Should the U.S. government provide universal healthcare?

Yes
No
Resources for this issue
Reviews of this issue

This issue has been approved by whereIstand editors.

Do not use this page to take a stand on this issue.

This page shows the dialogue between users and editors regarding the merits of this issue. If you have comments about the issue's wording, relevance, etc., write them here. Only registered whereIstand members can edit an issue. Users must register in order to participate in all aspects of the whereIstand community.

9/3/2008 1:00:30 PM

Set as news: False

8/27/2008 11:06:07 AM

Set as news: True

8/17/2006 11:03:23 PM

issue revision:

revising for U.S.
Should the federal government provide universal healthcare?
Yes
No

8/16/2006 8:44:59 PM

I'm fine with that. Any more specific and I think it's an invitation to nitpick. I'd also be fine with a similar word, like "offer" or "establish" or something.

8/14/2006 6:06:55 PM

do we keep it general (go with "provide") and then let people discuss the varying degrees in their blogs?

8/12/2006 10:26:39 AM

okay, try some of these options on for size:

...provide universal healthcare coverage?

...subsidize universal healthcare?

...pay for universal healthcare?

I don't really think we need to get into different models of universal healthcare at this point. Maybe in a sub-issue down the road.

7/30/2006 11:51:38 AM

i would like further clarification of the term "provide" as well as universal healthcare.  what do we mean by provide?  subsidize?  pay for entirely?  also, check out what wiki has to say about universal healthcare.  there are varying degrees of what treatment can be covered and i wonder if we need to be more specific about what we are asking.  read this and let me know what you think.

7/27/2006 8:29:39 PM

i'm fine with this issue

7/27/2006 1:10:32 PM

we're getting rid of the universal healthcare subtopic, so this issue has been moved. find previous comments here.

I think this issue is basically ready to go.