Try the political quiz

5,822 Replies

@B4L26PQVeteran from Maryland answered…2 days

@Samuel.WilliarLibertarian from Florida answered…3wks

No, government funded healthcare should be an alternative for people who cannot afford private health insurance

@9WSWG4BWomen’s Equality from Oregon answered…9mos

@9FVLKRZDemocrat from Washington answered…2yrs

Sure but I think the government should be paying for it more.

@9FV244RWomen’s Equality from California answered…2yrs

The rich should pay more for the heath care because not everyone can pay for health care alone

@9FRDSL6Women’s Equality from Virginia answered…2yrs

@9FR93TSLibertarian from Indiana answered…2yrs

@9FR7LDNSocialist from Georgia answered…2yrs

i don't even know what this is

@Benjamin-HallSocialist from Missouri commented…1yr

Yes, this system guarantees healthcare for everyone

it's a form of universal healthcare where the money supplied comes from our taxes

@9FPSVMNDemocrat from Washington D.C. answered…2yrs

I don't really know anything about this, I don't have enough information.

@9FPSMG9American Solidarity from Tennessee answered…2yrs

No. Maybe do a trial run in lower income areas, but other than that keep it private

@9FPS426Democrat from West Virginia answered…2yrs

It depends on if the prices for health care decrease or not. If it’s thousands of dollars for a visit then no, but if it’s going to be in the 0-300 range then yes.

@Rebecca-MarieTranshumanist from California answered…2yrs

Yes, but they need strict regulations around what is considered "core services"

@9FMXLHXConstitution from Texas answered…2yrs

I think that any healthcare for all decided by Congress should be one that the law makers should take on themselves.

@9FMPLF8Constitution from Arizona answered…2yrs

What is a single payer system

@Alan-DjikkaityIndependent from New York commented…1yr

It's a system where government provides healthcare through taxes. Examples of countries that use this system include Canada and the U.K.

@9FMM45NRepublican from Ohio answered…2yrs

No, but I also think that our healthcare system was problematic before Obamacare and more problematic afterward, and without a massive overhaul to streamline processes and improve competitive market based solutions, the only other workable plan might be a single payer system. So single payer is undesirable but likely inevitable and as such I am somewhat resigned to that possibility.

@9FMHL2HLibertarian from Virginia answered…2yrs

Only instantaneously life threatening things should be paid for by the government. Everything that is not immediately needed should fall to the individual.

@9FLQTG3Veteran from Texas answered…2yrs

Yes, I believe everyone should receive healthcare but only if it is done in a way were overall prices in society aren't increased and the economic does not decrease

@9FLG33D from California answered…2yrs

@9FLC5HYRepublican from Louisiana answered…2yrs

@9FL26M5Democrat from California answered…2yrs

@9FKMF9RAmerican Solidarity from Texas answered…2yrs

Yes, but it should cover everyone in the U.S. not only residents.

@9FJWHB2Women’s Equality from Virginia answered…2yrs

I think people should have the option to chose this? I'm not too educated on this topic so I am kind of in between

@9FJLLR7Democrat from Pennsylvania answered…2yrs

I don't think healthcare should be paid for by the patient or their families. I think that healthcare should be paid for by taxes

@9FJB5CSSocialist from Nevada answered…2yrs

Yes, but figure out a way to make it so the wait times are not ridiculously long. Everyone deserves healthcare no matter what, so it's very important to have this or something similar to this.

@9FJ32Q2Green from Kansas answered…2yrs

Nobody should be profiting from healthcare but the healthcare workers. A single-payer system allows one party to control the system for their benefit, but it would be far better than the privatized healthcare model we're subjected to now.

@9FHJ4N5Women’s Equality from Indiana answered…2yrs

Yes, but we should put regulations in place to make sure people arnt abusing the system and hospitals arnt being flooded with non emergency things

@9FHFVMZRepublican from Indiana answered…2yrs

more information is needed in order to answer this question

@9FHBJ2VVeteran from Idaho answered…2yrs

@9FGZRCWAmerican Solidarity from Ohio answered…2yrs

It should be a basic minimum provider and system; private companies should still be able to compete.

@9FG8WRKPeace and Freedom from Ohio answered…2yrs

Yes and No. Without a single-payer healthcare system there would be no Medicare. No, because there are wealthy patients, whom if you take proper care of would donate money to these establishments.

@9FFVVFDIndependent from North Carolina answered…2yrs

If you can pay the tax for the healthcare, you should be able to receive it in an appropriate amount of time.

@9FFJ3J2Independent from Arizona answered…2yrs

No, its nice that it guarantees healthcare for everyone, however, because it universal I imagine it wont be the highest quality so it may be better to keep up programs that focus on income brackets and account for peoples needs.

@9FDRQL2Transhumanist from Wisconsin answered…2yrs

@9FD9QJSConstitution from North Carolina answered…2yrs

Yes, but lower costs based on income. But make sure the quality of healthcare is still good.

@9FCSLL9Women’s Equality from California answered…2yrs

i think that because everyone pays for their own private insurance our medical advancements are better than any other country but we need to make this system more affordable because it is not fair game

@9FC3DNWGreenfrom Maine  answered…2yrs

Yes, but i would prefer a complete nationalization of hospitals, pharmacies and pharmaceutical production.

@9FBRXFDLibertarian from Idaho answered…2yrs

Read previous questions about how the health care industry favors the lesser human genome.


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart...