Can Anyone Provide Me With a Reasonable Argument Against Universal Health Care for ALL Americans?

Universal Health Care provides coverage for every citizen.


Doctors are guaranteed payment.


Doctors can receive merit pay if they get their patients to lose weight, quit smoking, lower their cholesterol, etc.


There would be no HMOs to DENY LIFESAVING procedures.


There would be no HMOs to DENY Coverage to those with preexisting medical conditions.


There would be no more co-pays for doctors visits or prescription drugs.


We could replace Medicaid and Medicare which cost over $300 Billion per year. Combine that with the $92 Billion we can save by ending Corporate Welfare and we could provide every American with Health Care and Dental Care.


If you have money and want to opt out and buy your own insurance, you can do that too!


There are currently 47 million Americans without Health insurance.


The United States spends more on Health Care than countries that have Universal Health Care and those countries cover EVERY citizen.





Where's the down-side to Universal Healthcare?

Can Anyone Provide Me With a Reasonable Argument Against Universal Health Care for ALL Americans?
There is NO down side to universal healthcare, except for those reaping $millions from the current system.





Any argument against universal healthcare overlooks the fact there are elected officials that can be held accountable for a system not working well.
Reply:who pays for it??????????????????????????????????????...
Reply:And best yet... The Other-Guy picks up the tab!!





Yeeech!
Reply:The ONLY down side I can see is that it would a government bureaucracy.
Reply:Ask someone in Europe.





-Long waiting lines for needed medical treatment. Often too long and the person dies before they can get the operation.





-The government can't run ANYTHING efficiently; what makes one believe they can run a national healthcare program?





-Because the government can't run anything efficiently our taxes would probably sky-rocket.





-There are too many better ways to "fix" this problem.





-http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=...





Do you REALLY believe all the "there would be no's" in your question? I sure don't.
Reply:Simple.....IT DOESN'T WORK





Want to wait 6 weeks for a hip replacement


There are more HORROR stories from friends of mine in countries that have it than good....THey are now US citizens and against it....doewsnt that say somethiung.....





PLUS if socialist Hillery is for it ...IT CANT BE GOOD
Reply:if your not gonna use it the taxes you will have to pay would be unfair.





and it would clog the hospital rooms
Reply:the insurance companies won't make enough money.
Reply:Stewie


there is not branch of government working very well, so hold those accountable.





Check with people in Canada, the UK and others and see how long the wait is for lifesaving procedures. 3 months for an MRI in Canada...8 days max in the US. How long for a neurosurgeon in Canada..5 months...US wait 5 days.





Brain tumors grow while the patient waits and waits and waits. Cut the administrative costs from our system that was imposed on providers in the mid-90's with a new feature each year that adds to the cost and everyone could afford health care.





Cradle to grave care by "the government" is not an entitlement.
Reply:Dear, dear, dear. ItsyourW, early this year I had to take my youngest to an ER -- he had a full thickness lac. about 5 cm in length in his forehead. On just about every wall was posted a plaque announcing that regardless of inability to pay or lack of insurance, the law requires the ER to treat and then find adequate follow-up care for everyone who walks through their door. We waited three hours while they sorted through and treated all of the indigent for head colds and what have you. If that's not "Free" healthcare, then I don't know what is. It took my threatening to suture my son myself to get them to stop with all of the garbage GOMERs (Get Out of My ER). Had I not made the credible threat, we'd have waited at least two more hours. It's the law and it's abusive. Your argument:


We already have a "Universal Education System" in place. The law requires all to attend. Even if you do well and actually graduate, what kind of employment can one reasonably expect? Flipping burgers at a fast "food" joint? And that will allow you to start and raise a family and offers all of the "BENEFITS" you seek to make mandatory?


Do you REALLY want to know how well your socialist programs work -- across the board? Money and education are the root of all success and failure. Right? So, why do inner city schools do so poorly while rural schools and those servicing up-scale neighborhoods do so much better? Our tax dollars are not kept locally. They are taken from us and "spread around" to cover those poor performance schools. And STILL even with all of that money funneled in, they still are little more than a cesspool that will graduate at best 1 in 5. Mayber we should stop blaming the teachers and begin instead to look at poor parenting skills. I have seen it up close and personal.


Ours is a capitalist economy. If you want those benefits, health and dental, you should strive to get a better education and work for it. God knows I had to. And, by the way, I don't have dental coverage, nor do I want it. It would be a huge waste of money. I average one carie (cavaty) every ten years. It costs me all of $85 to get one filled.


Why are people so opposed to working these days? Everyone feels so entitled. It's pathetic!
Reply:Universal Health Care for ALL Americans? NOT a good idea. For one thing it would ensure that more Americans survive illness, meaning more of the pariahs in the world. The more Americans alive means more war in the world, more people shot in schools, more drug addicts, more sexual disease, more abortions. We need one thing above all else. That is LESS Americans in the world. Universal Health Care would go against that. This is a Reasonable Argument.
Reply:There is a huge down-side to Universal Health Care.





First of all, America is unlike any country on earth. Even if something miraculously works in a place like Norway in no way means it could ever operate well or efficiently in the U.S. For example, Americans statistically go to the doctor much, much more often than any other people on earth. An even bigger difference is that Americans take far, far more medication than any other people. When I say a lot more, I mean A LOT MORE.





America is the fattest nation on earth. Pretty soon, people will be demanding expensive cures for their "obesity disease". Here where I live in the Czech Republic, people have the right to a couple weeks in the mountains each year if they have asthma, or a couple weeks at a nice wellness spa if they have a bad back. Can you imagine how such a system would be grotesquely abused by entitlement-crazed Americans?





Argentina has had socialized medicine for decades. Consequently, plastic surgery is completely out of control there. A staggering number of women have nose jobs or breast enlargement surgery. It's just part of growing up there. I know what you're thinking: Americans will be too smart to fall for this over-the-top spending. No, they won't. At some point, everything will get included. If someone has a large nose, they will cover it due to psychological (mental health; self-esteem) reasons. The system will just get bigger and more bloated.





Next, the only thing Universal Health Care will accomplish is that the good, in-demand doctors will simply continue their private practice and take patients like normal, while those second, third, and fourth-rate doctors who comprise much of the HMO's right now (yes, those doctors who have a difficult time with English.... those doctors), will be the ones treating unlucky saps like you and me. Hillary and her ilk will continue to see private practitioners.





You mention the possibility of simply "opting out" of the Socialist Medicine plan. Nice idea, but did you stop to consider that everyones' taxes will be raised to finance this monstrously large health care boondoggle? That means that already financially strapped families will have even less discretionary income. They will esentially be paying TWICE for health care.





Why should 85% of Americans have to suffer for what is arguably the irresponsibility of 15% of Americans who don't have coverage? Let's face facts: a lot of people who claim they "can't afford" health care have satellite tv, spend $100 on gym shoes for their kids, eat out at restaurants, buy a lot of unnecessary junk for their houses, have DSL and a computer at home, etc. These are properly called luxuries. These items should only be purchased if you have the basics of life taken care of.





Most of the people who don't have health insurance can afford it; they simply choose not to have it.





Lastly, the reason Universal Health Care would be a disaster is that both political parties will have ingrained reasons to either see it succeed modestly, or fail miserably. The Liberals will want it to succeed modestly so they can grub for votes, but still demand ever-increasing tax dollars to shore up the "under-funded" medical system. Conservatives will want the system to fail so that they aren't faced with the nightmare of socialized medicine, and the accompanying low quality of service.





You make some excellent point, about people not getting denied for pre-existing conditions. However, we can restructure the existing system to be more equitable. These companies are making obscene profits. Profits are fine, but it's like a license to steal. We need some middle ground which provides good service and reasonable costs.


*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^...


ADDENDUM:





Obviously, you are very resistant to hearing negative answers, so let me relate my very own experience.





Last year, I moved from Chicago to the Czech Republic. Here they have Universal Health Care. Just like most places, you wait.... interminably. You are told to come at a certain time, which sounds like an appointment, but it is really just a cruel joke. You have to wait like a dumb schmuck along with thirty other unlucky souls.





My best Czech friend needs a knee operation. Initially, he was going to use the regular system here, but they keep delaying his surgery, so he is going to pay for it himself. This is typical. This is not the exception. If you have enough money, you often say, "To hell with this Socialist crap. I'm going to get a better doctor and have the surgery when I want it."





In countries with Universal Health Care, health care is RATIONED. Let me repeat that:


R-A-T-I-O-N-E-D. They won't come out and tell you that, but whether you are in England or Sweden, medical care is doled out according to what they can spare. If you need some expensive test, they will make you wait months for it, and often never approve it.





Now, I know what you're thinking: WE'RE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We're special. We're better and smarter. We won't make the same mistakes. No, you will. Getting the government involved in medical care will create abuses and corruption you can't even dream of.





Think about it for a moment. The Federal Government builds a road, and what happens? It costs 3-5 times the original estimate.





You need a drivers license. You wait in interminable lines by ill-mannered "public servants" and suffer every sort of indignity while only one out of every three stations is actually manned. It's always poorly administered.





The government makes a mess out of everything it touches. Don't think they'll do any better with health care.
Reply:No because there are none. All arguments are fear mongering or downright social Darwinist ideas. Every Industrialized country in the world has Universal healthcare. They're not all socialists and they don't all have lousy health care, most have comparable or better standards as the US
Reply:There is no argument against it. Our economy is staggering in part because outside companies won't build factories with high paying jobs in America, because they don't want to take on the cost of healthcare. Look at the Toyota Plant they recently decided to put in Canada instead of America. HMOs have destroyed the health insurance industry through self-centered anti-American monopolism, so we can't afford to do it the way we always have.


Ignorance is doing the same old things when the situations have changed.
Reply:You do understand that in socialized medicine programs, they will determine whether or not you get an operation or not. If you above a certain age, you won't get a government covered knee replacement, etc. They tend to limit the care to the extremely premature. The insurance still can possibly refuse to cover certain procedures/medications. For instance, it is against the law for the federal government to pay for benzodiazepines and some other medications. You would still have a copay for your medications. All the socialized medicine programs do have that.


In the U.S, health care providers are starting to revolt from medicare/medicaid. The number of people accepting those plans is dropping. Everyone is getting tired to dealing with the government and all its rules. We are tired of waiting 3-4 months to be paid.
Reply:1. I don't believe the Constitution gives the government power to do this nor do I think we need another big bureaucracy





2. We are having trouble paying for the safety nets that we ALREADY have like Social Security so I fail to see how we will pay for this one.


3. With the dollar going down , gas going up, the stock market shaky, trillions in national debt in addition to a trillion dollar trade deficit I don't think it is wise to begin a new program that would by definition have to cover 300 million people right away and many more in the future because of population growth


4. WE HAVE SAFETY NETS for people who can not afford insurance. They are called Medicaid and Medicare so I don't even see the point. Emergency rooms already can not turn anybody away and the poor are covered by these programs. This means that we would not be giving new coverage to the poor or those in dire need but expanding coverage to people who can already afford it if they choose to pay for health care instead of a second or third gas guzzling car or a nice European vacation.





5. By nature of it being universal it would also cover the rich not simply those who cannot afford it. that means that working people would be financing health care for the rich as well as for themselves which to me makes no sense.





6. I would support an EXPANSION of existing programs as well as a yearly audit which would have to be made public in order to eliminate waste from these programs end also corruption.
Reply:What you're talking is plan B: Bondage to Law.


You should be talking plan A: Approved unto God





A: No Law = No Dis-ease = No Need for U Health Care


B: Universal Law = Universal Dis-ease = Need for UHC





Albeit your plan B is Universal, but so is Extinction





Plan A is also Universal, but it's about Salvation
Reply:I can't give you an answer-universal health care is a necessity. We are responsible for helping our neighbor aren't we? Amazing to me that so many "christians" are against this.........didn't Jesus say "if someone is cold give them your cloak" or something like that? Why are they against helping others out with something as basic as health care? I wish I knew..............
Reply:I'll make a few points then offer additional info so you can look yourself.





Actually universal health care does not work in any country where it has been tried.





Doctors in those countries are not that thrilled with it--we get a lot of docs here because of that fact.





The costs are uncontrolled, so EACH of them RATION health care.





You are right that the current system is a mess. Too much governmental regulation for one; too much of a death grip on health care by a tiny number of massive health insurers who get all manner of special breaks and don't deliver what they promise in MANY cases. Part of that shows up in the fact that more than half of ALL bankruptcies in the US are over MEDICAL BILLS AND the majority of those folks ARE insured. Just recently predatory lenders decided that the vulnerable working poor, whether insured or not, aren't getting hurt enough so they are working some some hospitals and some doctors to slip them into a "credit card" agreement with interest rates around 15-27% on the huge, overinflated bills that the UNINSURED get because they are billed at 2-3 times the rate of what the INSURED are billed for IDENTICAL procedures. See that story about credit cards at:


http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnfl...





To me the most sensible solution is a FREE MARKET one which, as outlined by this author, will:


allow ALL Americans AFFORDABLE (sliding-fee scale) coverage with a CATASTROPHIC CARE insurance, which is what insurance IS supposed to be all about--preventing bankruptcy. The current ones fail miserably at that.


ALSO within that plan is ONE physical WITH follow-up visit for a small co-pay PER YEAR. This allows for preventive medicine, checking meds, keeping immunizations up-to-date, etc. ALSO one ER visit per year IF NEEDED (how to end ER abuse is discussed in the large chapter on health care).


That is ALL that probably 80% of Americans even NEED. For the Americans who are actually ill, this plan ALSO:


ends the BS donut hole of prescription meds coverage per Medicare--there will be NO ED drugs and no fertility drugs--but if you have cancer and need chemo and pain meds, a heart condition, etc. Things that will KILL you if untreated, you're covered (and ways to help keep those drug costs down are also discussed).





ends "caps" on necessary procedures. This is part of how so many "insured" end up bankrupted. If you need something like a BMT (bone marrow transplant) the "cap" of what the insurance company will pay on that procedure is far lower (tens of thousands or more) than the lowest cost version available anywhere in the US. Decision: go bankrupt or die. THIS is insurance?





limit out-of-pocket expenses (which can ALSO include consideration of the person's income/assets). This could be done state-by-state.





ALL other insurance policies may still be sold. Additional policies may be sold, but with this plan, there is NO tie-in with the employer (he can pay for it if he wants, but no mandates). The taxpayer will NOT pay more because of another HUGE problem in the field which is unaddressed: abuse of the charity designation by hospitals. Current funding mechanisms, along with the now uncollected taxes, plus the premium and co-pays, will fund the program. The details are at:


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





Back to the prior points with more info:





You can look country by country for the problems that they have, but whole premise it is built on is illogical as it interferes with supply and demand and makes people think they're getting something for "free" when no such thing exists.





Canada has lots of problems and besides the long wait times they have as well they are going broke:





The Fraser Institute (Canadian) was hired to determine what was going on in Alberta and said by 2016 that HALF of the province's budget would go to health care if they keep the current system. By 2030, 100% of the budget would be consumed by health care. (“Canada’s health


system dream turns to nightmare,” 11 June 2004, Dr. Glueck).





Let's also realize that enough Canadian doctors find the system so stressful that WE get 500 of them a year from that small country coming to the US. (Bell, “Step into the single-payer rabbit hole,” April 2001, amsa.org). Also a 2003 survey of Canadian doctors found that nearly half were burnt out and 12% had thoughts of suicide (staffweb.uleth.ca).





The government is thinking about delisting some services (not offering them anymore). Thankfully there has been a proliferation of ILLEGAL for-profit health centers through Canada so Canadians can get care without leaving Canada. This is so needed that the president of the Canadian Medical Association headed such an ILLEGAL facility. They're illegal not because these are not qualified doctors, but because if the government offers a service, then the private sector is not supposed to in Canada. ("Individual Freedom vs. Government Control,” 1 August 2007, nationalreview.com).





Great Britain has the oldest national health system started in 1948. “Staff are being laid off, and deficits are at an alltime high (£1.07bn for 2005-2006)” (Hazel Blears, LabourParty Chair and Minister Without Portfolio, labourachievements. blogspot.com/2006/08/23-investment-innhs...


Alex Smallwood of the British Medical Association was quoted in the


Scotsman as saying: “’Rationing is reduction in choice. Rationing has become a necessary evil. We need to formalise rationing to prevent an unregulated, widening, postcodelottery of care. Government no longer has a choice.’” (Moss,


“NHS rationing is ‘necessary evil,’ says doctors,” 26 June 2007).





In France, 80% of the public have supplemental health insurance through their employers according to their web site (ambafrance-us.org). Private medical care in France is providing more than 50% of the surgeries and more than 60% of cancer case treatment. Vision and dental care are not well covered there. “The public system is facing chronic deficits and recent cost containment policies have not proved very successful.” The government is interested in


having more of the tab picked up by private insurance (Buchmueller %26amp; Couffinhall, “Private Health Insurance in France,” 2004, oecd.org).





Yes there are problems in Japan, the Netherlands, and Sweden as well for sure. Universal health care does NOT work. Governments overpromise, jack up taxes, ration medicine, and more.