 We have it in the UK and it works.
It may not be perfect, but it is
there for everyone. Haven't you
noticed the pathetic questions in
the Health section from US
blurters? In the UK we go to a
doctor! And don't have to worry
whether we can afford it!
|
 06 Jan 2008 17:24
|
|
 With the RISING cost and the
present attitude of the Government,
I would definitively say YES! Think
of the POOR, Elderly, Out of Work,
Homeless, and their kids!!!!
|
 05 Jan 2008 20:30
|
|
 It works!
|
 09 Nov 2008 23:19
|
|

 Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile,
Costa Rica, Cuba, Panama, Peru,
Uruguay, and Venezuela all have
public universal health care
provided. Mexico is planning to
launch its own universal health
care network.
Reasons why it can work for the
US:
1. About 60% of the U.S. Health
care system is already publicly
financed with federal and state
taxes, property taxes, and tax
subsidies - a universal health care
system would merely replace
private/employer spending with
taxes. Total spending would go down
for individuals and employers.
2. The profit motive adversely
affects the cost and quality of
health care. If managed care
programs and their concomitant
provider networks are abolished,
then doctors would no longer be
guaranteed patients solely on the
basis of their membership in a
provider group and regardless of
the quality of care they provide.
Theoretically, quality of care
would increase as true competition
for patients is restored.
3. Wastefulness and inefficiency in
the delivery of health care would
be reduced.
1. I believe health care is a basic
human right!
|
 29 Oct 2008 03:09
|
|

 Taxes for universal is less
expensive than paying for private
insurance. And this will also force
tighter regulations on procedure
costs and pharmaceutical costs
because the government is not going
to want to dish out excessive
amounts of money on things that
should cost a lot less. Not to
mention more vaccines will be
created because the health care
system will no longer try to keep
you alive longer with an illness so
they can make more money but they
will actually create more cures
|
 29 Sep 2008 15:47
|
|
 I think that it should be available
for everyone!!!
|
 29 Jun 2008 23:12
|
|

 Those against it can you explain to
me how this can be allowed?????
My daughter is 29, born with cystic
fibrosis and has had chronic kidney
stones since age 11. We live in
Bradenton, Florida. I served 3 yrs
in the Army and as a single mom had
to put myself through Nursing
School.....working as a nurse for
20 yrs, I have seen this health
care system go from helping the
sick, to taking care of the
wealthy. My daughter lost her
second physician 2 weeks ago
because he wasn't going to take
Florida Medicaid anymore (same
thing the previous one did). So she
is without a urologist now, she
doesn't drive and feels very let
down by these professionals. I
understand also that physicians in
our hospital and others are now
giving patients letters of intent
that when they are discharged they
won't take care of them be cause of
medicare. As it is the government
isn't taking care to make sure
physicians are reimbursed well for
the government programs they have,
so ppl are just going to get sick
and die because no one is
enforceing them to take care of
ppl......it's all about making
money. Disgusting if you ask
me........The government and the
insurance companies, along with the
help of the pharmaceutical
companies are what is running
healthcare already.....we need one
that's for the ppl and not for
corporate America......it's not
about money, ppl's livelihood's are
at stake here...........
|
 29 Jun 2008 22:26
|
|

 Yes, it works! I recently came from
a country with this system... Now
I'm back in the good old USA,
afraid to stub a toe for lack of
insurance. ;;
|
 16 Jun 2008 05:24
|
|
|
|
 Universal Health-care is a step in
the wrong direction for the United
States. I have friends in London
(they've had it for a while) who
wait two months to obtain an
ultrasound for gall bladder
disease...or months to receive
coronary artery bypass surgery and
many die while on the waiting list.
Doctors are in short supply simply
because there are no incentives to
work your way through medical
school and rack up debt that you
can never repay on the salaries
paid there. No way!
|
 05 Jan 2008 19:01
|
|
 Maybe in china. The canadiens hate
it. Imagine a giant hmo.no thanks.
Our health care isn't the problem,
its the pharmasutical companies
raping the insurance companies who
in turn rape us.
|
 18 Aug 2008 07:30
|
|

 Depending on geographical regions
it will not! It is very expensive
that even the U.N and Who's work is
not sufficient enough to help out
regions in Africa.You would also be
faced with the denial of meds. In
certain categories of health
(HIV/AIDS) in some regions of
Africa it is against customs to use
condos. Health care being universal
is an attempt to be helpful but if
it cant save them all then it is
not serving its purpose.There are
several reasons for rejecting it :
1)Geo political-do we want to upset
other nations(how? The way in which
policies are implemented)?
2)Economy....can the
entity/organization/agents be able
to gather sufficient funds?
3)Employees-who exactly will
prescribe,refer,care,and treat the
patients
4)Areas of treatment-what i the
location is not one that is of
suitable conditions?
5)Time frame- how long will it take
and how will this be implemented?
6)infrastructure-facilities in
certain regions are very
dangerous,lack of health are
workers
In the camp files i had when i
debated about health care in Sub
Saharan Africa there were plenty of
examples of why it fails.
|
 13 Aug 2008 03:27
|
|

 There just is no 50/50 box :sigh:
My opinion on this issue is that I
do not believe it is the best
possible care as there can be long
waits and the questions of who
determines what is Necessary..
However, Why can there be no
compromise here? Some people can
afford private health care and some
Force themselves to pay it even if
its a strain.. And then there are
the poor, the homeless etc.. And in
there case All the hospital is
required to do is stabilized them..
Meaning no cures.. Just keep them
breathing another day so they can
die somewhere else where We don't
have to be responsible.. To those
people something is better than
nothing. Why can't there be a
choice.. If you can pay your own
way.. Your free to do so.. If you
cant.. You can have this?
|
 20 May 2008 16:32
|
|

 I am just not willing to put my
health in the hands of the US
government. I do not trust the
government, and I do not think it a
great idea to give them a monopoly.
The government is not efficient. It
is slow, and does not care about
customer satisfaction. I believe
that Universal Health Care would be
a grave mistake.
|
 08 Jan 2008 06:03
|
|

 It sounds like a great idea but I'm
against it. It doesn't seem like
the Government can do much of
anything right. I'm sure you can
quote me all kinds of examples of
how great it works, but I have
heard of countless examples of
people waiting months to be
diagnosed with cancer when they
should already be in treatment and
meanwhile the rich, influential or
politicians get treated ahead of
the line. I hear H.C. Saying that
something like 79 mil. Americans
don't have health-care. It sounds
like we are almost universal
already and I'm sure we will be
soon. Even those remaining people
can get treated somewhere. It's
just at a clinic that would offer
the services we would all have to
endure if the Gov. Gets involved.
|
 05 Jan 2008 18:03
|
|
|
|