Create universal health care

Universal health care for all Americans is not a good plan for anybody. But, I would support universal health care for children under the age of 18. Just because your parents cannot afford health insurance doesnt mean that you should have to be uninsured.

I support that US adopts universal health care because, refraining with Sam and Dylan said, it is right of each individual to remain healthy, save and protected. Although I think this can be realized, the US government needs to do first some homeworks. Basically if you want to have a universal health care, you have to create a system enforcement so that you can spread risks around the pool of insurance. If the risks are too heavy (due to bad health condition or extreme low income), the insurance premium will be difficult to keep low. If we see the reality now, people don't have insurance because they couldn't afford it. In other words, it is too expensive. The solution of this is that the government has to bail out the pool. My question is: amid the surging budget deficit, could the US government do this? I think the US government has spent too much in health care already with Medicare and Medicard (which also don't work very well) and social security has also still to be bailed out since the baby boomers are getting near to their retirements. So guys, now I leave it to you. If I were an American, with my economic sense with regard to this issue, I would elect a president that is more fiscal conservative.

Punisher -

I think you are right that the cost is a major problem IF you make health care mandatory. However, I don't think this is the best option. Also, when you say that you would "have to lower the effective price of health care so much that health care providers would not be able to supply as much as they did before", I don't think that is the only way. What you are talking about are price ceilings, which I think should be avoided at ALL COSTS. But government intervention to stimulate competition - for example, a heath care provider initiated by the government, can definitely lower cost without lowering supply.

Also, any way to solve a problem includes more problems. Any time we pass a law it limits more of our freedom that we fight for. You just have to decide which problems you want to deal with to live a safe and happy life. I do not believe in universal health care, but not just because of the fact that it would cause more problems in the United States. After all, the importance of a "problem" is relative to each individual.

I'll be honest; our current health care system, which, in the broadest sense is a market-based system, has serious problems. But universal health care just creates its own set of problems. While I'm sure that everyone here would love to make sure everyone in the country has access to high quality health care, the problem is many people do not realize that universal health care with the same quality as the health care available now to those who can afford it is idealistic and certainly not realistic or economical.

The main obstacle that the country faces in providing universal health care is cost. Currently, the cost of health care in this country is ridiculous, and that really goes without saying. In order to make health care affordable enough that everyone can afford it, you'd essentially have to lower the effective price of health care so much that health care providers would not be able to supply as much as they did before. What results is waiting lists, much like in Canada, Britain and other countries with universal health care systems. Not only does this happen, but providers also would have no incentive to offer newer, more cutting edge technologies and treatments. Effectively, you reduce the quality of health care as well. So in the end, you have universal health care, but with a much lower quality and quantity than was offered before.

What is the remedy for such a situation? Is there a compromise that would allow us to give all 300 million people in this country the highest quality care possible while still keeping it affordable to them? Any option like this would have to employ at least some degree of price discrimination based on income and/or willingness to pay, but such a method would be very difficult to implement politically and economically.

Don't get wrong. Having health care for all 300 million Americans would be wonderful. Any politician or citizen in his or her good mind would love that. But those who oppose universal health care oppose it not because they think that the poor don't deserve health care, but because universal health care has so many major problems of its own. In this light I feel that Hillary Clinton's health care plan is the least desirable and will lead to massive problems. Obama's is somewhat better but may lead to adverse selection, which would result in healthier people not in need of health insurance dropping out, thus boosting up the price of insurance for those remaining (because insurance companies know that those remaining are more willing to pay). Note that the problem of adverse selection is rampant in our current system, and I have no reason to believe it would be any different under Obama's plan. I haven't analyzed John McCain's plan so I can't elaborate on that one specifically.

Dylan,

Before I respond, clarify what you mean when you say "This is the reason Americans pay the most money for the worst service of any industrialized country." Are you referring to the United States infant mortality rate? Its life expectancy? Number of immunizations? Or is it just your opinion that you could find better doctors and procedures somewhere else?

How, exactly, does the United States have the worst health service of any industrialized nation?