Should the U.S. adopt its northern neighbor's system of state-paid medical care for all its citizens?

  • Medicine is a service, not a business!

    The United States (the wealthiest country on earth) ranks 37th in health care between Costa Rica, and Slovenia, with cuba not far behind at number 39. Although people not having any health insurance at all is a huge problem, I mean 18,000 people die every year because they don't have it, it is not nearly as much of a problem as those who do. You say that you don't want too much government screwing things up, but our system right now is completely backwards.
    Insurance companies don't get paid to treat patients, they get paid to NOT treat patients. When money is involved with health insurance it just doesn't work. It doesn't matter who you are, if you need medical help, your insurance company WILL attempt to deny you coverage. We must rid our healthcare system of this deadly middleman, and make the system about treating people, not making money!

  • The system of health care in the country in question has been in place for years, and has proved to be effective.

    This health care system is publicly funded through a combination of the general revenues, such as income taxes, of the Canadian provinces/territories, as well as transfers of funds to the program through the Canada Health Care Transfer. This is done in accordance with the Canada Health Act of 1984. It is available to all citizens, and each person receives the same quality of care, regardless of income. This takes the burden of paying for private health care off of the taxpayer.

    Posted by: CowardlyJoan92
  • The U.S. should adopt the state-paid medical care system for all citizens, because it would allow anybody to go to the hospital or to see a doctor.

    I believe they should, because it would allow anybody to go to the hospital or to see a doctor. Some people do not go, at the moment, because of the costs of having to go. If this was taken away, more people would go and, hopefully, more illnesses would be diagnosed and possibly cured because of it.

    Posted by: NollBad
  • Yes, the U.S. should adopt state-paid medical care for all of it citizens, because the lack of medical care received by many U.S. citizens is a national disgrace.

    Just looking at our infant mortality rate is horrendous. How can we sit back and let our country have such a high rate, compared to other developed nations? One of the reasons behind this is the lack of proper medical care. The lack of medical care has to do with the lack of medical coverage. Many people cannot afford to get health care. Some sort of system needs to be developed to ensure that all citizens can receive necessary care, without worrying about how they will finance it.

    Posted by: I0ckHead
  • Yes, because I feel every citizen has the right to be insured.

    It is my opinion that we should all have insurance and be insured. And, if it means that we should be taxed equally as a nation to insure every one of us, then I say it should be done. Our government is paying for our health care regardless, anyway. When people go to the emergency room now and do not have medical insurance, the bills get offset to those who do have insurance, and the people end up paying for it anyway. So, why not impose a small tax and insure everyone equally?

    Posted by: SlipArnal
  • Yes, I think that a single payer would be something worth trying, because what we're doing now isn't working.

    I am not sure that I would use their model. However, our current model is not working. It is raft with corruption, both on the side of the insurance companies, and on the side of the politicians that they own. For that reason alone, I am willing to examine doing things differently.

    Posted by: wahsfone
  • I think the current health care reform doesn't go far enough -- we need a state-paid system.

    The current health care reform doesn't address the real problem -- insurance companies. As long as we rely on private insurers, health care for all is doomed. Some kind of basic health care safety net in the form of a state system has to be implemented to serve those unable or even unwilling to pay for an insurance plan. Taxpayers already fund a lot of unpopular projects -- like questionable wars; why not pay for a system to enhance life for all Americans?

    Posted by: Th4Fire
  • All human beings are entitled to health-care.

    The United States of America is the most advanced and powerful nation in the world and possibly all of history yet we do not even provide for the most basic of services, health-care. Canada has not gone bankrupt nor have people waited for services and died as opponents of state-based health-care have argued. We could still have the choice of private care for those lucky enough to have the means to afford it, but it does not mean that it's all right to shut out those who are struggling financially. It's sad commentary on our priorities when athletes, singers and actors are paid millions to play as we freely buy their albums, see their movies and go to their sporting events, but we scream foul when the government wants to provide a basic human service to all Americans. What messed up priorities we have as greedy, selfish Americans!

    Posted by: AndonNic3r
  • No, the US should not adopt a policy of state paid medical care because, with that system, many critical medical procedures are not performed.

    In Canada this system is not working well at all. Several Canadian citizens travel to the U.S. each year to get critical procedures done that they are unable to get in their country. The care is terrible, and everyone must wait in order to get necessary medical procedures done. Until there can be a better organization set up for this type of health care, the U.S. is better leaving health care alone.

    Posted by: I3nKai
  • I support the US adopting a system of state-paid medical care for all citizens.

    Firstly I believe everyone has the right to health care with out worrying about the financial consequences of it. As one of the most wealthy countries in the world we should be able to provide as good if not a better system than the one in Canada, which has been very successful in that the people of Canada have a high life expectancy than American. I believe this discrepancy in life expectancy is directly link to the difference in health care systems.

    Posted by: 5c4ryMonr
  • People should be free to choose their own health care.

    The government is already involved in health care, which has proven to be a drag on our economy and has created layers of bureaucracy that have been passed on to health care consumers through greater cost. Remove the unnecessary regulations and layers of bureaucracy, and the costs can go down.

    Posted by: ErvinAnime
  • The U.S. should not adopt Canada's single-payer system, because there are other preferred options to try.

    A single-payer system for health care does seem like it would serve better than the current system in place, and it is worthy of consideration. However, before the whole country moves to such a centralized social policy, there are other things that can be tried. For instance, the health exchanges that are being set up in the near future may drop prices. Also, programs, like Medicare, can be expanded to cover lower-income individuals. If these attempts fail, only then should a single-payer system be considered. But, the markets should be given a chance first, through state exchanges.

    Posted by: FlakyHerb64
  • The US should not adopt any type of state-paid medical care because medical care will decline.

    Under no circumstances should US adopt any form of state-paid medical care. First of all we are too far in debt to properly fund it correctly and therefore there would not be enough funding for proper care. Secondly, there would be no incentive for doctors to do all the work that they do if there would not be the proper funding. Access to certain treatments that are available now would be less available. Healthcare would just suffer. I mean, why do some many people from other countries come here to get treated?

    Posted by: eyeslikethat
  • I oppose state-paid medical care because I do not believe the government should be in any business, much less a business about health care.

    State-run health care comes with its own set of problems. For one, it imposes a new budget problem, usually under-budgeted. As well, state-run systems have to sacrifice quality of service to trade off against the quantity of people. Third, it is documented that many Canadian citizens travel to the United States when they need more immediate and/or quality service.

    Posted by: Asher Cummings
  • No, the U.S. should not adopt it's northern neighbors system of state-paid medical care for all its citizens because it can't be funded properly, would lead to rationing and is probably unconstitutional here.

    No, the U.S. should not adopt its northern neighbors system of state-paid medical care for all of its citizens because we would have to pay a lot higher taxes to fund it and it would lead to rationing of health care here and is probably unconstitutional. Let the free enterprise system work, competition leads to lower prices.

    Posted by: MycCra2ii
  • With federal law already mandating universal health care, state paid medical care would just be redundant.

    States in this country are already completely crippled due to our economy and the funding reductions they have seen on a federal level, forcing them to pay for everyone medical care would be almost impossible, and dig them into even deeper holes. Additionally, because of the recent health care legislation passed by the government, it would be somewhat redundant and a step backwards to go and introduce a completely new system before we have even gauged the new one's effectiveness.

    Posted by: SydneeM
  • Canada's health system keeps U.S. doctors employed.

    Wait times in Canada result in millions of Canadians flocking to the U.S. for procedures from hip replacements to MRIs. In 2009, a Canadian mother of quadruplets had to fly to Idaho to have her babies because no hospital in Canada had the facilities to handle 4 premature infants at once - but Boise, Idaho did. Canada has found its citizens suing the government because a significant minority of newly diagnosed cancer patients are too far advanced when they finally get to start chemotherapy - made to wait by their health care system for care until too far advanced to be allowed care. The Canadian system is everything socialized medicine should not be. Politics, too, comes into their health care rationing. Patients are delayed for life saving surgery while their government pays for gender change surgery. Top heavy in bureaucracy, requiring ever growing taxes, costs cut by denying care, prioritization based on political motives instead of maximum utility. Canada's health care system is everything true healing is not.

    Posted by: Pir4And

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.