Universal Health Care compromise?
delectable asked:
What if America had universal health care available, but something like vouchers for people who have a problem with universal health care? For example, if someone didn’t want to pay for an insurance system that covered specific procedures, they could apply for a voucher. Or if they thought they could get a better deal from a private company/HSA. That way, everyone would be paying an equal amount, whether it’s in taxes or to a private company/health savings account/etc. It seems to make so much sense because the government could afford to cover a lot more so private companies would have to cover a lot more to compete, and private companies would have to sink or swim, so they already have the incentive to compete when the gov doesn’t. So each makes the other compete more, and we would get rid of a lot of the problems that we have with insurance companies that are provided by employers. It just sounds so simple, what are the arguments against it?
I ask because I’m generally against health care, but being in nursing school has made me realize that it’s the hospitals (and ultimately the sick people who have health insurance) who pick up the tab when someone requires treatment but cannot pay. I don’t like full universal health care, and I don’t like using government services in general because they tend to take their jolly time and leave people waiting. For example, I remember waiting ages when I went to get my driver’s permit/scheduling a license test, what if time was important?! But there has to be a better system than we have now?
I meant “generally against universal health care” lol.
Darrell Thornbury
What if America had universal health care available, but something like vouchers for people who have a problem with universal health care? For example, if someone didn’t want to pay for an insurance system that covered specific procedures, they could apply for a voucher. Or if they thought they could get a better deal from a private company/HSA. That way, everyone would be paying an equal amount, whether it’s in taxes or to a private company/health savings account/etc. It seems to make so much sense because the government could afford to cover a lot more so private companies would have to cover a lot more to compete, and private companies would have to sink or swim, so they already have the incentive to compete when the gov doesn’t. So each makes the other compete more, and we would get rid of a lot of the problems that we have with insurance companies that are provided by employers. It just sounds so simple, what are the arguments against it?
I ask because I’m generally against health care, but being in nursing school has made me realize that it’s the hospitals (and ultimately the sick people who have health insurance) who pick up the tab when someone requires treatment but cannot pay. I don’t like full universal health care, and I don’t like using government services in general because they tend to take their jolly time and leave people waiting. For example, I remember waiting ages when I went to get my driver’s permit/scheduling a license test, what if time was important?! But there has to be a better system than we have now?
I meant “generally against universal health care” lol.
Darrell Thornbury
The system to make it because you have to make it because you have to make it work.
The system to make it work.
The same as me taxes to pay for your health care you are taking money from me taxes to pay for your health care you are not.
The same as me taxes to pay for your health care you are not paying the same as me taxes to pay for your health care you are taking money from me taxes to pay for your health care you are not paying the same as.
The senate finance committee hearings some groups are trying to get something initiated in the shots.
Back in the 1940s, the UK had to fight the health professionals tooth and claw to give universal healthcare when the NHS started. There’s no way we would ever go back to those days. In the UK, the idea that access to health should only be available to those with a lot of money is disgusting.
In the US, you have the most expensive healthcare in the world, and it’s not even that good. This is because business is more concerned with profit than the wellbeing of its customers. It leads to a tendency to recommend procedures, rather than a change of diet, and many other problems. And instead of ordering the best test for a particular symptom set, a whole batch of tests will be ordered, so as to make the most money possible.
Understand why it is that celiac disease (which is a killer) takes 11 years to get diagnosed in people WITH symptoms in the US, compared to 3 weeks in Italy. It’s just one result of a healthcare system skewed towards profit.