i dont see the problem with it at all, i think its a good think why is it bad? i just want to hear peoples opinions on it the only people that are complaining that i can see are the employed healthy people
Having more choices is not control. Most of the Western societies (I know, news for you) have government subsidized health care. Why should the US be the only one without it?
what has healthcare to do with nationalism? if somebody can´t pay for healthcare, the goverment will help. you surely don´t think, that those who can´t afford it, just should die ... do you?
agreed sweet and even if your middleclass or even upper if you dont have healthcare and something major happens to you your looking at medical bills up in the 6 digits
The way goods and services in US have become part of a competition, is not through government. In the U.S., competition has come from the private sector competing for the dollar of value-seeking consumers. And that private-sector competition has promoted innovation, meanwhile that innovation has benefited Americans with better and cheaper products and services. So this whole government run deal will just hold any competition and providing quality care to Americans.
as far as i know that isnt "most" its ALL except for the US. Furthermore its not even just the first world who have UHC, even some of the third world like cuba do as well
UNIVERSAL CUBAN HEALTHCARE was that bold in enough letters? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! sounds solid Gold healthcare for all those people in Cuba, real quality. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH Oh god, of COURSE the AMA agrees with you. They are a lobby group for christ sake. Why the hell do you think the Australian MA was so against "Job subsitution" which was recomended in the intergenerational health review? Because it would take jobs away from DOCTORS and give them to the other proffessions who would probably do a better job in a lot of areas than the doctors are Note: Job subsitution means moving other health services into the front line. For instance: -Psycologists would be seeing pts for psycological problems without ever seeing a GP -Nurse practitioners (very senor nurses who have done aditional study) would be running clinics equivlant to GP clinics and treating people for minor bacterial infections ect -Midwives would take on primary responcability for low risk pregancies including ordering pain relief and ultrasounds ect without the pt ever needing an obstrition -Paramedic practioners would take over running emergency rooms and push doctors back to treating the more serious cases after paramedic assesments -Phsio's would be ordering there own imaging (x-rays and the like) and treating without the pt ever needing to see a doctor Further more why is it that the AMA shot down a goverment plan to alow nurses, pharmisits and psycologists to write "medical certificates" without the need to see a GP when it can take up to 3 or more DAYS to get into see a GP? The answer to both is THEY WOULD LOSE MONEY AND POWER
because than they would have to compete rather than dicatating who lives and who dies with their hyper inflated prices.
i have no idea what it would cost ... but i´m sure that i could actually not even afford a broken leg, if i would have to pay for it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!