well he isnt looking for handouts, and that’s basically what any type of insurance is. it’s a pot of money for when someone needs help. but, he wouldnt want to do that…
How is it a handout if you pay for it?
if you use it, it’s a handout. just like universal health care would be a handout even though we would pay for it, apparently…:vlad
I can’t continue to debate with you. You have no concept of what Universal Health Care really is or means. Otherwise your ignorance would not be so apparent. You can continue on your happy little trail thinking you have a clue. It’s not even worth my time at this point.
kthxby3
here are the pro’s for universal health care:
-
Health care is a basic human right[77][73][78] or entitlement.[79]
-
Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically.[80]
-
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.[81]
-
A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork.[82] Administrative costs in the U.S. health care system are substantially higher than those in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of U.S. health care spending.[83]
-
Several studies have shown a majority of taxpayers and citizens across the political divide would prefer a universal health care system over the current U.S. system[84][85][86]
-
Universal health care would provide for uninsured adults who may forgo treatment needed for chronic health conditions.[87]
-
Wastefulness and inefficiency in the delivery of health care would be reduced.[88]
-
America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country but has worse ratings on such criteria as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, and wait times, according to the Commonwealth Fund.[89]
-
A universal system would align incentives for investment in long term health-care productivity, preventive care, and better management of chronic conditions.[90]
-
Universal health care could act as a subsidy to business, at no cost thereto. (Indeed, the Big Three of U.S. car manufacturers cite health-care provision as a reason for their ongoing financial travails. The cost of health insurance to U.S. car manufacturers adds between USD 900 and USD 1,400 to each car made in the U.S.A.)[91]
-
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.[92]
-
A 2008 opinion poll of 2,000 US doctors found support for a universal health care plan at 59%-32%, which is up from the 49%-40% opinion of physicians in 2002. These numbers include 83% of psychiatrists, 69% of emergency medicine specialists, 65% of pediatricians, 64% of internists, 60% of family physicians and 55% of general surgeons. The reasons given are an inability of doctors to decide patient care and patients who are unable to afford care.[93]
-
According to an estimate by Dr. Marcia Angell roughly 50% of health care dollars are spent on health care, the rest go to various middlepersons and intermediaries. A streamlined, non-profit, universal system would increase the efficiency with which money is spent on health care.[94]
-
In countries in Western Europe with public universal health care, private health care is also available, and one may choose to use it if desired. Most of the advantages of private health care continue to be present, see also two-tier health care.[95]
-
Universal health care and public doctors would protect the right to privacy between insurance companies and patients.[96]
-
Public health care system can be used as independent third party in disputes between employer and employee.[97]
-
Libertarians and conservatives can favor universal health care, because in countries with universal health care, the government spends less tax money per person on health care than the U.S. For example, in France, the government spends $569 less per person on health care than in the United States. This would allow the U.S. to adopt universal health care, while simultaneously cutting government spending and cutting taxes.[98]
and the cons:
Health care is not a right.[74][99] As such, it is not the responsibility of government to provide health care.[100]
Universal health care would result in increased wait times, which could result in unnecessary deaths.[101]
Unequal access and health disparities still exist in universal health care systems.[102]
The performance of administrative duties by doctors results from medical centralization and over-regulation, and may reduce charitable provision of medical services by doctors.[99]
Many problems that universal health insurance is meant to solve are presumed caused by limitations on the free market. As such, free market solutions have greater potential to improve care and coverage.[103]
The widely quoted health care system ranking by the World Health Organization, in which the US system ranked below other countries’ universal health care systems, used biased criteria, giving a false sense of those systems’ superiority.[104]
Empirical evidence on the Medicare single payer-insurance program demonstrates that the cost exceeds the expectations of advocates.[105] As an open-ended entitlement, Medicare does not weigh the benefits of technologies against their costs. Paying physicians on a fee-for-service basis also leads to spending increases. As a result, it is difficult to predict or control Medicare’s spending.[102] Large market-based public program such as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and CalPERS can provide better coverage than Medicare while still controlling costs as well.[106][107]
Universal health care systems, in an effort to control costs by gaining or enforcing monopsony power, sometimes outlaw medical care paid for by private, individual funds.[108]
seems like the pros outweight the cons…and btw when im done with college, ill be working either for the state, or another place with great benefits; that’s guaranteed. im looking out for others who arent as fortunate.
That’s why I have a second job that provides full medical coverage and still live at home.
Them’s the breakes.
x10
aren’t all colleges required to supply health insurance to its students? unless you waived that fee.
no, your required to provide proof of insurance, which of course they have available if you dont have any, gotta love the gimmicks.
If your legs and hands got cut off… causing you to not be able to work, what would you do?
You find another way to survive. This is America not Unicef, maybe someday unicef will be in the govt. business, untill then stfu and try to realize what America was founded on.
Well i think native America was founded thousands of years before christ… and im not entirely sure what they founded it on, is that what your talking about? If you ever get injured, please don’t use workers comp, i don’t want to pay for your problems
I wont use workers comp if i get hurt, Do you know how much extra that cost when one employee opens a workers comp claim?
You kill yourself, if you can’t do any good there is no reason to stick around. :ohnoes White Power!!!
:shifty… JK
Better start looking for a job that doesn’t require use of your hands and legs.
it’d be called medicaid/medicare.
100% different than the universal health care system my friend.
How will YOU end up paying for somebody else’s workers comp benefits?
Yeah you is confuzzled.
trust me i was being sarcastic, I read what you said about workers comp claim and it gave me an idea… because these people on here believe that when you get hurt its your problem… im guessing that I might be confused about who actually pays for workers comp, but lets say you had a career ending injury and you went on social security… it would come from the tax payers and i find that to be completely just. Its not your fault you got hurt nor is it the fault of the tax payers… but how else are you suppose to survive if you cant work, thats why i feel we do need some social programs