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.

Can we be assured that Government mandated health care would not be as inefficient as unemployment insurance?

I frequently see how unemployment only helps a fraction of the unemployed. Additional funding is often necessary. People are not able to collect for a variety of reasons when they need the money. Many wind up on the street starving.

Is this an example of how effective mandatory health care would be? How can we be assured that the government will run a health care insurance system any better than an unemployment insurance system?

Update:

1. A sizable portion of unemployment is federal. Currently in the news are soldiers coming back and having difficulties finding work. States are running out of money and stimulus funds are allotted to UI. UI is a federally mandated program; states have no choice but to run it and it transfers over borders. There is nothing inherently "state" about it other than geographically.

2. Health insurance is a moral balancing act too. Most Americans oppose smoking, drug abuse, sexual carelessness, obesity, dangerous driving, and a lot of other moral issues that cause the rise of health care costs. Sin taxes on sex and illegal drugs?

9 Answers

Relevance
  • Mark A
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I see where you're going with this, but unemployment is by and large a function at the state level, not the federal. A better example would be to compare how the USPS is run Vs private industry (i.e. UPS or Fed Ex) Postal rates keep increasing, and services keep getting cut (no Saturday delivery soon.

    The Federal government should be looking at ways to stop "helping" so much and just stay out the way.

  • 1 decade ago

    Only if the health care is managed by a private company (like medicare is) and there is

    supplemental insurance available (like medicare has), which will drive the price up but will

    assure quality.

    The prices will be similar to private insurance because it will have all the costs of private

    insurance, plus the bureaucracy on top of it (like medicare).

    The govt is similar to a freight train--powerful and hard to stop, and limited in mobility.

    Not a good qualification in health care since every case in individual and flexibility is necessary.

  • 1 decade ago

    Look abroad to see how these things are run to see how effective these reforms will be.

    I am always amazed how many Americans seem not to be aware about the real healthcare issues relying instead on FOX and other sources to spread lies about the healthcare system of the USA and those abroad. I mean, if healthcare in nations with universal coverage is so bad, why do they keep it?

    Obama wants to make insurance more available to all and change the system so that it gives the American people value for money [1]. He also wants change so that the insurance companies find it harder to get out of paying for treatment. The system he is proposing looks similar to that which works in Taiwan where private companies are involved in providing healthcare [2].

    Obama campaigned on reforming the healthcare system. He said he wanted to make insurance more available and he was elected to do this [3].

    FACT - the US has higher death rates for kids both for kids aged under one and those under five than western European countries with universal health coverage [4].

    FACT – American insurance companies push up prices and work to stop paying out claims on those they cover [5].

    FACT - the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet [6].

    That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in any western nation with universal health coverage.

    If you do not like the policies that Obama was elected to bring in, he can always be voted out of office in 2012. But if you disagree with the facts, please let me know. I am always willing to learn, but please provide proof. None of those who disagree with me have been able to do that so far.

  • 1 decade ago

    What you are talking about is not efficiency, it is a moral hazard balancing act.

    Unemployment insurance is a very different issue than health insurance. You have a degree of moral hazard in unemployment insurance that can't be offset the way moral hazard can be offset in health insurance with sin taxes. You want to help those who are unemployed due to macroeconomic forces, but you also want them to still be motivated to find a job. Unemployment insurance is a delicate social remedy that offsets the flaws of capitalism and its labor markets the best it can.

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

    On the other hand, after you have raped and pillaged the social security, medicare, road tax trust funds, you can't raise taxes, what alternative is there other then creating a new trust fund to raid.

  • 1 decade ago

    I never heard of a loyal worker having problems getting their unemployment comp when they need it. It isn't meant to fully compensate for a weeks worth of work.

    You must "see" a lot of deadbeats around you. Sorry you can't get benefits when you quit after 4 days.

  • 1 decade ago

    Then stick with your insurance company. I'm sure they care more about your health than their profits.

    I wonder what you will do when you are eligible for medicare, still pay for private (for profit) insurance?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Why can't it be as highly regarded as Medicare. I know lots of senior citizens who love it and need it.

  • 1 decade ago

    Certainly as much as we can assume the big business can.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.