Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Bob
Lv 5
Bob asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Why should the government not administer healthcare?

It is clear what the avowed aims of those who support health reform are, but it isn't always clear why people oppose it (perhaps this is merely because they are necessarily less coordinated for being out of power).

So, could you tell me why it is that you do not support government administration of healthcare (or other goods, like utilities or education, too, if you want)? I would just like to know where the yahoo answers conservative is coming from.

Liberals can play along too: perhaps anticipate the conservative or libertarian answers and rebut or rebut answers already given.

If possible in your answers, try to avoid strawmen, and try to use reasons that your opponents might countenance rather than reasons that only your cohorts would agree with.

Update:

1) I would prefer if we were closer to the UK in healthcare, i.e. I would prefer if the government literally administered healthcare. I know the debates are about health insurance reform.

2)How in the world can someone who claims to be a libertarian (in economics) think that the government should be capable of administering health insurance.

3)Amateurish Constitutional arguments are unacceptable. Just because there is no constitutional basis for policy doesn't mean there cannot be that policy and thank God for that. If we had to amend the constitution every time we wanted a new policy...

4)Empirical arguments to the ineffectiveness of government administration will always be problematic, especially coming from militarists. That and seniors are awfully happy with Medicare...

5)My county hospital has actually went to pot since the county commission sold it. I am sure it is not the only rural privatization failure.

22 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    the govt does some things fine.. better in fact that anyone else can do..

    the govt is doing fine running the best healthcare system in the world.. the us military active duty healthcare system.. where it is NON PROFIT.. the only motive is the HEALTH of the service people.

    no private corporation build hoover dam

    no private corporation takes care of our elderly

    no private corporation can run our military (thank god)

    no private corporation educates our entire nations children

    no private corporation landed us on the moon

    no private corporation driven by profits can give this nation what it needs when it comes to energy and health care and education.. profits are contrary to success in those area's. being profit motivated HURTS not benefits.

    private companys represent their own interests not the peoples interests.. when it comes to some things.. it is impossible to reach the objective.. if it is a for profit venture. Not all value can be measured in dollars. Putting profits first for somethings cost us much much much more than the few dollars we might put in our coffers. Insurance companies might reap massive profits in the billions.. but considering quite a few people died so they could profit.. those profits seem very dirty to me.. blood money. One insurance executive earned 56,000 dollars per hour.. now how many children die from preventable causes in this country.. because they didnt have money that this executive is stealing from the system.. the system set up to profit a few.. while it's injuring and killing the many... Nixon will burn for this.. setting up something so important as the health of it's citizens as a for profit enterprise.. instead of a for health enterprise.

    as far as your question.. the govt should NOT administer health care.. rather it should pay for the non profit costs of health care. Doctors should administer health care in the usa.. collectivly.. their goal should be cradle to grave health of all the people in this country. by having healthy people from cradle to grave you lower costs.. especially with preventive medicine. IN a for profit system.. health insurance profits by denying healthcare. Like i said for profit motive is the antithis of true health care. this nation will always be 4th rate for national health.. as long as it is profit motivated.. instead of the cheaper alternative.. which is health of it's citizens motivated.

    govt should pay

    people should proably pay LESS than they do now in taxes because the profits are not a factor and since they are healthier thru "free" preventive medicine available to all they wont need as much crisis driven medicine later down the road.

    doctors should manage the system.. where the prime objective is lifetime health of the citizens.. not profit or costs.. it will average out to less than what we pay now.. and we will reap improved health.

    1/3 of the costs now go to p ay the people who profit by denying healthcare. we're in effect paying them to give us the worst possible health care and where possible denying us any health care at all. and virtually no preventive care. that is absolute insanity.. and a waste of 1/3 the dollars spent in this nation on health care.

    the govt can collect taxes fine.. that's all they have to do.. doctors will run everything else.

    the "death panels" people worry about .. EXIST NOW.. in each insurance company.. when they decide wether to provide coverage for care for life ending illnesses and injuries.

  • 1 decade ago

    The government should not administer the Health Care plan and from what I see their is no intention for that to happen. The government has a responsibility to ensue the welfare of the people is safe and in the best interest of the people. They also have a responsibility to monitor and ensure tax payer money is being properly managed. None of them regardless of party have done that very well. The ever increasing health care costs and cost of insurance and pharmaceuticals has been going out of site. This has impacted society to a point where the government has to get involved. The health of the nation is as important as the strength of our military. Billions upon billions of dollars are lost every year to illnesses in the workplace. Far too many people can no longer afford health care or insurance. As time goes by more and more people will loose their health care coverage and not be able to pay their own medical costs. As that happens the government is required to Bail Out the hospitals and doctors. We are already paying additional taxes to cover indigent care. AND, every time a person without insurance or the ability to pay for the service goes into the hospital emergency room the paying patients and insurance companies get hit with the bills. The hospitals and doctors add their costs onto paying patients to recover their losses. As more and more people loose their insurance we who pay our bills will be paying more and more. I support the health care plan and I firmly believe that as it matures it will stop the escalating costs and reduce the overall costs for everyone. We are being told by the GOP that the health care plan will cost us far more than what the estimates are; maybe and maybe not - but we do know that if we do nothing we will end up paying more and more. The insurance and pharmaceutical companies are not going to voluntarily stop raising costs or help those who can not help themselves or make health care affordable for anyone.

  • Power
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    to geoweg: I have worked for govenment & greedmongers & had health care from both. When I worked for an insurance co. we were out to make the largest profit. When I worked in public school we were out to help people not make profits. The school I worked for was much more organized than the insurance agency I worked at & you can check my information, I became a professional organizer b/c the insurance agency I worked for was so disorganized that I learned all I could & got the place in order then left....the P.O. is not run by the gov. which I hear you all say all the time, do some research. Unless you have worked for the P.O. you shouldn't criticize it anyway. It is a lot cheaper usually to mail a letter from the USPO then it is to have someone private business take care of it. There are many reasons why your line has nothing to back it up. What happend to all this jobs while Bush was in office is a republican was so great.

  • 1 decade ago

    Privatee and Doc Bill are 100% correct. The federal government manages some of the best medical programs in the country and although they are not perfect they are affordable, efficient and well respected. I retired from the military where I had exceptional medial coverage. Now I have a government managed medical plan that includes vision and dental that I do not think any private insurance can compare with; in price, coverage or ease of use. It does not appear the government plans on running the insurance and pharmaceutical plans but they are setting standards to force those companies to be fair with the people. If you ever lost someone because they did not have insurance because of "preexisting" conditions, or because they could not afford the attention of care givers or to see a doctor when needed then you have to appreciate the efforts our government is taking. There ae those who will be negatively impacted, specifically those who will not be able to capitalize on the citizen and make their hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars ever year but for the most of us the health care plan is a BIG step for Mankind.

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

    Just look those reports that some how are in direct opposition to the laws of supply and demand. If you supply more health care the costs will go UP! (I know you have to ignore EVERY single economist since Adam Smith, but its true according to the insurance company reports: more health care supply = higher prices.)

    And what about me who doesn't want to get insurance? It's irresponsible to think that I should be taxed to cover my emergency health care costs. I mean, when I get in a car accident and get rushed to the hospital should it be me and others who don't get insurance to pay for it? NO! It should be all the taxpayers who do so! It's called personal responsibility people. You're ALL responsible because I'm irresponsible; not just the few of us who don't want to get health care!

    And then there are those cry babies who mention that 45,000 people die every year because they don't have insurance. Do they really think that is MORE important than profits made by the insurance companies? Come on, who here really thinks those lives are more important than one cent of profit that the insurance companies can make?

  • 1 decade ago

    Listen and listen well this answer will NOT be the the winning answer however I would like to give you some advice about our government. Our government is supposed to protect the people not provide for them. The reason why the health care debate is so complex is because many people have different ideologies of what the government should be doing. As an American who does NOT have health insurance, I would like to make it clear that I am NOT in favor of a universal health care system administered by the government. The reason being is that in many cases the government has the tendency in providing below adequate health treatment, and by having a universal health care system it will only make the health carescenarioo much moredetrimentall. Irecentlyy lost my health insurance from my fathers company and plan on attaing health insurance through my school.

    Source(s): College Student-(Without health insurance)
  • 1 decade ago

    The government is not discussing administering health care. Only about administering health insurance.

    Big difference.

    I am a libertarian, and generally I would be opposed to government funding programs. In this case, I make an exception, in that LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are fundamentals on which this country was founded. Also, the Constitution sums this up in the Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Depriving someone the right to life because they do not have the money to pay an insurance premium is profoundly un-American. And it is the ultimate in promoting the general welfare of the people. Health is not some luxury item to be doled out only to people making middle income or higher.

    But clearly, heaven forbid the government take control of health insurance. I mean, what if it becomes inefficient, like the postal service, where if you drop a letter in a mailbox in Fresno on Monday it will be hand delivered to a mailbox personally by a letter carrier in New York City within two days.

    Or the military. We can't be having the government control something like national security, eh? How inefficient could that get?

    We can't drink the kool aid of laissez faire capitalism and expect our society to thrive indefinitely. We need some sort of government intervention. Making sure insurance companies are bound to certain ethical guidelines is step one.

  • 1 decade ago

    I've been employed by the govt for many years and through Social Security, IRS and

    Post Office agencies. All three agencies are poorly run.

    I would hate to have to depend on them to administer my healthcare, so why would

    I want them to adminster care to the poor? There is a reason that the public option

    would not be forced upon Government workers. There is a reason, gov't employees

    know how inefficient the gov't is.

    The govt cannot provide either affordable care or quality care. Congress needs

    to come up with a better plan.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The government is already heavily involved in health care administration. First, there's HCFA. Then there's the Indian Health Service. There's the Veteran's Administration (where I get my health care). There's Health and Human Services. Need I go on?

  • 1 decade ago

    The Government has a hard time running anything. Congressmen and Senators inject their political needs into all programs, which drive inefficiency. You can see this in Medicare/Medicaid, the UP Postal Service, VA Hospitals, and even pork/earmark spending in the Defense Department.

    Our schools are not giving our youth the means to excel as Liberal values have taught us that no body looses, everyone wins. This is not reality.

    The free market works best when government stays out of it. Health Care is in the shape it is because of Government intervention. The Government will not allow citizens to purchase insurance across state borders. The Government allows bogus law suits that drive up costs. Best to keep them out and the free market in.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.