why are some so "unwilling" to even consider some sort of universal health care?

or at a minimimum health care reform.

The average cost of a family plan purchased by employers this year hit a new high, $12,106, according to the survey. Individual coverage premiums averaged $4,479.

The cost for family coverage has risen 78% since 2001, while wages have risen 19% and prices for goods and services have risen 17% in that period,

The average amount paid above is over one fourth of what the average American earns in a year. If you throw in the high deductibles required now, just to get your premiuims down to only $12,000 a year, the actual cost of health care is even higher.



subguy - who said it would be free. If it costs me $3000 in taxes vs. $12,000 in premiums, won't I be $9000 richer?????

Update 2:

Warren - if it did cost 200 bil, that is less than $700 per person per year in the U.S. that is a lot less than the average of $12,0000 per family listed above

19 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favourite answer

    Excellent question!!!!!!!!!!!

    I am an employer, fiscal conservative, and have been a registered Republican for over 30 years.

    As an employer, I can attest to the fact that health insurance has become far too costly. In my business it has exceeded 25% of my payroll, even with cutbacks in coverage. My employees now have junk coverage and have taken rollbacks in pay just to keep medical coverage. This is a sorry state of affairs.

    As a Republican, I would like to know who the sorry SOBs are that keep calling universal coverage socialized medicine. These knotheads keep using the words socialized medicine to raise resistence to solving this problem.

    As a businessman, let me add this. The health insurance business should not be considered part of the free market system. In a free market system, competition is open for anyone to enter the market. How many people can go down to their friendly neighborhood, mom-and-pop, health insurance companies and get health insurance.

    No one can. The health insurance business is only open to companies with vast amounts of capital. This make the health insurance industry a cartel not a free market entity.

    Another point. Health insurance companies operate at a margin of 40%. In other words 40% of the money you and I pay for health insurance goes to administrative cost. It does not go to the cost of healing the sick. Compare that to the 3% administrative cost of medicare.

    Why there is resistence to universal coverage thru a publicly owned company, rather than privately owned, is beyond me. Was there this much debate when someone had the bright idea to save their community thousands of dollars by building a municipal water system? There is no difference to a single payer medical plan in which Americans can "buy" into than a water system that they buy into.

    Since the medical insurance industry in the USA is a $2 trillion a year business, it's my guess that it is insurance company shills who keep the words socialized medicine in this debate. Universal coverage would be the end of the gravytrain for them. And at $2 trillion per year, it's the biggest gravytrain in the world.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I have no idea.

    I do see a lot of obsession with the word "socialism" here by a select few participants.

    Apparently, they're incapable (or unwilling) to admit that NO ONE wants the current HMO scenario. Patients don't want it. Doctors don't want it. The only ones profiting are the insurance companies.

    The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems.

    Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.

    The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    as one of the millions who has no health care, I think the whole situation is out of control. My employer will pay 80% but does not want to pay a lot. You cannot believe what I have gone through trying to meet the criteria as a person trying to find an individual plan. High deductibles. Health screenings. I have only found plans below $300 a month that have high deductibles. I make less than 30g a year. It is the health care industry. It is the AMA lobbyists. Forget this talk about not wanting to be dependent upon the government. Halliburton but not health care, is that it? America should be ashamed of itself. Billions for Iraq. Nothing for working class America. If you are poor you get welfare and Healthy Start, if you are rich, you don't care but if you are working class, you get nothing but contempt for wanting some attention and respect.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Pfo
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    I have nothing against reforms that make health care affordable, I have a problem with it being free though. Health care is not a right, it's a service. As such, it must be purchased to be consumed. As with all services, eligibility is based on income. It should be that everyone can afford this, but I am not about to put my money towards everyone else's health.

    Simply put: people that have healthcare have nothing to gain from a universal plan; instead they have their money to lose. Anyone that loses money on this plan will not support it.

    There's some debate as to the quality of the care in places that have this. One of the pros is everyone has access to it. Some of the cons are substandard quality, long waiting lists, and lack of choice for care. Some more expensive procedures will still be unavailable, and a universal plan encourages less growth and innovation in health care.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No plan put forth to date has a provision to control spending.The plans I've seen only provide for the government to spend for health care coverage.Last time I checked,the government's money was MY money.

    If a plan was put on the table that:

    Limited Insurance Company costs and profits.

    Set reasonable charges for most if not all tests and procedures.

    Limited access for those who abuse the system(and drive up costs)

    Replaced private sector health care to eliminate a 2 teir system.

    Could prove to me that the money taken from me would be a net savings to me and not just another punitive tax.

    Then MAYBE i would consider it.

    Source(s): Corp CEO
    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Because we are against the growth of government social spending and the dependency it creates in the citizenry, which leads to a government which has total control over its citizenry.

    Let's exhaust other options, consider tort reform (if malpractice insurance is truly driving the high cost of healthcare like doctors say), consider insurance reform (so the insurance companies are not the only ones getting rich off the backs of everyone else) and non-profit remedies FIRST.

    Let's not always look to the government to fix everything.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Interesting, but a survey of 2000 isn't that many. I pay COBRA for my insurance, and for my family it is approx. $6500 per year. That is BC/BS 80/20 PPO insurance with a $250 deductible. It seems odd that it is almost double according to the survey.

    I am willing to consider health care reform, but I believe we need to look at some of the factors affecting the high costs. Malpractice insurance is outrageous, and doctors are going out of business because they cannot afford it. People use the ER instead of a doctors visit. Lets get real, do you need to go to the ER for the flu? People expect someone to pay for their health care, but if I have to pay for them, why can't I tell them to take care of themselves first? Whatever happened to preventative medicine?

    If you think insurance is expensive, how expensive do you think it will be if the Gov't takes control. Lets get real, name one program that the gov't effectively oversees?

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Universal Healthcare sounds great but you have to keep in mind, How do we pay for it? You are talking a program that would cost a projected 200 billion dollars, more than twice what is spent on Iraq and thats draining our wallets enough.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • tll
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    National healthcare on makes people dependent on the government....and you all saw were that got people when katrina hit new orleans (a population that was WAY TOO dependent on the government) I think there should be some reform, but to nationalize it would only create a country that needs its government. I dont want to be that dependent on them....

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It fails everywhere. Ask an honest Canadian.

    I dont want to pay for someone elses healthcare.

    Medicaide is already in place for those that cant afford healthcare and it already costs the tax payers BILLIONS. Its a failed policy.

    Our GOVT was never intended to be used for handouts. There is no way to finance healthcare without raising taxes.

    No way, no how, no thanks

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.