Candidate Calculator 2008 Election

Universal Health Care

Summary

Health care and health insurance costs are rising far above the inflation rate. More than 45 million Americans do not have health insurance, and millions more have insurance that does not adequately cover them or their families. This issue affects not only low-income families, but middle-class families in part because employers who offer health insurance have dropped from 69% in 2000 to 60% in 2005. Estimates of the percentage of U.S. government funds that go toward health care vary, on the high end at 20% of government revenue, but just about all parties in the debate agree that the government’s contribution to American health care is large and growing.

Yes: Support Universal Health Care

Health care is a basic human right that most developed nations provide for their citizens. It also makes economic sense. Millions of uninsured individuals exact huge "hidden" costs on the American economy when they skip preventative care and treatment needed for chronic health conditions, which eventually may result in direct and indirect public expenses. Universal health care could also reduce the severity of epidemics by reducing the number of disease carriers. 

Contrary to popular belief, government-managed universal health care would be more efficient and provide better health care than the current private system, which ranks far behind the health care systems of most developed nations in quality and efficiency. In fact, the U.S. private system has an incentive to deny care in order to trim costs. Furthermore, the current system uses approximately one-fourth of all revenue for administration, and millions of dollars more go to middlemen and agents, rather than into health care. And since the U.S government already foots a huge amount of the bill for health care, it makes sense to let it directly control the expenditures and ease the burden on private companies that provide health insurance.

You support this or similar arguments.

No: Against Universal Health Care 

Providing universal health care is not a government responsibility, nor can the government provide health care more efficiently than the private sector. In fact, universal health care plans will reduce efficiency because of more bureaucratic oversight and more paperwork, which could lead to fewer doctor-patient visits, increased wait times, poorer quality care and decreased treatment flexibility. Furthermore, government-mandated procedures will reduce doctor flexibility and lower pay in the medical profession, which in turn would discourage talented people from pursing medicine or important medical research. 

The insurance industry would also be hard hit, certainly losing thousands of jobs. And even though the new health care bureaucracy could absorb some of those jobs, the creation of this new infrastructure could cost billions.

No heath care system is 100% fair, but at least in the current system healthy people who take care of themselves are not expected to subsidize those with illnesses that stems from poor heath choices, such as smoking, lack of exercise, alcohol and drug abuse, and obesity.

You support this or similar arguments. 

Additional Information

 
AllMilitary.com has great resources for active duty military, veterans and their family members. Find information on the GI Bill, VA home loans, other military benefits and military-friendly employers. Discuss military issues in Joe's Military Forum, or talk about your Candidate Calculator results or your positions on the 2008 election issues. Have a laugh on Joe's Military Humor pages.