Should the United States enact a National Health Care system?

Asked by: anthonyluvsband
  • It's just overdue

    Millions of people don't have the proper health coverage. Even if they do, they still pay too much for their health procedures and products like prescription drugs, surgeries, tooth extractions, and etc.

    I understand why some people would say that "we're 'forced' to get health coverage." We're already required to insure our cars before driving it. I find it better to insure our health than our cars. When we get into a car accident that's not insured, our wallets get dented from paying full price for the damages. When we have a health issue, we either pay full price for our health care, or suffer physically.

    Unemployed people will get covered, which strikes a nerve with people who oppose this system because they "don't pay their taxes." Everybody pays their taxes, it's called sales tax. Besides, why hate on paying taxes when it actually benefits you directly in a National Health Care system.

    The government will monitor the prices of health care, reducing its cost. Private insurance company can drastically inflate the prices of health coverage, making some people pay more than necessary. We already have enough people declaring bankruptcy, we can't let it continue.

    The ACA is gaining good support. I don't think it'll be long before a national health care system gets enacted.

  • It raises costs.

    "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
    Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
    Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
    The health-care industry likely will become infused with the same kind of corruption, back-room dealing, and special-interest-dominated sleaze that is already prevalent in other areas of government.
    Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
    Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
    Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
    Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
    In an effort to cut costs, price & salary controls on drugs, medical equipment, and medical services are likely to be put in place, meaning there is less incentive to pursue medical-related research, development, and investment, nor pursue medical careers in general.
    A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
    Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
    Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
    Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.
    Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government.
    Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what.
    Patients may be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment.
    Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.

  • Simple answer, based on history

    The Fed. Gov't has proven with a very high % of attempts, that it cannot run, be successful or effective, or profitably be involved in doing anything, period. Logic, common sense, and rationale decisions are of no apparent concern to elected or appointed gov't officials. They (and the citizens have allowed) have grabbed and assumed too much power and control. Control of health care is a biggie that will be disastrous.

  • It's not the Government's Place

    The government has no reason to have a national health care system because if the government does it, it will be inefficient. The government is full of bureaucracy and corruption, and it does not operate for profit like a business does. This is why the government is less efficient than a business: the business will constantly adapt and improve to make more money, or it will fail, but the government does not have its profits affected by how well it does, so it has no reason to make sure its systems actually work well. Also, politics are always present in government, so they would influence the health care system, letting people from a certain political group have special benefits and shutting out people of other certain political groups. (Similar to, for example, the IRS)

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
theta_pinch says2014-02-09T00:44:47.673
If we do single payer is NOT the way to do it.