Should a just goverment provide health care to its citizens?

Mine does!

(although we all pay just that little bit more in tax)


Yes, a just government should supply a health service, so that all of its citizens, rich or poor, have access to essential medical care.

No. Only the wealthy deserve to survive.

A bit of sarcasm there.

of course like in the US..should we convert to an untied healthcare system provided by the government....

i think i am undecided about that, For one they should. people would have more access to better healthcare and be able to actually take care of their sick

but also if you look at it from an economic point of view people do respond to incentives and by letting them have that choice of picking what healthcare provider they want, you are allowing the better economic flow for the market..... if that makes sense

united

Be careful, Edgar, some people have no sense of humor..

Francis
Which is why I added the second post.

eh dont kill em just take all of their money and run...thats the way to do it

Here (UK), we have adequate state medical care without all the white fluffy bathrobes, fine wines and prawn sandwiches. I have undergone four ops, one of them major, and have no complaints at all about my treatment, which was brilliant. It was all carried out under the National Health Service, and didn't cost me a penny.

If anyone wants to go to a snazzy private hospital and have all the extra trimmings, they have the option of paying for private medical insurance if they wish.

However, whether they opt to pay for private or not, they MUST pay their share towards the National Health Service through tax.
There is no opting out of this at the moment, and I hope it will never come to pass, as we will then end up with a similar situation that exists in the USA.

It works fine, just the way it is.

I am unsure if justice has anything to do with health care.

Ethically we could ask: Is individual health care the entire responsibility of central government?

The question could then bifurcate to democracies and authoritarian/dictatorships. The latter type of government presents a much easier answer. Democratic governments, by definition, would have the governed, through their representatives, make a much more complicated decision.

If demographics favored (lots of young working adults and few older and geriatric population) then a small fee paid by each might suffice and be able to sustain a national health care system. But if faced with an increased population of older citizens (like what the U.S.'s Medicaid program will soon be facing) such a government subsidized system becomes untenable. After all, what percentage of income is it "unjust" to legally plunder from younger workers' salaries-- 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%...? Is it "just" to remove their ability to improve their life style or their children's education? In a relatively free market society such as the U.S. the wisdom of taking increasing amounts of purchasing power away from consumers is simply a recipe for disaster.

The Scandinavian model of cradle to grave governmental beneficence with its accompanied extremely high income taxes works for them. I question what incentives remain for those individuals who would work harder and smarter when such a large proportion of returns on investment in time and innovation are merely sucked up by such government subsidies.

Alternatively on the supply side, how would the quality of American health care be affected? With only one entity demanding its services (the U.S. government) providers of health care would have little pricing power and little incentive for innovation since there would be little chance for a decent return on new and better medical procedures and equipment.

The original question as posed would seem to require a simple and direct answer: Yes.
But if devil there be, he would reside in those details that would supply a real world answer to the implementation of governmental health care. In democracies there is no disconnect between government and its citizens; they are one in the same. Further, government revenues come almost entirely from taxes on citizens and their financial transactions. Lowering economic production or GDP also strangles the government's Golden Goose?-the balancing act is tricky and real.

JM

Yup, a government should. They need to be useful for something. What better than providing a cushion for those who are in need?

Health should not be about economics, though of course it always is at some level. It is one of those things we should all be happy to 'put into the pot for' as far as I am concerned.

BTW: thanks America, for taking all our greedy doctors.

They can expend untold billions, trillions, even, on the war machine, but cry poverty when it comes to helping the poorest citizens, here in the USA.

I don't really care whether our National Health service costs much more to run than it would if it were in the hands of the free market.

Bottom lines and profit margins are irrelevant when it comes to health, as there will always be HUUGE profits being scooped up by companies who provide goods and services to Government departments.

If profiteering is going to happen anyway (and it will), I would prefer to be ripped off by a company that supplies life saving equipment, than one who manufactures smart/cluster/chemical bombs.

Actually, putting a bit of spatial thinking in here, it would be a very interesting exercise to swap it all around in the USA and see what would happen.

Keep the taxes the same, but source that money towards free health treatment for all, whilst giving the people an option to pay privately for the guns, tanks, rockets and aircraft etc.

It seems to be the case that there are some Americans that, whilst baulking at the idea that their tax dollar should go towards free medical treatment for their fellow Americans, don't bat an eyelid at the huge amount of tax dollars that gets sucked into the vast American war machine.

Strange......

The California legislators signed SB840 to bring universal health care to our state. It's just a matter of Ahnold signing it into law.

I agree with government providing universal health care at the federal level.

We must balance government spending between what are deemed necessary and discretionary. If we can spend three billion dollars in Iraq to fight a war, we can surely spend money to help with keeping our citizens healthy. It's a no-brain-er to figure out what benefits the US taxpayers most; and it surely isn't the war in Iraq.

We have government health care too. (Australia). It really is amazing to me that Americans don't. It seems like such an obvious early step in building a strong democracy. We have private health insurance also, and those who can afford it (most people) are encouraged to have it. (43% do)
(Employers never have anything to do with it.)

Not a subject that lends itself to answers on a postcard I'm afraid.

For those who want a variation on "cradle to the grave" how about from "sperm to worm" or from "erection to resurrection"?

Or hatch to dispatch?

goverment
I belive that the goverment should provide health care for everyone. It is only fair because the people of the UNtied States should feel protected. I belive that bush as of now isn't doing such a great job at it. And if any one has a problem with what i said write to me at my email!!
[email protected]
Thank you!!!