Health care.

Ever heard of the "Law of diminishing returns"?

Governments can tax themselves out of revenue.  

(Out of taxes)

Answer 4

Pros:  you don't have to pay now.  

Cons:  government doesn't really care about you only your vote.  there will be no competition.  taxes will increase or national debt will.  doctors will not want to go in that profession because there is no money in it.  or else they can't get into any other job.  or those that aren't any good will now get paid more and get more business.  there are more cons that pros.  you will have to pay for the guy who came illegally or doesn't pay taxes.

Answer 5

Pros - everyone gets some

Cons - The government has problems delivering mail, do you think they can deliver universal health care, haha.

Answer 6

Pros:

1.  Everyone has coverage.

2.  Depending on the structure of the system, it gives patients and doctors more flexibilty and freedom to do their job... they're not caught up in the red tape of the private system.

3.  The "unit" cost per patient is usually consistently lower in nations with Universal Health Care.

Cons:

1.  Wait times are usually longer (but not like 3 months or anything... I live in Canada.. and at least in my province it's not like that at all).

2.  Doctors get paid less, so expect lots of resistance.

3.  Taxes will go up.

The success of the system depends on structure and funding.  When Americans point out to health care failures, they are doing so in very limited circumstances where structural and funding failures have doomed the system.  For example, I don't think Canada is the golden example to follow becuase in most provinces there IS private health care available, mos tprovinces don't fully fund the system, and on top of that, the structure of the system in most places is very beaurecratic and inefficient.

However, that said, if appropriate changes were made to ensure those failures don't happen... what's the problem with it?  It's not like our health care system is bad by any means.... sometimes I feel like you guys only hear of the horror stories and not the real thing.

PERSONALLY

I would think a mixed health care system would be best.  A mixed system is more or less what my province, Alberta, is moving towards.  Private health clinics are alive and strong, but you're also helping out people who can't help themsleves, by keeping the public system strong.  You're eliminating the strains on the public system, while giving people a choice.

Why is it, in most of Canada and the US, it has to be one way or the other?

Answer 7

Look at the facts.  Despite the USA spending more money on healthcare PER PERSON than any other country in the world, it has one of the western worlds highest death rates for kids aged under five.

Con's - can not think of any

Pro's

- cheaper for the country as a whole (less money wasted going to shareholders)

- lower death rates for kids

- people getting treatment to prevent conditions based on need, not ability to pay

- lower bankruptcy rate (a big reason for going bankrupt is medical bills)