What is the United States problem with Universal Health Care?

Insurance companies and privately owned hospitals, they make the money so they make the rules

"Freedom does not include a government takeover of our bodies."

Dumbest Answer Ever

I'm literally shaking my head at all these "freedom" answers, god you people have to be the dumbest sonsofbitches to ever take a breath

We have a different system. We are not Argentina, Barbados, Brazil, Canada , Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Bahrain,Brunei, China, Hong Kong, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Macau, Malaysia, Mongolia, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand , Turkey, Turkmenistan, UAE, Austria, Andorra, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Libya, Mauritius, Morocco,Seychelles, South Africa or Tunisia

You must be careful when defining universal healthcare as well, in Australia we have atotally government directly funded system (it is inefficient, expensive and the quality is poorer than a lot of other countries) where the government provides hospitals and you go and get treated

In Europe the system is not like ours it is about government health insurance.

In the USA hospitals are the best in the world in terms of quality, but it is not "universal". Although most americans are covered by employer or private health insurence. In a country of 300 million, running huge deficits and debt. I don't think it is a good idea to put in universal free healthcare just yet.

nicely right here contained in the united kingdom we've unfastened conventional well-being care, and we are at the instant rediculously in debt, with almost each and every medical institution contained in the rustic loosing greater funds than the government can throw at it. it would matter the way it grew to become into controlled. the united kingdom's well-being device is a shame and a large number, and the government won't have the ability to work out that purely throwing funds at something won't exchange the accepted flaws it has. yet while the U. S. grew to become into set up a device that labored nicely, then it would be a solid theory.

Most of those countries do not have the quality of health care that we enjoy here in the States.

There are a good number of citizens from those countries that currently travel to the US to take advantage of our system, not abuse it mind you, they pay for it.

Now, in the US, if you have a life threatening medical issue you are given priority treatment and "rush" service which could save your life. In the other countries you listed, you go on a waiting list for an appointment that takes months, sometimes years.

It is because our system is not universal that allows us to have better service, better technology, and at the time, we do not have the death panels that come with universal health care.

If you like UHC so much, you can always move to one of those other countries.

The last thing is, it is against the premise of our Constitution to have the government mandating health care.

I am a disabled veteran, as such I actually use a form of UHC in the guise of the VA medical system. I had a mild heart attack a little over a month ago, but I am just now (at the end of this month) able to see a VA specialist about it. That is too long of a wait. I do not at this time have a civilian doctor.

I'm Australian - it works for us we a population that can absorb the cost and on the whole it's a little dodgy with wait lists etc for elective but if you are dying triage at most hospitals will see you looked after.

The population of the US if you add in illegals and unemployment

and those not covered - to promise what we have is ludicrous

Who pays?

When most earning already have healthcare - which they may well lose should an employer opt out

It's a humanitarian thought, Without the dollars and the population you can't compare

I am not rich and I pay for my health care. I have done so since the sixties. I like it, I don't have to sit in lines, or around a bunch of sleazebags looking for drugs, etc etc. I like it the way it is. You want health care, buy it. It is available to EVERYONE, if they say it isn't that is a lie. Nobody gets turned down that wants it. You just have to make hard decisions, cool phone, or antibiotics. New rims or new lease on life. I know it is hard to fathom paying your own way for a lib but again tough choices.

There are too many neo-cons who for some reason known only to the insane think the insurance companies should have obscene profits rather than that children get medical care. Beats the heII out of me, too.

Americans prefer liberty and freedom over government healthcare.

Universal health care doesn't work...in Canada if you need a hip or knee replacement that is considered elective surgery and it may take 2 years to have a hip or knee replacement and also in Canada doctors are in such shortage they have lottery drawings once a month for people to get a doctor. People laugh at the phrase "death panels" but they don't realize if you can't get into see a doctor you could die. If people would do a little honest research they would not want anything to do with universal health care.