There are millions of American citizens who do not have health insurance. Many of them can not afford it or think they do not need it. There is a massive debate about whether our country should have universal healthcare. With universal healthcare, every citizen would be entitled to free medical services. This seems like a marvelous idea for everyone to have the opportunity to receive medical treatment for free. However, there are other factors that many people tend to overlook. The cons outweigh the pros, in my opinion, and universal healthcare is not the way to go.
First off, “free” healthcare would not really be free because we would be paying for it through our taxes. Taxes would be higher, and there would be spending cuts in areas such as defense and education.
Secondly, healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay the burden of those who smoke, drug addicts, obese people, and other people who do not genuinely care for themselves.
Third, many people who plan on being doctors in the future may give up on their aspirations because doctors would likely be paid less than they are now. They would lose their private practice options.
Fourth, our government would be exposed to legal liability with malpractice lawsuits. Malpractice lawsuits are already sky high, and they would most likely increase since people would be trying to sue someone with 'deep pockets'.
Fifth, our government would likely pass additional restrictions and increase taxing on smoking, fast food, etc. More of our personal freedoms would be lost.
Sixth, Americans can still receive healthcare even if they are uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. There are also government based hospitals and nonprofit hospitals that provide services to those who do not have insurance. Other countries who have universal healthcare have extremely long wait lists as well, and medical services are not always provided to patients right away.
These are just a few of the reasons why I do not think universal healthcare is a good idea. I would be more than happy to discuss this with anyone who agrees or disagrees, but hopefully I put some simple things into perspective for both parties.
6 comments:
The blog “Universal Healthcare: Yes or No?” addresses the controversial subject of the American healthcare system. The argument is weak because it lacks facts, is poorly researched, and based solely on opinion. The author provides several reasons wshy he believes the universal healthcare to be negative.
The first is that taxes would be higher and education and defense finances would decrease. This statement is partially true because taxes would increase. However the money doesn’t have to be taken from those areas; money could be taken from the millions spent on experimental space travel and professional sports. It is also interesting to see how much you spend just going to the doctor/dentist every year anyway. In my experience I spent less when I lived in a country with national healthcare than I do now, and I have good insurance.
The second is that healthy people would be caring for unhealthy people. The clear issue with this statement is that very few people live a perfectly healthy life, especially in America. Everyone deserves healthcare.
The third statement was very saddening to read. The author felt that “doctors in the future may give up on their aspirations because doctors would likely be paid less than they are now.” One reason private healthcare is bad is because a lot of the doctors care more for money than the patients they see. One example is that they receive a bonus when they turn down patients. In England, the doctors that work for the government receive a bonus when they stop someone from smoking, or stabilize a person’s blood pressure. Someone should not strive to be a doctor because they desire to be a millionaire. A doctor’s prime concern should be saving more people’s lives, not being unbelievably rich.
The fourth statement is concerns with legal liability and the problems associated with suing. This seems to be a general guess. I am guessing that people are more likely to sue if they’ve paid thousands for an operation rather than if they get it for free. Also, I’m sure the government is smart enough to set up ways of avoiding issues with suing, just like the doctors are today.
The fifth concern was higher taxing on fast food and smoking and this would restrict personal freedom. Drugs are illegal, there are age restrictions to alcohol use, and some states do not allow smoking in public anymore. The author failed to mention that there are already restrictions on many aspects of the American life. This is because without restrictions there is corruption. If it is for the good of the people, I see no problem in creating restrictions on smoking and fast food.
The sixth statement addresses the fact that people without insurance can still have healthcare at certain places, and that emergency treatment is required by law. Emergency is just a small part of healthcare and the care uninsured people receive is poor and does not apply to all Americans. Also, it is not just uninsured people that are denied healthcare. Insured people get denied for using the wrong hospital in an emergency, or because the procedure is believed to be experimental. In a personal life or death experience, the hospital, accepted my insurance card, and cared for me. However, the insurance company billed me $66,000 for going to the wrong hospital. This was the only hospital close to where I lived.
The problem with the private healthcare is that it becomes a business instead of a necessity. Even calling an ambulance costs around $1,000. In another personal experience, a man was having a heart attack, and not one person would call the ambulance for him and all said it was because they did not want to be charged.
The last point this person made was about the wait lists. In an emergency situation, the hospitals do not put you on a wait list for a few days, they tend to you immediately. I, nor anyone in my family, were ever put on a wait list. Also, I've waited far longer in the private healthcare system.
The author of this argument seems to have little knowledge of what it is like living with national healthcare, and provides few facts on the matter; therefore the argument is weak. I believe the national healthcare is the most humane way to go. America should tend to every citizen, not just the rich ones.
I do not agree with the stance taken in this blog, "Universal Healthcare: Yes or No?". Yes, taxes are not enjoyable and neither are malpractice suits, but should universal healthcare hinge upon factors such as these?! People need access to healthcare and if they, like so many in the U.S., are unable to receive it, longstanding complications arise. So many people have health problems that could have been prevented had they had access to medical care.
One argument in particular was disturbing i.e. the "lack" of personal freedom on the part of doctors choosing private practices. If someone chooses to become a doctor, it should be to help people not to profit off of their problems... Besides if this was their intention, a field like cosmetic surgery would probably be a better fit.I doubt cosmetic surgery will be part of universal healthcare so no need to worry about a lack of profiteering.
The arguments made in "Universal Healthcare: Yes or No?" fail to convince me that this program is unnecessary or undesirable. Although well organized, this blog is superficial and lacks real data to support the author's assertions.
I agree with the majority of Eric’s rationale against the provision of universal healthcare for our country.
My classmate is correct in stating that millions of Americans are without needed health insurance. A popular political argument between the candidates is the mandatory provision of universal healthcare; meaning that every citizen regardless of age or health status should be provided healthcare. However, universal healthcare does not mean “free healthcare”. Remember the saying “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is?” Eric is correct in saying that our taxes burden would raise exponentially to support the universal healthcare plan. That money has to come from somewhere, and nothing is free.
Eric stated that healthy people would be responsible for carrying the burden of unhealthy people and people who make poor choices when it comes to their health. Unfortunately, this happens now. The taxes we pay to support rehabilitation, Medicare and Medicaid programs, to name a few, already earmarked to subsidize people who can’t afford to pay for private health insurance.
Due to changes in the laws instituted to protect physicians and nurses, such as the tort reform changes in Texas, healthcare providers have begun to see fewer lawsuits and now practice with less “fear” than they did before. Eric makes a good point when he states that if compensation is capped by the government, such as in the universal healthcare we see in other countries, fewer people would be willing to incur the debts associated with medical school and the professional training required to become a doctor.
Eric is right-the vast majority of Americans can receive healthcare even if they don’t have insurance. True the wait in the emergency room may take hours, or they may have to suffer the inconvenience of a free clinic, but help is available.
I agree that the healthcare system in America is broken, but the “solution” of universal healthcare is not really a solution at all. Even though our system has substantial flaws, people from other countries come to America to get the best healthcare in the world.
We can do better than mandatory universal healthcare, and I appreciated Eric’s well thought out and supported posting.
Just to clear things up, people that come from countries with national healthcare go back to their countries because the system is so wrong here. I'm not sure where you got the information that they come here for the best healthcare in the world. The only people that would say that are those from third world countries, that are extremely rich, or were paid to say it.
Free firefighters, free eduction, free libraries, and free police; do they sound too good to be true? They are all paid by our taxes and it works just fine. The only reason healthcare isn't paid by taxes is because there is too much money made by the doctors, pharmacies, and insurance companies. It is big business.
Interesting replies. I'll get back to these soon.
usgovblog and others-
Taking some money from experimental space travel would be a good option. However, there is still a problem. A national healthcare system would cost TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars. So not only would there be spending cuts in space travel, education, and defense, there would also be spending cuts in numerous other areas. Do you not see the problem here? And at the same time, taxes would be DRAMATICALLY higher. By the way, dental work may not be covered in a national healthcare system. Dentists here in the U.S. fought against being associated with Medicare because they wanted to control their own practice. If our country tried to implement a national healthcare system, dentists would most likely lobby against that as well.
You seemed to completely avoid my second point. All you basically said here is "everyone deserves healthcare." Well, we live in an individualistic society, and I am an independent person. I work hard for my money, and I'm working hard in college to earn a better living. I make my money to care for myself, not for others. I am not interested in paying expenses for drug addicts who overdose, robbers who get bit by police dogs, and crew members from Jackass who have to have toy cars removed from their rectums. That is their business, not mine. I do not want to pay for someone who does not care for himself and doesn't work as hard as I do.
That third point may have saddened you, but it is true. A doctor's prime concerns, whatever they may be, are his business. I don't really care if a doctor cares more about money, as long as he is good at what he does. I would rather have the best surgeon in the world operate on me even if he isn't the most personable guy. I would rather have him come to the visiting room where my family is and say, "The operation was a success. And yes, the bill is $10,000." than have some other surgeon say, "Well, I tried my best, but he didn't make it. You'll always be in my heart forever though!" Come on, get real. I'll take skill over compassion ANY DAY. Do you really think every lawyer, teacher, professor, or cop really genuinely cares for the people? Most are just trying to get through the day and/or are good at what they do. That's how the world works.
I agree with some of your thoughts on suing. It is possible people may be less likely to sue in a national healthcare system if they did not have to pay for an operation. However, there will always be someone who is unsatisfied and unhappy with something. They will still try to sue, and even if our government were to find a way to limit the lawsuits, I still believe this kind of litigation would be an annoyance that our government does not need. Our government does need these kinds of distractions, especially at this point in time.
In my fifth point, I specifically mentioned there would be additional restrictions on other personal freedoms. The keyword there is additional, so therefore I don't see how I "failed to mention" that there are already other restrictions on other aspects of American life. The point is there would be even more restrictions. Can you imagine all the different food items that would be taxed depending on their sugar and fat levels? Is that really fair to someone who eats fried foods in moderation or occasionally drinks a soda?
I'm sorry to hear about your unfortunate ordeal, but it doesn't sound like you had good insurance. What kind of insurance only covers certain hospitals? Not only that, but why didn't you choose an insurance company that covered the hospital that was closest to you? My healthcare insurance covers $100,000 for all hospitals in any city, and it's only about $1100 a year. I also don't believe that story about the ambulance and the guy who had a heart attack. The person who calls the ambulance would not be billed, but rather the person who needs the ambulance (guy with the heart attack) would be the one who is billed. And why didn't one of the bystanders just throw the guy in one of their vehicles and drive him to a hospital if they were worried about an ambulance bill? Doesn't make sense. Oh, and I also know a person who claims he can't afford health insurance and yet he pays thousands of dollars on lotto tickets. It makes me wonder how many people there are like him, who would be able to afford more if they spent their money more wisely.
It is true that emergency surgery is performed as soon as possible in a national healthcare system. This often leads to a large volume of cancellations of elective surgeries. Elective urgent surgery such as cancer operations are usually performed within 2-3 weeks, although longer wait times can occur in the summer when physicians and nurses take their vacations. In some countries, funds are lacking for hiring extra personnel. Elective operations such as herniorrhaphies, cholecystectomies, thyroid operations, orthopedic reconstructive surgery, and prostatectomies can typically acccumulate long waiting lists. Government policy usually states that elective procedures should be done within 3 months of referral. In reality, the wait is usually much longer, up to a year or more for benign thyroid operations, orthopedic reconstructive surgery, and similar non-life-threatening conditions. With private health insurance, people can get operations sooner and usually at a time that suits everyone involved.
The U.S. has some of the best doctors in the world, and people do come from other countries to receive our high quality medical treatment. If someone leaves the U.S. to receive free medical care, they are not leaving because the system is "wrong" here, they simply want something for free. That's their choice, and that's fine. Also many universal healthcare programs in other countries are having their own problems right now. Everything is not exactly sunshine and roses. The UK is now in favor of denying overweight people and smokers because of high costs. Like every other nation, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. 57% of Canadians reported waiting 4 weeks or more to see a specialist; 24% of Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room. Saskatchewan is under fire for having the longest waiting time in the country for a diagnostic MRI, a whopping 22 months. These countries are all smaller than the U.S., and making a universal healthcare system work for a country as large as ours would be even more difficult.
Hopefully, I have once again put things back into perspective. I apologize for not originally elaborating more, but before you reply, I suggest you do some more research yourself and truly think about your stance.
Post a Comment