Should the United States of America use Nationalized Health Care?
"Rights are not about giving you something for free; they are about protecting natural liberties from those who would take them away from you. For instance, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. It does not however, say that you get guns for free if you don't have one." Many people all over the country are starting to think that the United States should provide nationalized health care, rather than paying for your own. These people believe that healthcare should be a right for all US citizens or residents. However, they haven't considered a lot of downsides that could occur if we used such a system. The United states should keep its current healthcare system …show more content…
A study that took in Jan. 2014 showed that 10,000 uninsured(this suggests that they are below the poverty line) Portland, Oregon residents got access to Medicaid. 40% of these people went to the emergency room more, even though all US residents have access to the emergency rooms. These results could happen on a larger scale around the country if healthcare was completely available to everyone for no cost. People would overuse the services provided to them and start to cause larger problems. For instance, countries that use a national system tend to ration vital medicines. The UK National Health Service automatically approved any medicine that gave 6 months of good quality life and cost less 10,000 pounds or $15,150. Higher cost medicines that might have the same effects would have a lower chance of getting approved for public consumption. This system could not have any negative side-effects to a point. If a more expensive medicine gave the most successful results and was the only medicine that could really cure a dangerous disease, but the government decided not to approve the medicine because it was too expensive to produce. That would not be a good scenario. If health care resources were being overused on a large enough scale,the government could be forced to start rationing medicines on a larger …show more content…
A national system could raise taxes. In the United Kingdom, the payroll tax in which the health care system would be funded, is 37%. The USA's is 15.3%, a very significant difference. Not only could a National system raise taxes, doctors could get paid less as a result of national healthcare. In Canada, physicians have 30% less incomes than doctors in the USA. In UK, physicians earn 50% less. This lack of pay caused the UK's doctors to decrease dramatically. From Obamacare alone, studies predict that the average amount of new doctors will decrease by 63,000. If we used a national system, this number would increase by a lot. Finally, the national debt could very well increase. Studies say that he national debt will increase by $340-$700 billion from Obamacare alone, this number will increase if we use a national
"Rights are not about giving you something for free; they are about protecting natural liberties from those who would take them away from you. For instance, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. It does not however, say that you get guns for free if you don't have one." Many people all over the country are starting to think that the United States should provide nationalized health care, rather than paying for your own. These people believe that healthcare should be a right for all US citizens or residents. However, they haven't considered a lot of downsides that could occur if we used such a system. The United states should keep its current healthcare system …show more content…
A study that took in Jan. 2014 showed that 10,000 uninsured(this suggests that they are below the poverty line) Portland, Oregon residents got access to Medicaid. 40% of these people went to the emergency room more, even though all US residents have access to the emergency rooms. These results could happen on a larger scale around the country if healthcare was completely available to everyone for no cost. People would overuse the services provided to them and start to cause larger problems. For instance, countries that use a national system tend to ration vital medicines. The UK National Health Service automatically approved any medicine that gave 6 months of good quality life and cost less 10,000 pounds or $15,150. Higher cost medicines that might have the same effects would have a lower chance of getting approved for public consumption. This system could not have any negative side-effects to a point. If a more expensive medicine gave the most successful results and was the only medicine that could really cure a dangerous disease, but the government decided not to approve the medicine because it was too expensive to produce. That would not be a good scenario. If health care resources were being overused on a large enough scale,the government could be forced to start rationing medicines on a larger …show more content…
A national system could raise taxes. In the United Kingdom, the payroll tax in which the health care system would be funded, is 37%. The USA's is 15.3%, a very significant difference. Not only could a National system raise taxes, doctors could get paid less as a result of national healthcare. In Canada, physicians have 30% less incomes than doctors in the USA. In UK, physicians earn 50% less. This lack of pay caused the UK's doctors to decrease dramatically. From Obamacare alone, studies predict that the average amount of new doctors will decrease by 63,000. If we used a national system, this number would increase by a lot. Finally, the national debt could very well increase. Studies say that he national debt will increase by $340-$700 billion from Obamacare alone, this number will increase if we use a national