Value Added Health Service

Does anybody support universal health care?

There's is a bill in congress that would establish a federal government national health insurance program funded by a value added tax of five percent on every product or service sold in the US. http://www.thenhf.com/HR%2015.pdf http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-15

Public Comments

1. Yes and NO
2. YES~
3. Only those who never had an economics class support universal health care. It will not only create higher taxes, but it will end up leading to a rationing of health care, a cap on doctors' salaries, which will lead to smart people choosing other careers, and a cap on what can be paid for drugs, treatments, etc,. which will lead to those providers switching focus from new research to becoming a lower-margin provider. in short, it'll drive out the best potential doctors, it'll cost more, it'll slow improvements in medicine. Universal health care is a dangerous idea. But, hey, politicians want to get elected and the uneducated masses want something 'for free.'
4. In a country like america no person should go without adequate health care. Health care should be our birthright, those oppossed to offering care to the poor or disenfrachised all have selfish motives. If we are going to decide what class of people deserve health care then only people who pass a stringent financial litmus test and promise to bear the financial burden should be allowed to have children in the future
5. After taking several economics classes, the prospect of universal health care makes me ask several questions before deciding if it's a good idea. Currently there are 43 million Americans who've chosen not to buy health insurance. What is the reason to force them to buy it either by mandate or through taxation? Part of the answer is public health. I stand less of a chance of getting sick if I'm surrounded by other healthy people. Therefore, it's worth it to me to spend a little of my income to make sure you have the funds to stay healthy. Another answer to this question is that humans are naturally compassionate. If someone is brought into the emergency room in critical condition we will not ask if he has health insurance before deciding to treat him. We will not try to determine if it was his fault or someone else's. We'll just treat him. As long as this is a reality, it makes sense to demand that everyone maintain a certain level of insurance so they don't end up freeloading on the compassion of others. The simplist--and in my opinion the most effective--way to provide universal health insurance is by a voucher. The government would take all the money it's currently spending on health care via medicaid, medicare, and work subsidized health care and simply distribute it out to everyone in the form of a voucher that could only be spent on health insurance. You'd be able to spend more on health insurance than the voucher amount, and you could buy the plan that best suits your needs. Effectively, all the voucher system does is force you to spend a certain portion of your income on health insurance. For the wealthy, this is probably no big deal because they would likely want to spend more than the voucher amount anyway. The poor might find it more restrictive because it forces them to give up a greater percentage of their disposable income. (This generally helps them because money spent on maintaining your health has a greater return than a lot of other things you might do with your money). Such a system would require no new taxation since it's spending tax money we already pay. However, I might be willing to support greater taxation if I could see how I was getting more out of it. With such a system in place, redistribution of wealth is temptingly easy. It also makes sense. The elderly, poor, and those with congenital or chronic conditions will likely draw out more than they put in. Mostly, the healthy, wealthy and wise will pay out more than they get back. As a member of the latter group, this doesn't bother me terribly; my birth certificate doesn't say that life is fair. Does yours? I'm fine with paying a little more to the less fortunate. As long as the government doesn't limit what I can do with my health care money, I can still get the health care I want for me and for my family. I would oppose any plans to make the government itself the universal health insurance provider or to nationalize all hospitals or something like that. Most plans that are currently before Congress are more restrictive and less efficient than I'd like, but there's still time to build consensus for positive changes.
6. The politicians never tell you particulars. They just make promises. Just raise taxes some more and we will have heaven on earth. Sounds good doesn't it? A huge government bureaucracy would be terribly inefficient. Better to use private enterprise, which would control costs much better. Use the profit incentive to motivate insurance companies to run an efficent, cost effective operation with the promise of profits. Vouchers would be a much better idea. Limit to people who make less than $25,000 per year. Let people buy insurance from private companies. Keep the government bureacracy out of health care. Private insurers provide the best services at the least cost.