I support single-payer healthcare because it's clear from the experience of other countries that governments are able to provide a quality level of care to all their residents more efficiently and more simply than systems of competing private insurance companies. Clearly, the government cannot do everything well. But education, health care, and the social safety net are among the things that should be handled by the public sector in a modern civilized society.
Americans should have the God-given rights of life, liberty, and property- under a government-funded universal health care system Americans are insured to have that right. It is the governments obligation to protect its citizens and regulation is a positive thing because if it didn't exsist, private systems could have to much power over the prices of medications and services. Choosing the government funded health care system means choosing equal rights to life, which benefits the greater good in America.
I think it is best, because no citizen should be without healthcare. It is a human right. I think the costs of medical care would be reduced with a universal health system. That way drug companies would not have their costly ads on television advertiseing and the government could purchase meds in bulk to reduce costs.They could negotiate the best prices. Regulaations are not a bad thing.
Europe as a whole has better healthcare than the US for mainly one reason, they have universal healthcare.
Because it its government funded, it is affordable by everyone, and no one is excluded. They is no such thing as qualifications for healthcare. Everyone should be able to have good healthcare, not just the well off.
Universal Health Care will create jobs, bring down medical expenses, cover the uninsured, and help the United States compete globally. Sixty percent of bankruptcies nationwide are caused by health care problems. Over 50 percent of personal bankruptcies are caused by health care costs. Countries like England and Germany, which have Universal Health care systems, are spending less on medical care than the US, which has the highest per capita health expenditures of any country in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
To the person who said it violates human nature...what about human rights?? We will all be stricken with some sort of illnes in our life & to have the burden of health care costs is just inhumane. I believe that everyone should have access to healthcare. And I live in a country where we are fortunate to have single-user heath care. I couldn't imagine having to pay for some immediate emergency..how would you be able to focus on getting well if you have no peace of mind on the financial burden. As far as data the US comes in last econmically, they spent 17% GDP where in Canada we spent 10% we were ranked 30 out of 191 in terms of overall health system performance (WHO 2000) The US has so much Administration costs that is why your health care is so expensive. Cut all the insurance companies out, and you cut out all your overhead expenses. You have a procedure done..when it goes to billing..the coder has to look @ 30 different codes (for each insurance) because 1 procedure has different criteria for each insurance..instead of 1 code used by ALL the insurance companies.
There are too many people in this country getting sick and dying because they cannot afford to get the help that they need. Take my family for example we are stuck in the middle we can't afford insurance ourselves but make too much for medicare. Even if the taxes go up wouldn't we be paying less than we would for insurance for our whole family?
Yes, I think single-payer government-funded universal health care is an excellent idea. I do not think we can keep our current policies and spending in place and hope to achieve it though. In order to afford it, we actually need to lower taxes on job providers; if we don't, they simply move their jobs overseas, eliminating potential taxpayers and creating more people in need of government assistance - for which our fewer taxpayers will have to pay. Other spending practices need to be eliminated, and it's my opinion that the democratic party is extremely guilty of making this health system impossible to obtain, yet claiming they want to instate it.
Single-payer, free health care, is provided by virtually all industrialized Western societies, excluding the United States. Our money-hungry health care industry will not allow our government to switch to single-payer, in order to save their profits. But, it is an established fact that other nations with free health care have more healthy citizens
Studies of government health care in other nations show it can be cost-effective to provide universal health care. Citizens in these nations do not go bankrupt due to health care costs, are healthier on average, and are not denied necessary medical services. The most successful of these programs offers citizens to choose which doctor to visit, limit waiting times to see a specialist, and impose limits on health care costs.
Single-payer health care, where patients can choose from multiple health care providers, and a single payer (the government) pays the providers, has two important advantages over a system based on multiple private insurance companies. First, single-payer systems are more efficient. For every dollar paid to private insurers, only about 80 cents goes to the health care provider. For Medicare, a single-payer system, over 90 cents of every dollar goes to the provider. Second, a single-payer system is the fairer system, because there is no incentive to deny coverage to people, or to deny payment of legitimate claims.
A good way to judge the effectiveness of single-payer health care is to simply compare current systems with those in countries using single-payer health care. Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia are some examples of countries with this policy. Compared to fully privatized health care, as implemented in the United States, they spend much less per capita on health care, and have better health outcomes.
Universal health care is a God-given right, and not something that should even be up for debate. A government's main function is to take care of its citizens and make sure that their civil rights are upheld. Health care is a civil right. Why should someone be more entitled to access to a doctor or hospital because they have more money? This is a sanctity of life issue: How much does a society value all of its people, not just those who can afford the cost of health care?
Single-payer systems have worked for other countries, so there is no reason it shouldn't be able to work for us. Everyone deserves to have access to health care, whether they can afford it or not. People shouldn't have to worry about losing their insurance when they lose their jobs too. It's a way to relieve a lot of stress on everyone and provide a common good service for our country.
Many other countries in the world rely on single-payer systems. These systems are half the cost when all fees are considered. They also provide statistically better care and shorter wait times, generally speaking, although Canada has shown higher wait times than the US. We are still ranked dead last in the overall health care that we supply our citizens with.
If single payer systems work for other countries than why is it such a crime for Americans. People from other countries who have duel citizanship will go to their home countries because they do not trust the American healthcare system... That is a fact.
Simply put, everyone deserves to have access to healthcare. Universal health care ensures that. So, I'm for it. I'm not so sure about forcing people to partake in Universal health care. This might need to remain a matter of choice. But, yes, it is a good idea to make sure that everyone has access to health care. No one life is more valuable than the next.
Government funded health care isn't free, it's paid for through taxes. But this is one thing that I believe is worth paying taxes for. People shouldn't have to worry about having no insurance if they lose their jobs, which has happened to a lot of people recently. It's not right that people with previous health problems or chronic conditions aren't able to get insurance, or that self-employed people can't afford insurance. In European countries and Canada where they have government-funded insurance, it works well.
Single payer free universal health care is a good idea because it will have the greatest impact on the larger possible amount of people in obtaining medical care. While critics maintain that the quality of health care will decline, to an individual in desperate need of medical attention any form of health care is better than none.
A free universal health care program is a great idea as long as private health care is also available. Health care should be a right and not a privilege. By having private health care while providing free universal health care allows the public to choose their coverage. People that can't afford the best coverage should have still have access to free health care for themselves and their family.
Single Payer Health Care levels the playing field for everyone because the costs are the same and everyone will universally be covered. Health Insurance companies have a responsibility to their share holders to produce a profit. This incentive to make a profit could be counter productive in getting someone the medical treatment that they need because the health insurance company could always find a loophole to deny a person coverage.
Single payer health care or other system where all people are covered is needed to keep people from having to deal with fear of poverty while also dealing with illness, never mind keeping healthy. It's time for the greedy to let go of the powerless and find some honest way to make a living. People are dying so that other people can have salt-water swimming pools and other wretched excess. Healthy children make healthy adults, I want to see this happen in my lifetime and single-payer done right is one way this could happen.
Well it's paid through taxes and other countries with a single payer plan are doing just fine with it. Will there be a burden? Well yes of course there will be, with every action there is a consequence to it. Although there are some problems with the plan, the other nations are doing so much better than America based on health and economics. Plus Medicaid and Medicare are already paid with taxes to help those who cannot afford health care, so if America switches to single payer, Medicaid and Medicare funds will both go into the single payer plan. Thinking it through and through what's the point about complaining about taxes when you are already paying some to Medicaid and Medicare? Also I think that the people are better off having good health. This could also stop some of the major crimes out there that have to do with mental people.
"Here are some of the more prominent single-payer myths:
Myth No. 1: Everyone has access to health care a single-payer system.
Myth No. 2: Claims of rationing are exaggerated.
Myth No. 3: A single-payer system would save money on administrative costs.
Myth No. 4: Single-payer will provide fair and quality care for everyone.
Myth No. 5: Single-payer leaves medical decisions to patients & doctors.
Myth No. 6: Single-payer systems achieve better health outcomes.
Myth No. 7: The U.S. Systems also engages in rationing.
Myth No. 8: A single-payer system will not hamper medical research.
Myth No. 9: Single-payer will save money as patients seek care earlier.
Myth No. 10: The free market in health care has failed in the U.S."
The term "government funded" is deceiving. The government itself, has no funds, other than the funds that we the people, provide. Therefore, it follows that this type of health care would be costly to us (the citizens) and not to the government, which is why they seem to be so focused on this idea. If they pass this, they lose nothing. We the people, are the ones who will be footing the bills. Other areas of the world already have universal health care, and if you do the research, you'll discover that it hasn't worked for them. It will not work for us either. Not only is it expensive, but it takes away the constitutional freedom to choose how you want to take care of yourself. This should not be the business of the government. If the government wants to help, one thing they can do is cap the insurance premiums that doctors have to pay. That would take down health care to a point where many more people could afford it.
Canada, the UK, and Ireland all have UHC and half of each pay check is taken out due to taxes. It isn't going to make it cheaper, it is going to be the same price, just paying in a different form. The government just wants to get involved into our personal life.
One of the major tenets of Socialism is that it is ok for people to be poor as long as EVERYONE is poor. Jealousy about what someone else has accomplished is no basis to base a healthcare system on. Even if some are able to afford better healthcare, that sort of system lifts everyone up compared to systems where everyone has poor quality healthcare.
Why should I and other working people pay for the healthcare of those who do not but could. I understand there are some like the elderly and the disabled who cannot pay, but there are too many people living on the dole/unemployment who could but won't work to support themselves and their families. Unfortunately there are too many who take advantage of the current system, thus driving up the costs for everyone who can and do pay. For example that would be people unlawfully entering into the United States to have their children born here or even those who come in using a visa for that purpose. The United States has a lot to offer unfortunately there are too many taking advantage of they way in which the system is currently operates. The last time I checked there are many states that have laws that require hospitals and clinics to provide emergency care. It is unlawful for anyone to be turned away from a medical facility for their inability to pay. They may only receive life saving measures of medical attention that is required to mitigate a potentially serious issue but very few are turned away. So we already have health care that covers everyone in one way or another. The government can't manage the funds they currently collect in the form of taxes and we're going to ask them to run another large scale operation as a universal health care system. I want some of what your smoking.
Healthcare should be related to every other type of business in this explanation. For example, let's say McDonalds is the only place that provides fast food, no other competition. If you want to eat out you have to go to McDonalds because it is the only government approved and licensed fast-food place. No other place is allowed to provide that service or even be in business. How good does the food quality have to be when you have no competition? How about the service? Do they really have to be fast or efficient or even effective at getting you what you want, there is no other place to go? Do they need to care about your satisfaction or even how much it costs you (after all someone has to pay for it, its not really free)? Why is it so hard to understand how bad healthcare will be when government gets involved. Everything government gets involved in by comparison to the private sector is by far less efficient and effective.
Do you really want a vast malicious faceless, nameless, bureaucrat managing your healthcare?
Single payer is nothing more than an illusion put forth by supporters of socialism. In the "single payer" system, hard working individuals end up paying for a commodity consumed by others. Health care is a commodity produced by paid professionals in the industry and consumed by other humans. Anything that has to be produced by one person in order to exist, can never be considered a right by another.
Single payer coverage (government funded and controlled) restricts choice for its citizens. Many countries who currently provide their citizens with government funded and controlled health care have had problems with rationing health care, long waiting periods for services, and higher taxes to pay for the medical bureaucracy. Patients in these countries have little or no choice in the doctors they see, and a second opinion is almost impossible to get. Many end up coming to the U.S. to receive services they can't receive in their own countries. Government run health care also restricts research by private industry, since there is no financial benefit for finding new and better procedures and medicines.
Some people love it but they are not the ones who need life saving treatments and are waiting months for it rather then getting it quickly like we do here in the US which will change if we go to single payer system. Also many instances show that people are denied lifesaving medicines and treatments because they are deemed too expensive by those countries. I don't really want the government telling me if I can or can't live.
Health isn't a right, its a privilege. The pursuit of happiness includes the want of good health. the want of health is a desire, not an enforced law. if someone doesnt have a job that gives benifits, find a new one, or better yet, get two jobs and pay for it themselves. No one has a right to complain about their issues except for veterans or those who have served. They fought for their rights. Im not trying to sa that someones opinion doesnt matter, all Im saying is that nobody else cares about the opinion. And seriously, expecting the government to pay for someone who cant afford to pay for themselves (with the exception of the disabled or elderly) is ignorant and stupid. The government cant even take care of itself.
The healthcare system that has been proposed is giving the government way too much control and will cause many doctors to just quit or move. People need to consider all the facts of the system, good idea or not, it has to be set up in a way that will not burn the citizens of the country.
a) Government healthcare is not "free", or doctors would be working for nothing in return. This money is taken by force from taxpayers. In my country, for example, one who makes the national average pays many times more monthly in taxes JUST FOR this "free" healthcare than it would cost for insurance in a private clinic. It would be even cheaper if the person was uninsured and just paid for visits. Some argue that rich people pay for poorer people's healthcare in their taxes - untrue, the poorer people pay the richer people's taxes in higher prices for the products rich people are selling.
b) It does not "create jobs", because the doctors would just be working privately.
c) It is much lower quality and inefficient because no one owns a government hospital, and so the manager has no real motivation to take care of it and keep it running smoothly. He also doesn't need to worry about budget because the hospital will get subsidized anyways.
There is also no competition at all, so hospitals have no reason to fight over patients by offering better care at lower prices.
d) It takes away choice from the patient by forcing him to go to a public hospital instead of a private one. What if someone doesn't want to be insured at all and prefers to pay per visit?
Ask most people who live in the countries with single payer health care if they are satisfied with it and you will find a resounding no. Ask our hospitals how many people come here from those countries to get the services they cant get in their own system? The data is out there, look it up. Once it is in place you become a statistic in the system. The system becomes overrun with people trying to get their needs met and hospitals that specialize cant make any money because they cant meet their needs with a "level playing field" finacially. Need a heart, are you over 65, move to the back of the line. The 45 year old will use it longer so statistically they are the better investment for the government dollar. List are now formed based on some govenrment experts idea of who is of greater need. Single player does not mean you are getting an even playing field.
By providing "free" universal healthcare to any nation, you invariably violate basic human nature. When a person is given something repeatedly that is marketed as free, they begin to take it for granted. It is just how the prideful, self-serving human nature works. When it comes to healthcare, people will become more lazy in the care of their own health. If something happens to them, their instinctive reaction will be to say "the government will pay for it". This is why other governments who provide universal healthcare have to cut back on services and eliminate coverages based on lifestyle choices. People only put effort into something that they have to work and pay for themselves. In the end, healthcare is a service like any other that should be paid for by the individual. Health insurance, as opposed to healthcare, is the product that a person would buy to offset the risk of a major medical accident or disease in their lifetime. Too many times in the debate of this issue the terms "healthcare" and "health insurance" are used interchangeably and that is wrong. This is used by the government to their advantage because people are paying attention to the semantics of the debate.
Every entitlement program that the government offers costs more money than it should and the taxpayers get caught footing the bill. Many people can afford to pay for their own private health insurance and they should have the right to do this. This is just simply a task that is to huge to be solved in this way.
With the amount of debt the United States currently lies beneath, this option would be terrible. Most Americans are already covered under plans offered by employers, private plans they subscribe to, or medicare/medicaid. The government already runs these last two, and from what I hear they are not very efficient or cost effective.
Government controlled health care is in place in other countries and we should look at what it does in those countries for those people before we decide it is a solution. There would just be problems of another nature, not a solution. The solution should be government regulation of our insurance industry and modifications in the whole health care model that has developed.
Single payer coverage (Government funded and controlled) restricts choice for its citizens. Many countries who currently provide their citizens with government funded and controlled health care have had problems with rationing health care, long waiting periods for services, and higher taxes to pay for the medical bureaucracy. Patients in these countries have little or no choice in the doctors they see, and a second opinion is almost impossible to get. Many end up coming to the U.S. to receive services they can't receive in their own countries. Government run health care also restricts research by private industry, since there is no financial benefit for finding new and better procedures and medicines.