SUBTOPIC: State versus Private
Health care in Utania is a mixture of state and private,
with the bulk of resources being provided by the private sector, and only
basic and emergency care being provided by the federal government or
states. Will this change under your leadership?
|Pres. George OKARVITS
||Gov'r Edward R. HOPE
||Kyle LANGLEY MP
||Max BOORNAL MP
||Cameron OLDS MP
||Robert TALIN MP
Strongly supportive of free health care
Regards health care as a fundemental right of the population
Opposed to free state-health care
Believes at least a mixture of private insurance and state funding for health care
Opposed to "socialist" health care
But, does effectively support mostly free health care
Less basic or elective services should be co-payment
Believes the state's role is in facilitating health care, not necessarily to provide it
Believes that ALL should be afforded basic health care according to their need
Mixture of private and government paid-for
Agrees that private insurance should be foundational for the majority
But also that at least basic care should be subsidised
Free health care for all
Yes. Expanded, free healthcare for all Utanians is the ideal, and by expanding
services in regional cities and towns, this will slowly become a reality.
Education for Utani to bring them "up to speed"
Health care expanded in under-serviced areas
Free health care will be an "impossible burden" on country
Not free but affordable health care
Subsidised insurance to the poor
Insurance means the greatest freedom and control to consumer
Health care protects the people and should be viewed as common good
Co-payment for non-emergency care
Health insurance encouraged
If the people are ill, they should be cared for: simple as that
Health care is to care for eachother; united together or not at all
State should not provide services, but facilitate private provision
That means privately run hospitals/clinics
Health insurance provided free by state to a point
Consumer makes up difference themselves
Government is to oversee, not do
Health care is a common good
More spending on areas of need, but not at expense of other areas
Therefore, more spending overall
Basic care: Free or nominal fee
Poor to be completely covered
Health care the common good
It benefits no one that one individual is left to die because they cannot afford health care
Health funds should not be managed for a profit, as in insurance companies
Completely government or an agency thereof
"A basic right under my administration will be access to free good-quality
"Health, education and housing are basic rights for members of a
society. There should be no one left behind simply because economics dictates
that they will not have sufficient funds to pay for it all themselves. That
would be a gross injustice."
"Health care completely without cost will place an impossible burden on the
country... Under my plan, health care will not be free, but it will be
Insurance means "the individual has the greatest freedom and control
over their own health costs.."
"If you are injured, through no fault of your own, you will be cared for,
you will be nursed back to health... If [people] are in need of health care,
it is because they need it, and they should not be penalised simply because
they need it."
"Why should the government be providing the health services at all?"
"The right path forward is for the state to provide health insurance
free to a point, and then encourage the consumer to pay the difference."
"I will expand the health budget and prioritise in favour of areas of
greatest need, but without permitting a rapid erosion of health services
in the rest of the country."
"Does it actually benefit anyone that one family loses their breadwinner
to a preventable disease because he kept working because his family could
not afford the medicines or hospitalisation to treat him? Who wins?"
Please do not forget to fill in the survey at the bottom of this page.
Health, education and housing are basic rights for members of a
society. There should be no one left behind simply because economics
dictates that they will not have sufficient funds to pay for it all
themselves. That would be a gross injustice.
Free-market economics should not be playing a role in health,
education and housing, and, under my continued leadership of this
nation, there will be no such role.
Therefore, a basic right under my administration will be access
to free good-quality health care. I will ensure that basic health care
in Utania is free and available for all. I will continue to strive for
all health care to be free for all, but we must walk first.
To achieve these goals, I will be working very strongly toward
expanding health care services in regional Utania, particularly in the
major towns and the cities.
I agree with the President that health services must be expanded in the
areas of this country where basic health care services are poorest, and
under my administration, should I be so fortunate as to be elected, I
will spend considerable effeort to ensure that no one is left behind.
However, I am in strong disagreement with the President on one
key point of his platform, on health care being completely without cost:
this will place an impossible burden on the country. The costs of health
care should not be completely beared by the state, the individual must
contribute to their own health, financially, just as they do physically.
Because the government cannot be the catch-all for all costs.
Instead, under my plan, health care will not be free, but it will
be affordable. I believe that private insurance is the best solution for
this nation: it ensures that the individual has the greatest freedom and
control over their health costs, and therefore, greatest incentive to keep
themselves healthy. It ensures that all people will have access to health
care, that the costs are then shared between the individual and the
And I will ensure that no one will go without a basic level of
health care, and here is the true role of government, by providing
subsidised health insurance to the poor. The poorest in this country will
be offered subsidised insurance, either partially or completely.
This way, the individual has the greatest freedom and control
over their own health costs, the state, and thus the taxpayers, is not
burdened with the costs of providing all health care, and yet the poor
are completely covered by cheap or free health according to their needs.
It is the fairest, most cost-effective solution for health care.
I believe that health care protects one of the fundemental resources of
this nation: our people. If the people are sick, then the nation will be
sick. Thus, if our healthcare system is not protecting people, then it
is failing us all.
I would ensure that all basic health services, those that provide
the best protection to our people, our breadwinners and our workers, are
provided to all Utanians, and to the best of our ability free of cost.
That means that if you are injured, through no fault of your own, you
will be cared for, you will be nursed back to health. If you are cut down
by illness, you will be cared for, you will be nursed back to health.
However, I also believe that the individual cannot be without
responsibility, therefore, there will be some co-payment for the provision
of more specific, perhaps elective, services.
Health insurance will be encouraged, but, by no means, will it be
compulsory. I resist, indeed, I criticise this notion that our own people
will, if they can, somehow dump inexorable costs onto any state-based
system. If they are in need of health care, it is because they need it,
Governor Hope, and they should not be penalised simply because they need
We are either one people, with shared responsibility for eachother,
or we can kiss goodbye any sense of nationhood. Utania united, or nothing.
It is as simple as that.
There is a great deal of concern over whether the state-run health system
should be subsidised, government-funded or privately funded. Yet, I believe
this deliberately avoids one central question that needs to be addressed:
Why should the government be providing the health services at all?
Government is not the be-all and end-all service provider. The
role of the state is to ensure that services are provided, not to
necessarily provide them itself.
With that in mind, I believe the right path forward is for the
state to provide health insurance free to a point, and then encourage the
consumer to pay the difference, to pay additional to the level of their
needs. This means that the state is ensuring that "no one is left
behind" as we have heard repeated, but also ensures that the state does
not need to provide that service itself. In itself, this will be very
Under my Presidency, all services would be offered privately,
and private investors would build the hospitals, then charge the health
insurance companies for the service provided. The role of government
would be to oversee, not to directly provide.
I think this independent overseer role is what fits
I agree with the President that health care is one of the most important
tasks that needs to be addressed by the incoming President over the next
four years. It is, as Mr Langley says, a common good that must be available
It is one of my priorties to provide affordable health care for
all Utanians. I will accellerate spending on health care on a national
level, providing more health centres and hospitals where they are most
I will expand the health budget and prioritise in favour of areas
of greatest need, but without permitting a rapid erosion of health services
in the rest of the country, which has been the experience for the past
I will ensure that basic health care will be provided either for
free or a nominal fee, and for services beyond that to be largely paid for
by the consumer. However, unlike Governor Hope, I will ensure that the
poor are completely covered, that their poverty will not be a reason for
their poor health.
I believe that health care is for the common good, just as education,
national defence, roads, rails and energy supplies are. These are the
fundementals to our modern civilisation, and they are commonly provided
so that all can participate in our society.
What message are we sending our people if we say to them that
they must pay their own way if they get sick? Furthermore, does it
actually benefit anyone that one family loses their breadwinner to a
preventable disease because he kept working because his family could not
afford the medicines or hospitalisation to treat him? Who wins? The
country loses a worker, and one extra family is dependent on the charity
of either the state or of strangers.
This is not a modern society, this is a feudal one. This is a
system of "everyone for themselves". It is simply barbarism not worthy
of the modern liberal democracy that Utanians are living in.
I say that the common good must be provided for by the common
purse. And I see no good reason for that common purse to be managed, for
profit, by Belson Insurance or its cohorts. Why should the public purse
have ten percent of its funds removed as management fees?
Instead, I believe the state, this government, or an agency of
the government, should provide health care for the benefit of all, free
of charge, and free of strings attached.
It is in no ones' interest to persecute the sick for simply being
sick. It is not their fault, and persecuting them will add nothing to
the country except wasted government effort and stress to the already-unwell.
Free is fair.