Single-payer healthcare is a system where every citizen pays the government to provide core healthcare services for all residents. Under this system the government may provide the care themselves or pay a private healthcare provider to do so. In a single-payer system all residents receive healthcare regardless of age, income or health status. Countries with single-payer healthcare systems include the U.K., Canada, Taiwan, Israel, France, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.
Statistics are shown for this demographic
Local Government Area
Response rates from 642 Animal Justice Party voters.
75% Yes |
25% No |
50% Yes |
22% No |
10% Yes, but allow people to use private insurance |
2% No, this system is too expensive |
9% Yes, this system guarantees healthcare for everyone |
1% No, the government should not be involved in healthcare |
6% Yes, private companies should not be able to profit off of healthcare |
Trend of support over time for each answer from 642 Animal Justice Party voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 642 Animal Justice Party voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from Animal Justice Party voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@8RJNF2Q4yrs4Y
Yes, but not including elective surgery, gender change and abortion after 3 months
@8XCKSH83yrs3Y
I dont understand what a single-payer health system is
@9ZL34PS2wks2W
No, unless it excludes people like smokers, alcoholics and obese people who ruin themselves and then use up all the resources. Unless the system's plan for them is to dig an extra large hole and throw them in it when they start to break down.
@9WQCZRQ1mo1MO
No. Limiting healthcare funding to government (via public taxes) is expensive, and also limits the choice of the public. If a pt, does not want to wait for treatment of non-emergent conditions and can afford to do so, and service is available that can provide it, they should be able to do so thus lessening the pressure on public system. Single-payer healthcare system is good for emergent/life-threatening conditions, but should also encompass preventative health activities. There should also be tax incentives for performing healthy activities, instead of being reactionary to diseases. I think mixed funding (public and private) is beneficial only if balanced well.
@9V8CBCL2mos2MO
Only if you caused this issue. e.g., vaping/smoking, getting lung cancer, having to pay for your treatment instead of using tax payer's money.
@9L9RKM98mos8MO
Yes, for those who do not carry private insurance. If those wothout insurance do not pay some health taxes then they will drive up prices for the rest.
@935CG4P 12mos12MO
Yes, but people over the age of retirement will only be eligible for healthcare subsidies equal to the total sum of tax paid
@9D7PS331yr1Y
The whole system needs to be rebuilt
Join in on the most popular conversations.
