Home > Politics, News & Issues > US Politics > Political Issues
Created on: January 28, 2011 Last Updated: January 29, 2011
I enjoyed reading this article. However, I do not agree with one sentiment of the piece. In the article it is stated that all physicians would become employees of the government. That is not necessarily true. In Canada, hospitals are not owned by the government, they are much like the hospitals in the US. The hospitals are run by regional boards or are not for profit organizations. Doctors, as well as other medical personnel, are therefore hospital employees. Doctors are paid on a fee for service basis, much like the PPO's and HMOs that we have now. In that way National Health Insurance is not socialized medicine but socialized insurance. Everyone would pay into the system for, what is essentially, a large HMO.
However this national HMO would be better since it would not deny coverage to those who have "preexisting conditions", nor would we have to worry about treatments being denied because they were experimental. In addition, everyone would be able to see any doctor or attend any hospital that they desired which would come in handy if you became ill while on vacation. Programs such as Medicare and state's Medicaid systems would no longer be necessary. In fact many experts go as far as saying that malpractice insurance rates for doctors would drop. That is because of the fact that many settlements are so high to cover the costs of future medical care. If all medical care is covered automatically, then there is no reason for such high settlements or judgements. In addition to these reasons, people would no longer be tied to jobs that they disliked because they fear not having health insurance.
According to the World Health Organization as well as the CIA world book, the US continuously lags behind the rest of the industrialized nations medically. We are the only industrialized nation that does not offer our population health care, and it shows by our high infant mortality rate, and low life expectancy rate. Is it right that the wealthiest nation in the free world has a healthcare system that leads millions into bankruptcy every year? I don't like that system. Other nations have realized that for it's population to be healthy, that it has to be responsible for the care that is provided. When will the US come to that same realization? Health insurance for all would benefit everyone, not only physically, but financially. I wholeheartedly support a National Health Insurance program for the US.
Learn more about this author, Christopher Nunn.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Below are the top articles rated and ranked by Helium members on:
Single payer health system: Pros and cons
It is interesting to note that many people do not understand the single payer health care system. A single payer health
There is no economic justification for a government take over of health care.
The senate of the United States lost money
Single payer health systems are, to some degree or another, quickly becoming the norm in industrialized nations. For good
by Mark Bearing
Single player health care systems have one amazing pro: everyone gets free health care! Yay! The first big con? Everything
I enjoyed reading this article. However, I do not agree with one sentiment of the piece. In the article
View All Articles on: Single payer health system: Pros and cons
Helium Debate
Cast your vote!
Should the federal government charge a lockage or user fee for use of federally owned water locks?
Click for your side.
Featured Partner
Takes All Types has partnered with Helium, giving you the chance to write for a cause. Browse Takes All Types' featured titles, pick an issue and write! You can also donate your article earnings. Share what you know, learn...more