Why do people believe universal health care is fair to everyone?

One of the arguments for having a government health care option is that it would be fair to everyone. Those that can afford less pay little or nothing while those that have more will pay extra to cover those not paying. Yet everyone will receive the same level of service. Why is this considered fair?

Maybe we should apply this logic to the grocery store too. After all, food is a more basic need than health care. Low income people could go to the grocery store and buy steak and lobster for $1 per pound and we could charge those rich people $50 a pound for the same thing. Isn't that fair?

How about cars because everyone needs transportation? Should a poor person be able to buy a Porche for $5000 while we charge those rich people $100000 for an Escort?

Please explain how this is a fair system?


Uncle Joe, you would lose that bet. I have been there. I worked harder and longer, stretched payments over years, and kept going until it was all paid off.

Update 2:

Mr Toss: Not true. Hospitals do not turn people away for lack of payment and there are free clinics in most urban areas. Drug manufacturers even give medication to the poor for free. There is also Medicaid available for poor and disabled.

Update 3:

WW3: You are one of the "poor uninsured people" who Obama wants to force to buy health insurance. According to his proposal, if you don't buy any your taxes will go up to help pay for everyone else.

12 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    maybe the drug companies should charge less for the drugs, maybe the doctors and nurses should take a pay cut. may people should stop scamming the insurance companies, and maybe all those that work in the medical field should remember the Hippocratic oath they took

    as for myself, i have no problem using the emergency room if and only when absolutely necessary

    i don't have medical insurance and i never understood why i should pay some stupid monthly fee, i haven't been to see a doctor in over 10 years. so i have saved 300(per month) x 12(months) x 10(years) = 36000

    yup, i'm all set


    well taxes all ways go up, and i choose to have no insurance, not cause i'm poor, but because i am healthy

    36000 dollars would have done nothing for me but buy the insurance company a new car.

    so raise my taxes, and put me in jail for choosing not to have insurance

    scam, one big scam

  • RoVale
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    It's better than a system where so many people are uninsured and have to go to hospital emergency rooms for basic medical care. Not only do these people clog up the emergency rooms and delay the amount of time doctors can get to patients but the costs of treating them are passed along to those who are already insured through higher premiums and less coverage.

    It's not the truly poor you should be concerned about. They can qualify for Medicaid and other programs. It's those who make too much money and don't qualify for them. They don't have insurance because their employers don't offer it or they don't work enough hours to be eligible. There are those who lose their jobs and also their insurance because it doesn't carry over to their next job. Then there are those who can't find coverage because they have a "pre-existing" condition such as diabetes, for example, or they are dropped by their companies because they develop one. Many people make the mistake of believing they will be young and healthy forever and don't think they will need insurance. They don't think of the possibility that they will get sick in the future or that they will suffer a serious injury. Catastrophic medical expenses have become the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in this country. Many of those people were insured but the companies did not cover all their expenses or denied them coverage because they deemed the procedures as being too expensive or too experimental.

  • 1 decade ago

    The problem is that it is not working in Canada or the UK if you read the recent news reports.

    Other factors- Cash For Clunkers is a mess- that is not working well at all, dealers are screaming.

    Stimulus is only 5% spend and the economy is a mess, 11% projected by the end of the year- we need that moving- we are paying interest on money not being used.

    And they want to start another program?

    How about getting some of the ones on the ground working first?

    It seems the government is running around like a chicken with it's head cut off- on to a new project without the previous one being implemented properly. Doesn't make any sense to me....

    PS- seems to me that the regular people will get the regular care but the rich will do what they do in Canada and the UK- come to the US- although where rich Americans will go I'm not sure- but you can bet they won't have to suffer the "government care" any more than they do in countries with socialized medicine.

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    Yay for ranting. regrettably, background AND the international disagree with you. almost each first-international u . s . has socialized drugs yet us now. "An unanswerable argument to the socialists is they can't prepare that the medical doctors will carry out greater useful under a social well being equipment." i don't think of that any one claims medical doctors will carry out greater useful, only that they are going to hold out the place they weren't earlier. many human beings won't be able to handle to pay for medical care, working finished time jobs. you're taking arguments that don't exist. -- "What with regard to the homeless guy on the nook who isn't in the government's database and for this reason isn't able to get well being care? The socialists' answer is nowhere on the factor of ideal, and could of course consequently not additionally be tried." right here, you argue that...if an progression isn't a hundred% fault-unfastened, we would desire to continuously not even try? by way of that logic, reasonable workout would not treatment weight problems for each guy or woman, so no one ought to purpose to go.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • ?
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    im sure there will still be insured and private hospitals, so rich people can get 'better' treatment then the great unwashed. i believe that everyone has the right to medical care if and when they need it. i dont know the ins and outs of it, but shouldnt everyones life have the same value?

  • Huh?
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    It's fair because it doesn't treat healthcare as a commodity and gives everyone the treatment they need, regardless of financial resources.

    Do you think that it's fair people have to sell their homes to pay for treatment?

    Do you think it's fair that insurance companies will drop you like a hot potato once you exceed your lifetime limit on health expenditure?

    I bet you'll change your mind if you ever come down with some long-term illness like cancer or leukemia! Or a severe injury, like this guy:


    "In defence of the NHS: I'm glad I didn't break my leg in the US"

  • 1 decade ago

    What is "fair" about people dying because they can't afford health insurance?! We're on this earth to HELP people. Your logic is out the door in regards to food. They don't need to eat "lobster" or "steak". There are plenty of grocery stores that have coupons/great bargains. Not all of these people are lazy as some "deem" them to be. They're unfortunate, we're to feel compassion for them, not disdain.

  • 1 decade ago

    Because Its a Public Option Is that what Liberals and Like Minded Peopel want and Need.

    I know It ain't what Republicans will accpet at all.

  • 1 decade ago

    Poor people can still purchase basic food at a low price. They won't starve. However, currently in America there are around 40 million people with no access WHATSOEVER to basic health care. They could die.

  • 1 decade ago

    Anything that gives 40 million Americans without any health care protection must be a good thing. It works well in Britain so why not in the US.

    Source(s): and I am a conservative voter
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.