Is Universal Healthcare Just Another Political Ploy?
Posted: Monday, May 05, 2008
by Jennifer Cuddy
If you think that the enforcement of a Universal Healthcare system in America -
;-similar to the Canadian, the French, or the UK's National Healthcare Systems -- is a plausible idea, keep on dreamin'. Now, I'm no Republican, but I do question the notion that such an enforcement would ever see the light of day in this country, and I find the instigation of such a policy to be not only implausible, but also extremely unlikely. With this in mind, I have to wonder if Universal Healthcare is just another empty promise employed by presidential candidates to obtain popularity votes.
How could we reasonably change over to a socialized healthcare system? The American Medical Association has too many powerful lobbyists to oppose the reformation. The elite in this country already segregate themselves in the hospital setting, with the growing demand for 'higher care' and the implementation of separate wings for those who can afford the little extra 'TLC.' Are we expected to believe that our primarily capitalist legislature will approve such a policy? Call me a pessimist, but "Bologna!," I say. And let's face it, Americans are not exactly the most altruistic people in the world.
Even if the legislation were to pass, can you not imagine the anarchy that would ensue after such a dramatic change? We are already suffer from a shortage of healthcare providers in this country, thereby creating an (un)safe haven for medical errors and litigation. I can't imagine what would happen to the recruitment process, if we no longer had the motive of a healthy income persuading the large majority of enlistee's. I mean, c'mon now, let's be realistic.
Universal healthcare is a wonderful idea, but I fear it is an unrealistic goal for America to attempt to implement. I could sadly envision the possibility of socialized medicine converting to fee for service, managed healthcare systems in European countries, but not the vice versa. We are too entrenched in our capitalist philosophy to support the change. I would be all for Universal Healthcare in the US, if I thought it were an achievable goal, but I do not. Do you?
How about making our healthcare premiums tax deductible? Now that is a far more sensible, realistic and affordable pursuit.
This Article has been viewed 297 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (6 total)Jennifer, Unfortunately, you are right. There is no way to transfer a Universal Healthcare System within our governmental framework. However, something needs to be done and maybe suggestions like yours can be implemented. Excellent article. Take care.Thank you for commenting! and yes, i agree--something needs to be done. but i dont think that wasting time on unattainable goals is going to bear any fruit. we need to concentrate on the smaller steps.
Interesting perspective Jennifer, I think some polititians really intend to attempt universal healthcare but I can't see it happening either. In fact, I would prefer to see effort spent on finding a better solution rather than copying the UK or Canada whose systems have their own set of problems. We can certainly do better than we're doing. I'm just not sure government control is the answer.along with my above suggestion, i think we should likewise raise the minimum wage by a large degree, so that health insurance can be more affordable for all. tax deductions should certainly be offered to senior citizens, and those with disabilities. of course, we do have medicare and medicaid already, and social security; but the fact that people are still unable to afford prescription pills is disgraceful. yet, universal healthcare in this country? i think we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. but there has to be some middle ground.
hi jennifer, well written and well said. it's nice to hear what the younger generation thinks about politics and programs. someone has to come up with a good idea, or we are headed for economic downfall. when you can't afford to go to the doctor's when you are sick, or can't afford medication as i haven't recently, there is something terribly wrong. thanks for sharng, best regards, sue thomThank you, once again Susan for commenting. but, i think we are already heading towards an economic downfall. i think that a move like this would prove to be a very costly disaster. which is why we need to think about what is realistic. no system is perfect, and we certainly are never going to end world hunger; but there are things we can do to make healthcare more affordable, such as tax deductions and increasing minimum wage.
This study is 100% Bunk! The doctors who did this study also conducted one in 2002 and found that the majority of doctors did not want national health care, the problem with this is that the 2 question surveys drastically differ in there 2nd question. I found this article, 60% of Physicians Surveyed Oppose Switching to a National Health Care Plan , It's worth a read.hm..i'm not sure what 'study' you are referring too, as i never referred to a study. but of course the AMA are against it, and with good reason. according to them, we already have the best healthcare in the world, and with people coming from all over the world to receive their healthcare from us. just think of the quality of care from the VA, if you'd like to taste a bit of socialised medicine. regardless, universal healthcare would dismantle hundreds of thousands of for profit hospitals, clinics, and private practices. people already complain about paying the taxes we pay now, how about increasing them by 50%? it's just not going to happen. as i was saying, there are too many powerful forces against it. my thought is to stop wasting time on ridiculous notions that will never see the light of day, and let's think about what we can do to make healthcare more affordable for all. see the suggestions i'd made above in previous comments.
Jenny, Interesting to read about. We have universal health care in Australia, and in the main, it works very well. When it was introduced, in the 1970s, there were many, many opponents, including the doctors, perhaps especially the doctors, because they worried about not being able to charge what they wanted to. It's all settled down and initial teething problems resolved, for the most part. Doctors are more in favour of it now than against. If they want to charge more than the refund from the government, it is up to their patients to decide whether to pay the gap or go somewhere else. The current crop have grown up with it and I'm sure that makes a difference also. I found it wonderful. I didn't have to worry about whether to take my children to a doctor or not because I knew it was covered. We still have private health care - it's not linked to employment here, you choose which company you want to go with and what plan you want. Also, you only go to hospital waiting rooms for emergencies, not for general illness, which takes much of the pressure off hospitals. There are faults with the system, but overall, it is excellent to know that every individual in the country can get the medical attention they need regardless of insurance or financial state. I don't know whether it can be introduced in your country or not. It is the seat of capitalism after all, and there are powerful lobbyists, especially those giant pill companies. If you are on a limited income here, you get all your medications for a small some, $5.00 per prescription, provided they are approved, and most are. Even if you aren't on a low or fixed income, you never pay more than a set amount, $28.00 per prescription for approved medications. The pharmaceutical companies have lobbied hard here to get the system changed, where the government picks up the bulk of the tab and pays a maximum amount to the companies which is below what they want to charge, but so far, (fingers crossed), no government has been swayed. Well, I could go on and on, but that would be an article in itself! Oh, one more thing though. The tax for our universal health care system was introduced at 1% and has risen to 1.5% on higher incomes since. I'd happily pay 2% dedicated tax for such a system. It's nothing really, and that amount in your country would surely provide an excellent system, but with your country's growing financial problems, I doubt it will happen soon if it happens. Cheers, HannahHi hannah, it would be wonderful if it did work in America. i have no idea what Australia's governmental infrastrusture was like prior to the establishment of a system. and i doubt very seriouslt that our taxes would only increase by 1% to institute the program. we are already in enormous debt because of the war. also, im not sure how high your taxes are in Australia? do you also have a socialised educational system? also, i'm not sure if Australia is nearly as populated as the United States.Jennifer, Australia has nothing of the population of the US. We are currently around 21.2 million. Australia is the sixth most highly taxed country among 29 members of the OECD. Expressed as a proportion of GDP, Australia's total taxation comes in almost 4 percentage points higher than the OECD average. It varies on income between 22% and 48.5%. We also pay 10% goods and services tax, (GST) which adds a large cost on all our bills, including paying GST on petrol (gas) which already has an excise on it, so we pay tax on tax! The GST was introduced about 10 years ago, and has the government coffers overflowing. The Federal budget was handed down last night and they will have a surplus of $22 billion this year. Yes, we have (basically) free education for all primary and secondary students, but there are always costs associated with education, such as books, uniforms, some fees, for photography classes for example, excursions etc. Kindergarten (pre-school) is private and quite expensive. If you choose to pay the costs, you can send your children to private schools at all levels. At college level, you pay a set fee of 1.37 per contact hour, and a fee of $55.00 - to a total of $877 per year. University costs can be paid upfront, or if you can't afford them, there is the HECs Scheme, which means the government pays and then when you finish and go to work, once you earn $28,000 or above, you start paying it back. As for infrastructure in our hospitals, we had good facilities and they continue to improve. We can have waiting lists for particular surgeries though, called elective surgery, that is anything that is not life threatening or urgent. For instance, I needed my gall bladder removed several years ago and I was in hospital two weeks after being diagnosed. If I had a heart attack, I'd go into hospital immediately. If I decide to have my arthritic knees replaced, I might have to wait up to six months - or even longer - unless I pay for it myself or have private insurance which would cover the cost in a private hospital other than a government owned hospital. The facilities at all major hospitals are world class, and often procedures have to be performed there even for private patients. One of the differences in our system and yours, apart from the obvious, is that people don't go to the hospital for ordinary illness, such as flu. Emergency rooms are for emergencies only, say you have a broken leg or something. For general illness, you go to your local doctor, who has private rooms. They can charge you the rate set by the government, or they can charge above the rate and you pay the difference. Many people shop around for their family doctor. Hm, that's enough info for one reply! LOL Cheers, Hannah
Good article Jennifer, and I do agree with you. Those countries who have this type health care program that is working could not be geared up as we are here. Our taxes would have to be raised far more than 1%. Hillary wanted to start such a proposition when Bill first took office. And, not only did the medical profession fight it, but so did the public. It caused Bill to loose the house and Senate majority at his first mid-term election. I am not well versed in the problems of such, but it seems to me there could be a degree of universal help towards health care, but it would be difficult to deal with that fairly I think. Well writen article.thank you Joel, and i'm glad you've come by! I wish that I would here some candidate tell me what he can do to make healthcare more affordable. and forget tax deductions, why not make our health insurance premiums tax exempt. Large corporations are the first to receive government welfare, and so why shouldn't we? and this would be far cheaper that attempting to usurp our capitalist system, which in my opinion would prove to be a very costly disaster.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.