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.

joey asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 9 years ago

Why would you be against a more cost efficient health care system like single payer?

No nation in the world(except us) spends more than 10% of their GDP on health care.

We spend 16 % of our GDP, yet we have 47 million uninsured, thousands die each year over medical bills, and thousands go bankrupt over medical bills

is quality good? well we do have the 37 ranked health care system in the world(world health organization)

compare this to france, the number one system in the world

they spend 10% of their GDP on health care and their doctors make a lot of money

every nation that is ranked above us spends much less on health care than us

why is this? because since there is no insurance companies to act as the "middle man" in these nations, billions for compensation and shareholders are not needed and instead the money could just flow from the government straight to hospitals, doctors, pharmacies, etc.

Single payer is proven to be cost efficient and higher quality so i don't want to hear fiscal cons saying "its too expensive"

the only thing i can think of is long lines but that is only for simple, non urgent procedures such as hip replacements and plastic surgey but this doesn't happen in every single payer nation

So after hearing how much more cost efficient and higher quality it is, why are you so opposed to single payer? is having an insurance company who doesn't care about you and just wants profits at the expense of your health really better than having the "mean old government" managing the finances?

Update:

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&biw=1366&b...

this is from 2009, but you get the picture

we spend by far the most on health care and that is a FACT

as far as medicare goes, most senior citizens won't have many complaints about it. the only reason why the costs are going out of control is the aging baby boomers and the lack of FICA funding. single payer for all would be cost efficient and will cover everyone. plus i don't think many veterans will complain about the "socialistic" VA

Update 2:

so you think that the government controlling health care is "violating your freedom"? does that mean you are ok with insurance companies ripping people off and charging outrageous premiums?

for people against it, go to france, germany, or italy. i doubt you will hear complaints

Update 3:

if those nations were limiting and rationing their health care, then why do they have higher life expectency, lower infant mortality, and ranked higher than us?

our system is the best in the world...if you're rich

but we need a system that works for everyone and general health of the nation comes first

17 Answers

Relevance
  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I'm not against it. It would relieve employers of having to directly provide health insurance to employees. It would also save a lot, as you point out, in administrative costs. It is a sensible approach to health care.

    I think however that individuals should still be able to purchase any additional coverage that they believe necessary and be able to pay for directly for medical care.

  • wtinc
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    that's a great BS. Could it be that those other countries are limiting there health care?

    The financing is supported by employers, employee contributions, and personal income taxes. The working population has twenty percent of their gross salary deducted at source to fund the social security system.

    that is 12% more than were paying now? They still have to purchase health insurance in addition to there taxes. Does not sound so great to me.

    About seventy five percent of the total health expenditures are covered by the public health insurance system. A part of the balance is paid directly by the patients and the other part by private health insurance companies that are hired individually or in group (assurance complémentaire or mutuelle, complementary insurance or mutual fund).

    The State

  • 9 years ago

    The 47 million uninsured is not the fault of Americans and I have no idea were you get that number from!!! Even those who career is welfare are insured thanks to taxpayers!!

    If your talking about ILLEGALS, the word should give you a hint! Even they are covered thanks to the taxpayers!!!!

    Everyone is covered! Coverage differs between those that buy their own policy and those who have their coverage paid by taxpayers!!

    ps. - instead of worrying about what some other country does, give a care about your own country!! America is not france or mexico or ussr or england or any other country!!!

  • mark
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    This is like fighting between fans of the Yankees and Red Sox. Facts are not going to sway opinions.

    The Affordable Care Act is here to stay. Only loss of the presidency, House and a super majority in the Senate could overturn it. And, that's not going to happen. Plus, many aspects of ACA are already implemented and they are very popular. Many on the right hinge their hopes on the SCOTUS to overturn it. Worse case, the mandate gets overturned.

    Judging by the disillusionment of America about the Republicans that are In office and those that are running, I am pretty confident that the Dems will be in a position by next Jan to strengthen ACA to a point where it;s here FOREVER.

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

    Ok, so let's do single payer food too.

    Let's do single payer housing, single payer water, single payer clothing, single payer employment, single payer entertainment, etc. Let's do everything in a single payer system, that would be most efficient right? Why stop at efficient health care, and not do efficient food, shelter, etc.?

    Slavery is efficient, that does not mean it is something we should do or encourage. Freedom is more important and valuable than efficiency.

  • GARF
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    There are not 47 million without health care. Thousands do not die because of health care bills and thousands do not go bankrupt over health care bills. These are the kind of statements made on MSNBC and have no merit.

  • Jeff D
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Medicare is a single-payer system and it's neither very cost efficient nor does it provide especially good service.

    Come back if/when you get the bugs worked out of Medicare.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    The fact that the system is currently terrible does not mean that what you euphemistically call "single payer" would be a good thing.

    You have presented a false dichotomy.

  • 9 years ago

    "Single payer is proven to be cost efficient and higher quality so i don't want to hear fiscal cons saying "its too expensive""

    What a crock of sh!t. Proven my @ss. All it is proven to be is a disastrously inefficient system that patrons cannot wait to escape. If it is so efficient and high quality, why does it always turn into a rationing system where people who could otherwise afford the cost are forced to wait months or years for critical procedures?

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    If you eliminate the profit in the health care insurance industry you eliminate the dividends the ultra-wealthy are living off of. With a single payer system the wealthy would have to get a job. Oh, the horror!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.