Should the state provide a minimum level of healthcare?

Question

I know there are people out there who would have the state provide everything (by magic presumeably) and I'm not of that school of thought. I do worry about people in civilized countries who can't afford healthcare - it seems a bit wrong.

Answer 1

you and your family should make the hard choice of caring for your relatives.
Including the sale of property to raise the funds needed to care for them . IT is hard for me to believe in this country you would rather have a big screen t.v. in your home then provide your family with proper medical treatment .
THIS is another example of people who would rather shirk the responsibility for the care of family members at the cost of the state .
Not until every member of a family has sold or mortgaged the luxuries they have surounded them selves with no one is given anything in america and you must earn what you have and if a member of your family fall's ill it is up to the family not the state to care for them .
WHAT kind of country would this be if everyone decided to avoid the responcibility of caring for the family .
I am sorry for those people who become ill and need the full support of the family but it is not up to the state to care for them as long as one family member is capable of paying the cost's .IF you allow members of your family to squander there earnings on less important items over thier live like cable t.v. cell phones ,big screen t.v.'s new cars ,video games and dvd collections then it is not for me the man who struggled and invested in the future to be burdened with this cost .
IT would simply be better to provide them a comfortable bed to pass away in rather then charge me with there care .
YOU must have a bed or , room for one , for a family member you allowed to waste thier life and not prepare for such a day as the time when medical care would be required if they are to continue to live.
IF they had been so worried about this day they would of saved knowing it was coming at some time in the future.
Why must hard working americans pick up the cost of those who do not provide for themselves or thier family member's.
SHOULD i help you if i warn you about the mine field you my find your self in if you do not follow the rules .THIS risk's the life's of my family to do so when you take from me to provide for those who did not do what was needed in the past to prepare for today .
NOT one penny should be taken from me to provide anyone with a single asprin at my expense.
The laws of this land are fair and clear and promoting the general welfare does not mean depriving me of mine when i have earned it .YOU must accept the hard facts that we are all going to die at some time and tossing good money into a human's life that can not return the money is a waste and they should be allowed to pass in the company of thier family .
NOW if anyone wants to form a charitable foundation to provide for these people you may solicit me for a contribution and i am well with in my rights as a free man to tell you to look elsewhere for your handouts and do some real work .

Answer 2

I feel that it's okay if the government offers its own healthcare as a self-sustaining program (although this is pretty unlikely). But I don't think it should be free for everyone.

Government health-care proponents insist that the state can offer more affordable health care. If they can do that without taking money from other programs or raising taxes, let them. I don't believe those who think this, because government programs are almost never as efficient as private ones.

For the people who need healthcare, they could offer this service as long as they offer some kind of credit for people to choose their own provider. That way people aren't stuck with the government in case its quality is low. They'll have a choice.

Answer 3

It's where to draw the line in that case. If you don't treat everyone the same, in short as individual health cases, then you are doing them a mis-service. you cannot disallow grandpa or grandma from having a new hip which will give them a new lease of life simply because they can't afford the operations. You can't refuse to treat a patient for liver disorders because they have abused alcohol in the past and can't afford the treatment. There is already a two tier national health service whether people will admit it or not, and we are all taxed to the hilt.

In the US you have to provide your own healthcare, or your employers do, but you are not taxed to the hilt as we are in the UK.

Our NHS is not perfect, far from it, most of the wastage is on staff who are trained and then leave the country, and on staff who are pointless. There is false economy in not supplying equipment and staff to use the equipment, therefore forcing wastage on transporting patients for miles to better equipt hospitals for tests.

There is numerous wastage elsewhere and false economies, but nobody will address the issues politically for fear their political party will be blamed.

The people who lose out are the patients and they are the people who have financially supported it all their lives.

Answer 4

No. We can afford to give everybody healthcare, but it is a question of freedom. The fact is that most people are sick or injured because of their own actions (eating fast food, smoking, driving too fast, etc.). If the state provides healthcare, then you are forcing all of the people that take care of themselves, to pay for the mistakes of others. Why make me pay for my neighbor that smokes 3 packs a day? As decent and charitable people, we should help our fellow citizens, but it should not be forced upon us by the state. Again, it is a question of freedom.

Answer 5

I think everyone should be allowed the same health care. Even if you are fortunate enough to have a great job with good health care benefits you are more likely than not paying outrageous amounts of money for it. How many people that pay into insurance ever file a claim with them? Alot of people spend 10's of thousand a year on health care coverage and never have a sniffle. That's wrong. Insurance is a scam.

Answer 6

Tax dollars should provide MAXIMUM level of healthcare. The same level of healthcare for the rich and the poor. Otherwise, I want my tax dollars back and I will move to another country who does. Nobody should have to worry about how they will pay for healthcare....it is a right of all human beings to receive the proper medical treatment regardless of whether you have no money or lots of money. No armaments before healthcare.

to Leogirl...wouldn't wanna be ya!

Answer 7

I think you are right - the difficulty is defining basic. With the advance of healthcare and science more and more is possible now. Things that used to kill are now just monor ailments. But who is going to pay for this? I think that there sould be some compulsory insurance (paid by government for low earners) that brings market forces to play. Everyone has equal chance of top quality healthcare that way.

Answer 8

1. Should the federal government provide health care? NO. It's not in the constitution.

2. Should the States? It depends on what the individual 50 state constitutions call for. If it's not in their constitution then no. If it is allowable under their constitution then it's up to the legislature and governor, or the people by referendum. If it is required under their constitution then yes.

Answer 9

Hell Yeah!

Here in Britain we have the NHS which IS getting better.

We use to have the best health care in the world until the 70's when the Conservative Government got and and messed it up.

But now Tony Blair has really improved it.
I know I lot of people have problems with him because of the war and letting too many emigrants in, but in general : schools, health care, old people and children he has really changed this country for the better.

LoL XxX

Answer 10

We are provided with a minimum level of healthcare thanks to the standards in the health service.
Seriously it is expensive to provide a minimum level of Healthcare and this money has to come from somewhere. Maybe the answere lies in a two tier health service?

Answer 11

all of them. Plus more effective. i fairly want particular human beings might want to push their imaginations particularly, and a minimum of attempt to appreciate what might want to take position to this united states of america if thousands of thousands of human beings had no nutrition and no safeguard. and that i also imagine you want to coach yourselves on the precise eligibility criteria of human beings receiving options. it type of appears like a number of you imagine that all and sundry you should do is say, "i do not favor to artwork" and the portals of heaven are opened to you. That only isn't actual. enable me ask YOU some thing. What must be performed with the thousands of thousands of mentally unwell those who're medically, mentally, bodily, spiritually unable to carry down a job? What ought to take position to the mummy of three who has a husband who is going out for cigarettes faster or later and under no circumstances comes decrease back? What ought to take position to an American Veteran who comes decrease back from war and has been bodily and psychologically incapacited? The structure obviously states that the federal authorities is to provide for the overall welfare of the human beings. nutrition and housing and clinical interest are especially ordinary. And it truly is barely if you happen to can not earnings it for themselves. And NOWHERE interior the structure does it stipulate that the federal authorities is to fork over tens of millions of bucks each and every twelve months to the most worthwhile employer on the face of the Earth (Exxon), which this authorities maintains to do. are you able to describe or justify THAT to me?