answered question
2
Votes
Votes
3
Answers
Answers
M$1.00
Watching Sicko. Why don't we have national health care? Greatest country in the world, and we cannot obtain decent, respectable health care.
voted interesting: idyll, williamwaco
Did you ask this question via Twitter?
We create a Mahalo account for everyone who asks a question via Twitter. Claim your Mahalo account
We create a Mahalo account for everyone who asks a question via Twitter. Claim your Mahalo account
answers (3)
Short Answer: We really don't have the money to.
Long Answer: There isn't enough health care to go around, even if our Government took it over. If our Government took over it would eliminate competition (Competition forces companies/people to deliver faster and more effective responses. It also lowers prices and requires companies to be more efficient.)
If everyone were to get health care, not only would we be paying for it with higher taxes, but it would also be poor quality. So our choices are to have everyone get poor quality health care, or to have our Government decide who gets what and who doesn't.
The scariest part is that our Government has already said that we should ration care by how much longer it will make you live... meaning that older people won't get the care they need because it won't be as effective as paying for care for a younger person.
Long Answer: There isn't enough health care to go around, even if our Government took it over. If our Government took over it would eliminate competition (Competition forces companies/people to deliver faster and more effective responses. It also lowers prices and requires companies to be more efficient.)
If everyone were to get health care, not only would we be paying for it with higher taxes, but it would also be poor quality. So our choices are to have everyone get poor quality health care, or to have our Government decide who gets what and who doesn't.
The scariest part is that our Government has already said that we should ration care by how much longer it will make you live... meaning that older people won't get the care they need because it won't be as effective as paying for care for a younger person.
Voted as best: pazaq, williamwaco
It is my opinion that Michael Moore conveniently overlooks many of the socioeconomic issues associated with national healthcare. On the surface, it does seem like a great idea. However, how will you adequately fund services that will be equitably available (and at the same superior level) to all people? The Federal Government can only tax the rich so much before they tire of subsidizing everyone else.
Do you believe that the current welfare programs are equitable and a effective use of your tax dollars. Many don't think so, which is why it can be difficult to believe that it is possible to make national healthcare work.
If you study countries that have national healthcare plans, you will find that there are troublesome inequities. Sometimes these issues are so severe that people with serious illness must wait for months to receive proper treatment, leading them to eventually seek more timely treatment outside of their country. That's no better than the situation we have now.
Unfortunately, the solution is just not as simple as Sicko would like for you to believe.
Do you believe that the current welfare programs are equitable and a effective use of your tax dollars. Many don't think so, which is why it can be difficult to believe that it is possible to make national healthcare work.
If you study countries that have national healthcare plans, you will find that there are troublesome inequities. Sometimes these issues are so severe that people with serious illness must wait for months to receive proper treatment, leading them to eventually seek more timely treatment outside of their country. That's no better than the situation we have now.
Unfortunately, the solution is just not as simple as Sicko would like for you to believe.
voted helpful: krystyne20
Voted as best: cjd
Two words: Insurance companies
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
