What welfare provisions in the Constitution....?????
You mean the part where it says PROMOTE the general welfare???
You notice that does not say PROVIDE the general welfare... BIG difference... promoting an equality based system so that everyone has the opportunity is just fine..... but the Federal Government, not any other government, does not exist as a welfare system, nor should it.... you and you alone are the only person responsible for you
2006-08-28 16:00:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by DiamondDave 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Its really quite simple. By having national healthcare, the risk is spread out, and administrative costs minimized.
WHAT!!!! you say. That governmental administrative wasteland???? But in fact, medicare administrative costs amount to 2% of the total expenditures, as compared with 27% (national health insurance average for administrative expenses and advertising).
Further, the risk would be spread out among all. Of course, you will still pay premiums (in the form of taxes, or otherwise), but it will likely be less than now.
And, who do you think currently pays for healthcare for the uninsured NOW??? Answer: YOU. Because the poor without insurance go to emergency rooms, who must accept them, although they will never have the funds to pay. Those costs are paid by YOU through higher costs charged by hospital and healthcare workers.
So, to decrease the amount paid by YOU (and me), and to increase health insurance availability, it should be a single-payer system.
Further, it will lower the total cost of healthcare. Currently, the uninsured only go to the doctor/hospital when they are really sick, and even when not really sick, go to the emergency room (where they must be accepted). On the other hand, if the poor and uninsured were to receive preventative care, the cost of office visits would be far less than the very-expensive use of urgent and emergency room care.
So, either way, you are paying for the poor and the uninsured. The real question is whether you want to pay the additional cost of advertising and inefficient health insurance beaurocracy, or if you want an efficiently run program, with the volume to negotiate the best rates for its members and that is -- of course -- through a single payer system.
2006-08-28 15:53:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by robert_dod 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
I agree .I am not even close to being rich ,but I can see a huge link between communism and national healthcare. All will be equal and some will be more than equal. 20 years ago this whole idea would have never even been a talking point. Canadians are coming here to get health care now because they can't get it fast enough in Canada. France is falling apart. Does this sound like fun to anyone.
2006-08-28 15:58:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
We are already paying for everyone else to have healthcare -- through taxes, increased insurance premiums, increased medical bills -- no one has a free ride.
If we did have national healthcare society as a whole would be healthier and all of the aforementioned bills would be less and we could probably have a better society with less sick people. More prevention is better than a poor person waiting until they need immediate care and using the ER as their primary care physician.
2006-08-28 15:53:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
Practically anytime the government produces a social program, it is a wreck. Look at social security. People don't realize how much the bureaucracy costs.
This editorial says it all:
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=MURDOCK-08-24-06
I know it's well intentioned and there are some serious problems, mainly cost of insurance, which isn't as much as the insurance companies' fault as doctors, patients, and medicare. But universal healthcare, as good as the intentions are, would only make things worse.
2006-08-28 16:10:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by robling_dwrdesign 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well don't worry buddy, you won't have to pay for anyones health care because there will never be such a thing like that happening in America. Health care is one of the multi-billion making industries and crooked industries around, If we could only adapt some of Canada's qualities....
We are all paying our premiums and bills and yes it sucks. I think our health is very very important especially the health of our children. I pray that you or anyone you love never suffer from cancer.
2006-08-28 15:54:43
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Universal healthcare is not the way - it may sound selfish, but I don't want my tax money paying for the medical needs of those who don't take care of themselves.
Of course, I have sympathy for the poor and would love to discuss solutions that might help them get the medical attention they need.
But you have to think about this logically - there are so many people out there who don't take care of themselves (drink, do drugs, they are obese, participate in risky behavior)...why should I have to pay for their medical bills? If someone has unprotected sex and gets an STD, or drinks so much they need a new liver, or smokes or eats so much they get heart disease...come on...that is not my responsibility. If people can't take care of themselves...it is not the government's responsibility to take care of them...
When did we become such an a society of "entitled" people...I think people should help out their fellow neighbor when they can, I am all for charities and non-profits and doing my fair share...but I don't think I am "entitled" to ANYTHING - the government doesn't OWE ME - I am responsible for myself, my health, my destiny...
If more people had this attitude, we would see a nation of people who have a lot more self respect, honor and work ethic....
P.S. And for those who have never particpated in a system of Universal Healthcare...FREE does not mean better. You have access to less options and you don't get to make decisions about specific drugs or treatments - you get what you get....many times people in other countries are on waiting lists for months and years to recieve rountine treatment...DO YOUR RESEARCH - don't just be led by your emotions!!!!
2006-08-28 16:29:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by Heather L 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Either way, you are going to have to pay for healthcare. Wouldn't you rather pay less, and know that all Americans are covered? It could happen if we would give it a try. Canada does it, and it works brilliantly. Many countries in Eurpoe do it, and it has proven to be successful. Or, would to prefer to continue to get raped by the insurance companies?
2006-08-28 15:53:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by rob 3
·
3⤊
1⤋
Health care is a necessary part of living in this world - a priority. I live in Canada and we have health care - always have. I do not understand how people in America do not. If someone is dying, or in a serious accident and they do not have health insurance do they just let them die? Doctors take an oath to save lives. What does one say to a person in trauma, "Oh, I am sorry I cannot save your life today, you are not covered by insurance. Strange!!!!!!
2006-08-28 18:25:22
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
America is the only developed country where healthcare isnt considered a human right. We deserve healthcare because we exist. Nobody should be left to suffer and die just because they are poor.
If we as a society can collect taxes to pay for building highways, checking gas pumps, and inspecting meat, why not treat ourselves as if we matter. After all, we do.
2006-08-28 15:48:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by Phil S 5
·
4⤊
2⤋