Paying for National Health Care, will it hurt the economy?
Topic: La business plan
July 17, 2019 / By Arielle Question:
The underlying plan for paying for national health care in the United States is now starting to turn toward using a Value Added Tax (VAT) as they do in Europe and Japan.
Will the added 15 -20% added to the cost of everything but food hurt our still weak economy or does it matter?
Best Answers: Paying for National Health Care, will it hurt the economy?
Zebedee | 8 days ago
My opinion is that free health care is a bad thing. People who pay very little for health care will have to now pay much more in taxes. That's another point. The taxes will be so much higher that we will have less money to spend on other things. Plus, doctors will do poor work because they are gonna be paid by the government, which can't monitor them. They'll get paid no matter what so they might as well slack off. Also, health insurance companys will be greatly hurt by this, which will danger the economy greatly.
👍 264 | 👎 8
Did you like the answer? Paying for National Health Care, will it hurt the economy?
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: La business plan
Originally Answered: National Health Care Plan: What do you think of yours?
I live in Canada. Contrary to reports from people with an agenda ( insurance co.s, HMO's, wealthy ultra cons, etc.) who broadcast garbage in the U.S.about our Universal Health Care, garbage that goes from the extremes of of stretching the truth to outright lies, our healthcare is excellent and revered by the people.
Any Canadian government - Federal or provincial -that dares to tinker with the programme, except tp improve it, does so at its peril ! Under our parliamentary system there is no government term length set in stone. Elections can be called within 60 days.
As an example it is claimed (in the U.S.) that people wait up tp two years for elective surgery. This happened to be true, at least in one case I'm familiar with. Sounds bad, eh? But no one asked why the wait? A member of my family wanted to have both knees replaced. No problem except that she was grossly obese, The doctor wanted weight loss before operating. The patient lost no weight in the first year. No operation. Then the patient went to warmer climes for some months and energetically followed a commercially advertised diet, returned home much lighter in weight (almost svelte) in late March, the operation was scheduled and successfully completed in early May.
Yes it took two years but now you know the rest of the story. We have our detractors here also but they have their own agendas.
There are very few out of pocket expenses for health care.Although we do pay for parking at our hospitals and there are some who even gripe about that, it is a small price to pay for excellent
There is no such thing as pre-existing ailments because there are no insurance co.'s or HMO's involved/
The provinces have their own pharmaceutical plans which vary but all drugs are cheaper than in the U.S. In fact in my province citizens over 65 pay an annual fee of $100 and their drugs are free with the exception of a dispensing fee of $4.11. If your annual income (and you are 65 yrs. of age) is less than $20,000 the drugs are free with no dispensing fee.
The money to run the system comes from taxes. But we sure don't pay the amount of money in taxes that the U.S. citizen pays in insurance premiums and co-pays and deductibles and whatever. Imagine what the bill for my relative's double knee replacement (includes 5 day recuperation in hospital and 3 weeks in re-hab unit attached to same hospital) would have been south of the border. Her total cost (not counting the diet supplements) was for gasoline for the auto to deliver and pick her up at the hospital.
Dr. Gupta,of C.N.N. has made the statement that, based on population, there are 5 MRI's for everyone 1 MRI in Canada. Sounds bad, right. But does that mean that there are not enough MRI'S in Canada or too many in the U.S. which, if true, makes for many more expensive tests to help pay for someone's investment.
Canada has a single payer system. No middle men. No profit motive. Health care at half the cost in the U.S.
I think paying for national health care will hurt the economy. I don't understand why so many people think the government can solve all of their problems. Our government has created many of these problems in the first place. Less government = more freedom this is common sense.
👍 110 | 👎 1
It would help mine. Even paying the slightly higher amount, I'd be better off b/c I could dump the enormous insurance premium I pay every month for lousy lack of services from a corrupt HMO. It would be money in my pocket. I detest my HMO. I'd get another one, but they are all terrible.
I know I'm not the only one who would benefit. Plenty of people are in my position, so perhaps giving them an option that eliminated their dependence on over-priced HMO's would be financially better for them, allowing them to save and put money back into the economy at large instead of into an HMO. Did I mention I hate HMO's.
👍 103 | 👎 -6
human beings won't be able to be "given" something. the money has to come returned from someplace, and the only place it may come from is from the persons. the only thank you to place a cap on costs is to the two decrease the same old of care or to offset the financial loss by potential of forcing human beings to pay for it, in spite of in the event that they do no longer understand the advantages themselves.
👍 96 | 👎 -13
A Universal Healthcare System that funds the CURRENT way of doing things will CRIPPLE our economy and make our higher unemployment permanent. We need to completely restructure the system and fund massive medical research to CURE diseases and conditions, and THEN fund UHS, but not before. The cost is just too high.
👍 89 | 👎 -20
Looks like we are getting farther in the hole for a lesser health care system.
Yes the VAT will put the economy under.
👍 82 | 👎 -27
You will be paying alot more for less access to care. Currently there is a shortage of approximately 200,000+ health care providers along with a shortage of hospitals and nursing staff. Everyone will be paying more for RATIONED care. There is no quick fix and why go to medical school to earn $70,000 per year? It wouldn't be worth it.
👍 75 | 👎 -34
Originally Answered: URGENT: Need definitions of following terms regarding national health care?
When President Clinton was elected in 1992, one of his biggest campaign promises was to create a plan for 'universal health care', i.e. that the govt. would see to it that everyone could get health insurance.
The plan he came up with, though, was very complicated and just 'strange'. He got big contributions from the existing health insurance industry, so his plan mostly just shored up that industry.
The Republicans didn't want his plan to succeed. So they got money (from the same health insurance industry) to run ads with a couple named Harry and Louise. They would talk over the kitchen table, telling each other that under this new plan they would not have as good care as they had now under their private plan. And that they would not be able to pick their own doctors. Instead, they said, Americans should stick with HMOs (where people often can't choose their own doctor).
In fact, Bill and Hillary Clinton did an ad that was a parody of the Harry and Louse ads. Bill tells Hillary that 'And did you know this? No matter how healthy you are, you will eventually die!' Hillary pretends to be a little shocked.
The Bill and Hillary plan, and a previous plan proposed by GHW Bush, and the plans proposed by both Obama and Hillary earlier in this election season, all have one thing in common. They all preserve and strengthen the existing health care industry in the US. Most hospitals and clinics today are owned and run by the insurance companies themselves, and most doctors work for the insurance companies. The insurance companies want to be able to 'cherry pick' only healthy people to insure. They are so powerful that no politician will propose that we take insurance away from them. So all the plans involve having the government buy health insurance for -some- uninsured from the existing insurance companies at their going rates.
But Americans say, in poll after poll, that they don't want this. They want a 'Canadian style' single-payer plan where the doctors, clinics and hospitals are independent and competitive and the govt. handles the insurance. Everyone is insured, all in the same pool, so everyone gets health care and the overhead is much cheaper. Medicare is just such a plan, and it has about the same outcomes and the same customer satisfaction as the private system, but it's much cheaper. The only reason we have Medicare in the first place is because the insurance companies didn't want to insure the elderly and chronically ill so they foisted them off onto the government to be cared for at public expense. But if we simply expanded Medicare to cover everyone in the country, we would save literally hundreds of billions of dollars a year and get about the same care as we do now.