promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted

Why Medical Privalization is Better than Universial Health Care.?

Give 5 reasons why you think Medical Privalization(the system we have now) is better than Universial Health Care. Best awnser gets 5 stars.

8 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Private medical care opens the door for competition. In socialized medicine, there is no competition, no reason to improve or be better than the other guy, so the system stagnates and quickly falls behind. (e.g. England, Canada, Mexico, throughout South America)

    Private medical care is free enterprise, which allows physicians to set their fees. This leads to the very best and very brightest vying for spots in medical schools. This leads to the creation of the very finest doctors. In socialized medicine, the government decides salaries. The best and brightest then forgo med school and find something more lucrative to do where they can be rewarded for their talents.

    Private medical care is run by corporate America. It is fairly efficient. (The U.S. Government has demonstrated an indisputable lack of ability to run anything with any degree of success or efficiency. People in socialized medicine systems go months, if not years, without proper care while paperwork is processed.)

    Even under private medical care, everyone has access. All federally funded hospitals and clinics are required to provide care for free or at a reduced rate for those without insurance and/or unable to pay. All medical facilities are required to treat critical cases before transferring to a university or public hospital. Therefore, the argument that socialized medicine is necessary to care for those who cannot afford it is unfounded and simply false.

    Under a system of private medical care, facilities work to offer the latest, greatest, and best treatments for a huge variety of diseases and ailments. Research is funded by both private and public means. This results in a more efficient system offering optimum care. In a socialized system, there is very little research, because there is no point, nothing to be gained.

    Note: people from around the world come to the U.S. for medical care. People routinely flock across the borders from Canada and Mexico for what is considered a run-of-the-mill procedure or treatment that they must wait 6 - 12 months for in their own countries, if they can get it at all.

    People wait up to 3 years for a pacemaker. Up to six months for a CT scan. Weeks or months to be seen by a physician for an acute problem. Since you have substandard individuals in some of the positions, incorrect diagnoses are rampant.

    A "poor country like Cuba" doesn't offer socialized medicine to benefit the people. Socialized medicine is the nationalization of the medical care industry in an effort to garner control and profits, which never works. Anyone who believes that the Cuban system is so great should travel to Havana and see what it's like to get treated for migraines, appendicitis, cardiac issues and God forbid, cancer.

    People who point out what a marvelous system Cuba has for the delivery of medical care speak NOT of experience of first-hand knowledge. They only betray the fact that they wasted 112 minutes of their lives watching "Sicko."

    People who support nationalized health care have no earthly idea what they are talking about. None. People who argue for nationalized health care simply spout bumper sticker slogans and come at it from an emotional position that is not fact or truth based. "Poor people are dying! We must help the children!" This is nonsense.

    People who are against nationalized health care generally support their arguments with facts, figures and realities. If you read the posts here, you'll see for yourself.

    (Stars don't matter. "Best Answer" is where the points are, btw.)

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Hypothetical Reasons (not my personal opinions necessarily)

    1. Universal Health Care can create long waiting lists. This has been documented in Canada, where they have such a system.

    2. Universal Health Care can be prone to corruption; others can try to use your health card to access the free health care provided by the government, even though they are an illegal immigrant or not eliglible (i.e. don't pay taxes).

    3. To counter-act the possibility of corruption, lots of money has to be spent to create counterfeit-proof, photo-id cards to identify people. This adds to the already high cost of health care that the government has to foot the bill for.

    4. The quality of care has the potential to drop when you take out the competition aspect of it, though this is debatable. The argument goes: When patients can choose whoever they want to go for medical care, their choices become more arbitrary and competition goes out the window.

    5. Brain drain: Why would the most qualified doctors stay in the U.S. when they won't make as much working there anymore? Some worry that Universal Health Care will scare the best doctors in their field away. This is equally debatable however.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    1st, universal is a buzz word used by proponents to disguise what it really is, socialized health care.

    * the total money spent, whether good or bad for business, is ALWAYS less in the private sector than with government.

    The reason is government has no competition. Competition brings prices down and quality up. Because a drug company for example wants your business in order to keep you from purchasing a competitor's product they need to make theirs more attractive. The best mechanism for that is price versus quality. Government has no such incentives. Competition and drive for profit is what sparks innovation. Virtually all medical procedures, medicines, and equipment were designed and marketed for profit. Without that drive there's no incentive to develop new things.

    (here's a small example, unrelated to health care but proves the point, the digital TV converter box coupon program. It's estimated the cost of the boxes are $21 to 34 higher than they would be without the coupon program. Because the consumer can get the coupon and walk out with a box for as little as zero there's no drive for price competition. So prices are held higher, and consumers without coupons pay more than they should.)

    * the government system is locked into specific revenue and spending. They are bound by their budget. The only way to increase funds is raise taxes which is almost always bad for any economy. The only way to save money pay less. That means government must ration health care and/or pay providers less. Less pay for providers leads to fewer of them. In a private system there are many ways to adjust how things are funded. There's negotiation for prices.

    * because government has a limited budget and the resulting rationing, they decide what is medically necessary, instead of you and your doctor.

    * when government is paying the bill they only pay for what they recognize as proper procedures or medications. In a private system a patient is open to more choices in medication and procedures and new technology.

    * with government because the taxpayer is the source of funds, the departments that run the programs and the legislators are accountable to the people and in turn the money must be accounted for. In government funded systems you cannot save money. When government appropriates funds (true for education, roads, and so on), they want to know how every cent is being spent. The key is 'spent'. If you don't spend all of the money, while someone else is asking for more, next time funds are appropriated for you you will receive less because you didn't need it all last time. You can't save. To insure receiving as much money as possible budgets are kept high. In a private system a hospital can save up money to build an addition for example. And they can build it on their own terms, at their own pace. With government such things must go through an approval process before funds are made available.

    * abuse, which leads to shortcomings in funds and health care providers. When something is "free" people use it more. So any little discomfort and we go to the doctor if it's "free". But if we have to pay we think twice about it. Maybe I'm not really that ill and don't need a doctor. Some would argue that people should go to their doctor more often and they would in a "free" system. It's true, but again, it goes to a level of abuse. The burden on the system is overwhelming. And studies show people that take an active role in their health care do take better care of themselves. They ask questions more often and seek second opinions because when they have to pay they want the most for their money.

    It sounds a little backwards at first but when you dig into it you find that the main reason why health care and health insurance is so high is because too many of us have too much insurance. Whether private insurance or government funding, when the money is available to overpay somebody is willing to overcharge.

    Here's something you may find interesting:

    http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog...

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    the system you have now is not working

    Universal health care is. Imagine, a country like Cuba which is a poor communist country, if they can have Universal health care and education what does that say about America, even in Canada as well although ours is better because at least ours is mostly free :)

    Source(s): Canadian and World Politics
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Better Doctors for one, why do you think Canada suffers for better doctor?You could wait for days in an emergency room.I like to be able to go to any doctor I choose.Your not just a number in the improved hospitals of today. And socialism is not for me. Believe me your going to get what you voted for.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    1. They have sandwiches.

    2. The sandwiches they have are mayofied.

    3. George Clooney eats those sandwiches.

    4. He horks them down... FAST.

    5. They are so good that george clooney gives speeches about them to abandonned whales.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    i can give you one why it's not.

    doctor : you need a heart transplant

    patient : i can't afford it

    doctor : what are you doing here then. F**k off and die some where

    basically. if you are poor you get no help

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It doesn't

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.