I want to read your personal arguments. Do not plagiarize. It's ALWAYS rationed so some folks are told they're not worth treating.
Read Canadian doc on UHC throughout the world:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_ca...
Our VA rations it--they have 8 categories of the eligible who are "guaranteed" some level of care, meaning many more who have met the requirements of service are not getting covered because there are insufficient funds.
http://www.va.gov/healtheligibility/
Canadians ration it--here's one man who can't have the care the family wants and people will argue "the taxpayer is paying for it, so of course!" However, it IS rationed care. Want that as your system? How about when less money is available and it's YOU or someone YOU love?
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jonatha...
In the States, Oregon is blunt about how it rations care. Here's an 18-year-old not worth treating.
http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/...
Texas practices "futile care theory" for those on public programs:
http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw/smi...
That will be coming soon to everyone, no matter how insured.
It's ALWAYS bankrupt:
The Canadian doc article establishes that. PLUS a few selected additions:
The NHS, the oldest system, is in Britain:
"Staff are being laid off, and deficits are at an all time high (拢1.07bn for 2005-2006)鈥?(Hazel Blears, Labour Party Chair and Minister Without Portfolio, labourachievements.blogspot.com/2006/08/...
In the National Review Online article, Coburn & Herzlinger state 鈥渕ore than 20,000 Brits would not have died from cancer in the U.S.鈥?Just recently Alex Smallwood of the BMA (British Medical Association) was quoted in the Scotsman as saying: 鈥溾€橰ationing is reduction in choice. Rationing has become a necessary evil. We need to formalise rationing to prevent an unregulated, widening, postcode-lottery of care. Government no longer has a choice.鈥欌€?(Moss, 鈥淣HS rationing is 鈥榥ecessary evil,鈥?says doctors,鈥?26 June 2007).
The much lauded French system raises some questions as well. From their Embassy site (ambafrance-us.org) they state that 96 percent of the population receives free or 100 percent reimbursed health care. They state the system is part of their Social Security and is funded from worker鈥檚 salaries (60 percent), 鈥渋ndirect taxes on alcohol and tobacco and by direct contribution paid by all revenue proportional to income, including retirement pensions and capital revenues.鈥?They state that it appears that health insurance pays less to its doctors in France than in other European countries, but that 80 percent of the public have supplemental health insurance, typically from their employers. If they鈥檙e providing so well for the needs of the public, why is there a need for 鈥渟upplemental鈥?health insurance for the majority of the public and what about the additional cost that imposes? The site states that the poorest have free universal health care, funded by taxes. Long-term illness sufferers are to be reimbursed for their treatments. They do have private clinics, as well as public hospitals, and not-for-profit healthcare. In fact, 鈥減rivate medical care in France is particularly active in treating more than 50% of surgeries and more than 60% of cancer cases.鈥?
Private insurance, which the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) site said in a 2004 report, was held by 92 percent of the French, helps to cover both vision and dental care which are not well covered under the government system. 鈥淭he public system is facing chronic deficits and recent cost containment policies have not proved very successful.鈥?The government is interested in having more of the tab picked up by private insurance (Buchmueller & Couffinhall, 鈥淧rivate Health Insurance in France,鈥?2004, oecd.org).
In the US, Medicare is going bankrupt. In 1998, Medicare premiums were $43.80 and in 2008 will be $96.40--up 120%. "Medigap" insurance is common because of the 20% co-pay required for service. Medicare HMOs are common because they reduce that burden without an extra charge in many cases. HOWEVER, many procedures which used to have no or a low co-pay NOW cost the full 20% for the HMO Medicare patient. ALSO the prescription coverage they tended to offer has been REDUCED in many cases to conform to the insane "donut hole" coverage of the feds. Doctors are leaving Medicare because of the low and slow pay AND because the crazy government wants to "balance" their Ponzi scheme on the backs of doctors.
"That dark cloud lurking over the shoulder of every Massachusetts physician is Medicare. If Congress does not act, doctors' payments from Medicare will be cut by about 5 percent annually, beginning next year through 2012, creating a financial hailstorm that would wreak havoc with already strained practices.
Cumulatively, the proposed cuts represent a 31 percent reduction in Medicare reimbursement. If the cuts are adjusted for practice-cost inflation, the American Medical Association says Medicare payment rates to physicians in 2013 would be less than half of what they were in 1991."
http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?S...
Right now, the US is insanely planning to cut doctors' reimbursement and they are preparing to STOP taking Medicare patients, at least no new ones, by the hundreds if not thousands. They can't AFFORD to do Medicare under these circumstances.
ALSO unreported but true, since January, Medicare and the plans covered by it, be it an HMO or whatever, are NOT necessarily paying for the PROMISED care such as physicals, EKGs, etc. and patients are going to be on the line for that--hundreds of dollars they were not counting on paying.
For America, a third valid point is that it violates the Constitution. STATE programs would not violate Amendments IX and X, but a fed one does.
More can be said but there's no reason to go with it. Check out Taxachusetts and see how beautifully Hillarycare works.
"Massachusetts announced that spending on its health care plan would increase by $400 million in 2008, a cost expected to be borne largely by taxpayers."
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/200...
Last modified: January 29. 2008 5:03AM
Article explains how CA couldn't get UHC off the ground.
Now if you want a plan that would work, see:
http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.htm...
Read the PDF, not the blurb, for the bulk of the plan. Book is searchable on Amazon.com
Cassandra Nathan's Save America, Save the World First off, the most basic and strongest argument against Universal Health Care is the fact that the government CAN NOT run anything effectively. Whenever the government begins regulations or attempts to run a system, the costs go up and the quality goes down. The best thing that we can do for our health care system is to take restrictions off of the health care system as a whole. There is no reason that the medical field should answer to the government. The courts are there to address wrongs that are truly there. However, this has been abused and abused and this is one reason why costs are so high. If a "Loser Pays" system is installed, this would stop many of the frivilous law suits that plague the medical industry and cause the cost to be so high. Undeniably, when Universal Health Care becomes a part of this country, there will be waiting lines that are ridiculous, there will be rationing of health care, and it will be illegal to get private health care (Don't believe me? It is a part of Clinton's plan and has been attempted before.) Also, much like insurance companies are taken advantage of now by medical institutions, this will be just as true of the government. If the government is paying for health care, the bills will be ENORMOUS, much higher than they are now, and the taxes will be increased even more, creating a viscious cycle which will increase costs and decrease quality. Being in "the crisis" in Canada, I'm ok thank you, with our system. Is it perfect? no, but better than any alternative. People complain about everything including health care, but here the issue of how much did it cost isn't mentioned
Big business and greed are a problem in all health systems. The "research" excuse to keep drugs that cost pennies in the hundreds of dollar range.
Hospital that are monuments (even in Canada) to waste.
It's a question of how civilized a country do you want to live in.
How civilized a country is, is measured by how well it treats its most disadvantaged
I'll agree that government tend not to run things efficiently, but unfortunately big business can, but for their own benefit, not the sick I am all for Universal Health Care, but it needs to be carefully thought out so we don't have the same crisis as Canada. |
