...medical treatment? One common objection to universal health care that I read a lot on Yahoo Answers is "I don't want to pay for other people's medical treatment." Yet, anybody with insurance is doing exactly that. Insurance works by "spreading the risk"; you sell policies to people in the hope that most stay healthy and don't need treatment, or don't need enough treatment that, as a group, they cost more money than they bring in. In other words, if you're paying for health insurance and not using it, you're paying for someone else's treatment. How is that different from universal health care?--at least with universal health care, the risk is spread over a larger group. Your comments please.
anoldmick: Yes, it's perfectly obvious to you and me, but it seems to escape a lot of other people.
JohnfromNC: One of the reasons that Canada, where I live, delivers health care to all its citizen at a quality that is equal to that of the U.S. is that administration costs are lower. I suspect that part of the savings come from not having to deal with hundreds of different insurance companies, all of which are in business to make a profit. People here can still buy insurance for things that aren't covered or aren't necessarily "standard" (e.g., private room). Having insurance companies removed from being the payer in the bulk of health care is no loss.

Well said. But are you saying that the 40 something million uninsured are going to contribute? I don't think so. Some could but how many? All others are already paying for some type of coverage as you explained. So how does the cost go up so much if spreading the risk of care is as wide as it is now? What happens when even more are dumped into the program who pay nothing? Costs rise even more.

You can bet that businesses are looking closely at this and if there is a universal plan adopted, they are dropping out of health-care insurance provision. Everyone will be forced to the government plan and costs will escalate beyond belief. The only way to bring down costs will be controls and we already know what that does. No financial incentive will dry up innovation and reduce quality. Always happens that way. I'd bet the best candidates to be doctors would choose another profession making better money.

The USA has a funny kind of set up. In Europe, most countries have free Universities and Universal health care since 1945. It makes for equal Education and better general Health. After the total destructing of Europes center in WW2, it took Europe a long time to get its economical power back. Now, Europe is beginning to run circles around the USA and better Education and Health Care is one of the bases for it.

hmmmmmmmmm! sorry don't know!

That is exactly right. That is what people are failing to see. Insurance companies now also are keeping the cost of health care down by setting limits to the cost they will cover on many procedures. I don't want the government telling me what doctor I can see or setting the rules for the insurance coverage however. It is my hope though that they institute some kind of plan that is run through private companies but still cover everyone.

Driving down the price of health care is a first move in this direction. This could be done through setting limits to the amount one can win in a malpractice/negligence lawsuit. There also should be increased testing of medications before they are released for usage by the public.

So we should just let the Bureaucratic government run it all? No thanks!

BTW Zelda, medical needs are NOT a human right, for it takes another person to treat them, and they'd have to do so even if it was in their best interest not to treat that person! Thus you would be taking the rights of another individual by forcing them to treat someone against their will.

Health care that takes care of medical needs (not unnecessary cosmetic surgery) is a human right. I am greatly in favor of universal health care, as we are the only country in the top 25 industrialized countries that does not have it. It is uncivilized. Apparently in the USA, the goal is to allow the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies to grow up vast profits, without giving us proper medical care and without curing us or preventing disease. This is simple barbaric. We are all going to pay for this disaster one way or another, why not instead pay to make people healthy?

honestly you just can't get through to some ppl they are dead set against universal health care and think its communist, i think its brainwashing not to mention unfettered greed and lack of compassion

you have a point here. what really comes to my mind is that people are talking change when it comes to the kinds of money is missing when monitoring Pentagon?! the person who was the Pentagon's check and balance, retired and/or gave up his job. he kept reporting billions of dollars missing for many years and nothing was done about it. he finally said why do you even need me then? same story and no action, so he laid off himself. he was on the NOW show on public channel; the unpopular news. we are talking huge amounts of our money is missing every year. can you imagine the money that i am talking about? now we point at the people on welfare, etc, and accuse them on welfare fraud and receiving more food stamps than they suppose to, etc. we are distracted by little frauds and point at the powerless while the power full gets richer and richer off our hard work. now they don't want to provide insurance for the working poor?! this is a total neglect of people pointing the wrong way, as if they don't want to accept the reality of such a corruption. they hide their head in the sand? complaining that they are paying for other people's health? it is ridiculous, they are blind or opportunists. they are opportunists in denial?

Well, duh! Yes, that's the way it works. It's rather common knowledge too, so where've you been until lately?