Verified answer

I don't pretend to understand the motivation of any politician.

What I can say, however, is that it is logical that universal health care is, at best, an extremely risky crap shoot.

It may or may not work but once instituted, it will be nearly impossible to repeal.

In Australia it seems to work fairly well. In Canada, it's a disaster. My friends in Europe say it's an expensive, ineffective mess. They pay a ton in taxes and can't get in to see the doctor.

Common sense tells us it probably won't work in America. First, it's unconstitutional to force someone to purchase any product so it's silly to even consider it unless we're just going to completely disregard the principles upon which our great country was founded.

Second, the model for Obamacare was tried in Massachusetts and Hawaii. It had to be discontinued in Hawaii because it was a disaster. In Massachusetts, it's been a very expensive mixed bag. Insurance has gotten so expensive due to Romney-care that a lot of people opt to pay the fine for not having health care so it hasn't met the stated goal.

It stands to reason that taxes will go way up if Obamacare takes effect. If there is no rationing of care and people don't need to pay for it at the point of service, it doesn't mean that it's free. Someone needs to pay for it and that someone is us. And as taxes go up and up and up, the wealthiest Americans will simply find tax shelters or leave the country - and the middle class will be left to foot the bill.

It also stands to reason that the price tag of Obamacare will be very high. Any time government gets involved it gets very expensive. There's a "the sky's the limit" sort of feeling. Think about it. Since the government inspired HMO's got into the picture, the cost of health care has gone through the roof. People on Medicare/Medicaid typically have no idea how much a procedure costs. They just want to know if it's covered by their plan. If so, they go in.

The doctor needs to hire a TON of staff to deal with all the different requirements of each HMO, of Medicare and Medicaid. Not to mention the cost of malpractice insurance which has gotten astronomical. So the physician's expenses go through the roof just as compensation drops.

That translates into fewer people going into the field and a lot of doctors retiring early because they can't afford to continue. Would you go through and extremely demanding and incredibly expensive educational program so you could be overworked and so poorly compensated that you couldn't even pay your student loans? Few people are that stupid.

So - doctors will be less available. That means less access to health care.

And because there will be less competition, quality will suffer too. When you finally do get in to see a doctor, if they aren't up to par you're out of luck. There will likely be a lottery and you'll consider yourself lucky if you can get in to see anyone.

The only people who will be able to afford quality care will be the very, very wealthy.

You cannot create enough laws to inspire common sense. People should buy health insurance. If they can't afford it, they can look into HSA's which are generally quite cost effective.

And people should know that you won't be able to get insurance AFTER you are sick. It's like trying to buy affordable car insurance right after you've caused an 8 car pile up - and expecting your insurance to cover the cost of the pile up.

If we allow the private sector to handle health care - as Dr. Ron Paul suggests - we will find that the cost will regulate itself due to competition, quality will go up as will accessibility and doctors will be able to do what they do best - heal people. Those most in need will be able to find care through non-profits and charity hospitals as well as doctors who will be able to donate their time.

Take a look at lasik eye surgery. It's a good example of how health care would work if returned to the private sector.

Still not convinced? This is a very enlightening video on health care and the options facing our country:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf3MtjMBWx4

Isn’t the main premise behind national health care the redistribution of wealth?

You can easily compare quotes from 20+ cheapest insurance companies in USA for example at: DISCOUNTAUTOINSURANCE1.COM

Has the right lost the ability to see truth at all?

Newt praised Romney Care. Romney praised Obama Care.

Until they ran for President and had to change to the Big Pharma buy out.

The redistribution of wealth comes from the right. No taxes for Corporate and high taxes, low wages for the people. That is the platform so just be honest.

The right is Corporatism gathering sheep.

Isn’t the main premise behind national health care the redistribution of wealth?

Looking 4 auto insurance companies? one of the top to get best auto insurance company, rates and prices is: http://www.cheapinsurance4auto.info/

Like it or not, stagnant wealh is preyed on by every active market in the world , which causes the wealth to seek political parties that will do their bidding for them,

And that group of people has been hit by taxes as the only way to pry the money from their soon to be empty dead hands,,, not to be morbid but those greedy old farts will be dead relatively soon and the death tax will redistribute their money into useless social and military spending, socialized medicine is the way of the world ,, like it or not and the greedy rich will be crying for their share and voting for politicians that promise to give it to them.

Not at all. Romney created state health care, and he sure wasn't interested in redistribution of wealth unless it was to dedistribute it to the top 2%.

yes - Most disturbing, of course, is the Obama Administration's push for a federal takeover of our nation's health care sector -- one-sixth of the U.S. economy. Nothing could be more disastrous.

Government-controlled medicine inevitably brings bureaucratic rationing -- as a result, treatable conditions like prostate and breast cancer are often death sentences in the United Kingdom and Western Europe.

That's EXACTLY what it is.When the dust clears and the non-stop speeches end and it's election day we will have: Forced health care-weakened military-25 million plus on food stamps-emboldened Iran-chaos in Iraq from leaving too soon-and Taliban thugs transferred to Qatar from GITMO. But dumb @$$ libs try to say he's a good president...idiots.

No. the main Premise behind national health care is health care for all. sometimes a Cigar is just a cigar.

Nope. Data supports the lower cost and better outcomes of universal care

The fact is that in the USA we pay nearly *twice* what Europeans pay for health care, and we have both higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy than most European countries. In the table below, im = infant mortality and L = life expectancy.

2010 life expectancies: http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/infant-...

2010 health care per capita: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALT...

United States -- im= 6.1, L= 78.2, cost $7538, 16.0% of GDP

Canada ---------- im= 5.0, L= 81.3, cost $4406, 10.4% of GDP

Austria --------- im= 4.4, L= 79.6, cost $3970, 10.5% of GDP

United Kingdom -- im= 4.7, L= 79.9, cost $3129, 8.7% of GDP

Denmark ------- im= 4.3, L= 78.5, cost $3540, 9.7% of GDP

Finland -------- im= 3.4, L= 79.1, cost $3008, 8.4% of GDP

France -------- im= 3.3, L= 81.0, cost $3696, 11.5% of GDP

Germany ------ im= 4.0, L= 79.4, cost $3737, 10.5% of GDP

Greece -------- im= 5.1, L= 79.8, cost $2687, 9.7% of GDP

Italy ------------ im= 5.4, L= 80.3, cost $2886, 9.5% of GDP

Norway --------- im= 3.5, L= 80.0, cost $5003, 8.5% of GDP

Spain ----------- im= 3.4, L= 81.0, cost $2902, 9.0% of GDP

Sweden -------- im= 2.7, L= 80.9, cost $3470, 9.4% of GDP

Switzerland --- im= 4.1, L= 80.9, cost $4810, 10.7% of GDP

In 2008, these two nations lagged the USA in life expectancy; now they have passed the USA.

Ireland --------- im= 3.9, L= 80.0, cost $3793, 8.7% of GDP

Portugal ------- im= 4.7, L= 78.4, cost $2151, 9.9% of GDP

According to David Frum (special assistant to president, 2001-2), between 2000 and 2007, the cost of the average insurance policy for a family of four doubled. See http://www.frumforum.com/the-bush-economic-record-... In this question I show a back-of-the envelope estimate of the cost of maintaining the status quo http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AirVV... We can't afford to maintain the status quo, but if we did it would cost $8 to $9 trillion spread over the next 10 years. John McCain agrees the current system is failing: http://www.protectpatientsnow.org/site/c.8oIDJLNnH...

Some folks blame high costs on malpractice insurance. But the numbers don't support that. A recent CBO estimate http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_R... says malpractice reform might save half a percent of expenditures. Another estimate: including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts, the cost of the suits comes to less than 1.5 percent of health-care spending. See http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/AIRhealthcosts.... and http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/RisingCostOfMe... Along those lines, it's interesting to note that a number of states already have "caps and tort reform" yet the insurance companies have not lowered the cost of malpractice insurance in those states. Finally, most malpractice cases occur in state court where the Federal government has no juristiction. See http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_di...

If you're still with me, all this data begs the question "how is it possible that universal care can lead to lower overall costs?" The short answer is preventative care. Going in for regular doctor visits catches many diseases in their early stages before treatment gets expensive. Our system causes many people to forgo preventative care and wind up in the emergency room, where care is most expensive but costs can be shifted to the society at large.

.