Debate:Is universal health care better than market-based medicine?

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jalapeno (Talk | contribs) at 14:07, 11 July 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
! THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting



So-called universal health care winds up being an inefficient government monopoly at best, and a corrupt system that benefits the ruling class at its worst. In North Korea and Cuba, only party elites have access to good hospitals or drugs.

Even in democracies which are experimenting with UHC, the decision about whether to approve surgery, therapy or prescription medication is made a by a committee far removed from the patient. The result is that people are routinely turned down for operations or drugs that they are willing to pay for, or even travel to another country for.

Very few Americans go to Canada to get the latest medications. The cross-border traffic is all the other way. --Ed Poor Talk 14:07, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't know about North Korea or Cuba, but in the European countries that I am familiar with good medical care is not restricted to party elites and medical decisions are taken by physicians who have a professional obligation to act in the best interests of their patients. Also in most of these countries health care is not a government monopoly. You seem to be confusing universal health care with communism. --Jalapeno 16:07, 11 July 2007 (EDT)