National Health Care
Copyright (c) 2009 Kentaro Konika
Often referred to as universal health care, national health care is a system of health care provided and run by a country’s government. The system grants free health care access to every citizen of the country. The exact healthcare services offered to citizens for free may vary from country to country, meaning that there will be some services which require personal expense to be able to access them. However, the vast majority of health services will be provided for free and paid for by national taxation. Many countries offer universal health care today, one of the first to do so successfully being Germany. The first country to ever implement such a system however, was Great Britain.
Amongst the other countries to offer such a system are France, Australia, and Italy. Almost all of the more economically developed countries around the world offer some kind of universal health care system with the exception of the United States of America. In the USA the only way to access medical care is to have medical insurance. Whilst most industrialized countries offer some kind of free medical service to their citizens the structure of this system can vary quite a bit between nations. One example of this is policies regarding private medical care. In the UK it is common practice for doctors to offer private medical services outside of the free public system, but other countries have greater restrictions on such private medical practice.
Universal health care is a very broad term that has many possible applications. However, the key feature is the provision of a free health service to citizens of a nation. Systems of this sort require huge sums of money to run. As such countries usually pay for such a system through national taxes which all citizens pay. In exchange for paying these taxes citizens are then granted free access to the national health system. It is the government’s decision as to who is entitled to health care and what sort of treatments are to be made available on the system. In some systems patients may have to pay for some part of the treatment whilst receiving the rest for free. This is a form of heavily subsidized treatment.
Systems such as these have been proven to work extremely well in a number of countries around the world. Whilst these systems are inevitably very difficult to manage, the benefits largely outweigh the costs. Owing to this fact, many American citizens and politicians have suggested that such a system may be of benefit to the USA. Rising rates of medical insurance in the USA have driven many to see a national health system as a good solution. In recent times medical insurance costs have risen out of reach of the average citizen meaning that many choose to go without insurance every year. The difficulty with this is that if medical treatment does become necessary the costs of such treatment are enough to make a family bankrupt. Opposition to this view states that taxes are levied on those who least need such care.
Here this nice Video about health care
Opponents of health care reform are recycling stale talking points designed to kill any plans for reform. Senator Merkley takes aim at these irresponsible tactics and makes the case for quality, affordable care for all Americans.
Find your answer for your own question related to health care
Tags: care, clip, health, healthcare, HMO, Insurance, michael, moore, movie, political, sicko, social, Universal, video
Bravo, Sen. Merkley. This is why I campaigned so hard to get you elected.
Thank you Senator Merkley! WAY TO GO! I am so proud and pleased that I voted for you!
Keep up the outstanding work!
Others out there across the USA, please visit his web site and speak out with him by signing his petition on this issue. (hopefully the video description will add the link to be able to easily do this)
The World Health Organization ranks the U.S. healthcare system 37th in the world yet we spend twice as much on healthcare as the next highest country. The insurance companies are the main cause of this miserable system as they are nothing more than useless middleman that drive up costs and deny care. Anybody who defends this system is NUTS!!!!
US citizens are some of the most undereducated in industrialized nations.
What does this mean?
It means that not only will American elect, re-elect and allow certified idiots as their leader(s) (bush-cheney, etc).
It also means that too many Americans are easily led astray by the divisive and destructive propaganda of power-hungry republicons.
After 8 years of destroying USA, republicons should be silenced by any means necessary! Evil should not be allow continued reign, and ruin America!
We could cut taxes for millions AND at least provide America's children with health care if the US government would stop giving away BILLIONS in Corporate Welfare.
According to TrueMajority.org, we could fully fund public education K-12, head start, adress the issue of world hunger, provide every American child with health care, and fund research and development for alternative energy resources with $50 Billion per year. Whereas TrueMajority.org advocates reducing Pentagon spending by $50 billion, I am merely advocating that we end Corporate Welfare and stop robbing the American tax payers to give to the select rich.
In 2006 alone, the US government spent $92 BILLION on Corporate Welfare. Those who received Corporate Welfare were companies making millions and billions of dollars in PROFITS. If we were to END Corporate Welfare and spend $50 billion on those programs I've listed we could also cut $42 billion in taxes for the American people. That seems win-win to me. A little liberal spending on social programs and some conservative spending on tax cuts. You can't get any more moderate than that!
Oh, yeah, they will "tell you where to go" all right. I certainly believe that everyone should have available health care but your point of "minor treatment" is actually one of the reasons I am against my tax money further funding National Health Care. There are things that do need to be changed in our health care system, but the Nanny government is not the answer. I haven't seen any recent statistics so I can't give you a "link", but a few years ago there was a report on the length of time that it took to get an appointment for treatment/tests for much more than minor complaints in countries that do have National Health Care (i.e., Canada and UK) and the time was astounding.
Merkley…FOR…THE…SMACKDOWN! Senator, please send any of your buddies interested in running to CA.
Why oh why don’t more people watch CSPAN??? If you really want to hear the crazy thing that go on in Washington, this is the way to do it. Not the news or radio talk shows…just turn on CSPAN in the background while you clean house…before you know it, you will be looking to see who the nut was that said that! Thanks Merkley for pointing out the fruit behind the nuts.
Yes. I am lucky to live in a country with one. And as a result, we have a lower rate of children under five dying than you do in the USA. And we pay less for our system.
Think about it.
I am a proud Merkley voter.
I decided to not become a doctor because nationalized health care, because of insane taxes, I would earn hardly anything. Over in Europe, for some doctors, three months worth of paychecks go directly towards their taxes for nationalized health care.
Frank Putz is a total ass hat.
the women next to merkley is kinda hott.
So you decided NOT to become a doctor because you werent gonna be as filthy rich as you’d like to?
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. If you’re that type of person, of course.
You should go for CEO of any company. It”ll fit ya.
Thank you Senator Merkley!
This is FIRE. But Check out this NEW WAYNE and GUCCI MANE ” We BE STEADY MOBBIN ” Visit my Channel
That’s my Senator, kicking ass and taking names as usual.
Great Job, Senator! Keep it up!
Voter from 97210
Great job Senator; let people know they can’t believe those horror stories from Canada…they aren’t true; we love our single payer public health insurance here.
Because no one had ever heard of an insurance company at the time, doctors were known to accept livestock and poultry in barter. The founders couldn't have had any idea how badly we could screw up something as simple as healthcare, or they probably would have taken some time laying it out for us.
Insurance IS socialism, just administered by a corporation rather than a government entity. Rich folks already pay for your healthcare, and then they turn around and charge you double. We pool all the risk, and they take all the profit. Why would anyone defend a system like that?
Wow, a Democrat with an actual spine and calling people out – esp. Frank Luntz’s leaked talking points to ANY reform of the current system whatsoever. Not only did he mention those points, he mentioned politicians who are phrasing their language as per those points. Great job!!!
Perfectly understandable. Why else would anyone ever want to be a doctor? It’s the money, it’s got to be the money.
Saving lives? Bah. Who needs that.
So you earned a four-year degree, passed the MCAT, received admission to a medical school and then decided not to become a doctor? Or you just flippantly said, “I don’t wanna be a doctor”? If the former, then I may take your comment seriously, if the latter, then you have no credence.
if you like jim carey.
WOO HOO! Thank you Senator Merkley!
Your courage is admirable. Tellin it like it IS! I am so glad we sent you to DC.
Voter from 97005
GO OREGON!!
youre just greedy.
even if it does cost the same to each person as their premiums and deductibles, you could argue that a national system is still better because you wouldn't have to worry about what hospital takes what insurance, which tests and routines are covered, and what if the insurance company changes its regulations without notice (which they are allowed to do, and do quite often). in a national system, each hospital is open to anyone, all procedures are covered, and the representatives of the people vote on policy change, so they can't reduce coverage or exclude conditions without the public's knowledge. every single western country that has instituted a form of national healthcare has had success. plain and simple. there have been none of the worst-case scenarios that a lot of idiots have been going on about. nobody was forced at gunpoint to buy government insurance, no bureaucratic red tape holding back life saving surgeries. just a successful outcome. anyone who doesn't think that healthcare, as a basic human right, should be provided and regulated by the government is just plain wrong.
Goooo Oregon!!!!
Yay dems! Keep it up!
Ouch! Way to call em on it.