English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

20 answers

Again

The role of our government in the US is to PROMOTE the general welfare, not to PROVIDE the genreal welfare.

You are the only one responsible for you and your well being. The government does not, and should not exist to redistribute any wealth, pamper any individual citizen, or act as a personal saftey net. The role of the government is to make and enforce laws according to the recognized rights and the constitution, and to protect the country as a whole.

2006-08-31 03:32:12 · answer #1 · answered by DiamondDave 5 · 3 0

I must disagree. Its not the government's job to make sure nobody gets sick, although many would like to think that it is. Health care is not a right. It is something that must be paid for just like any other service. I understand it is expensive, and speaking as someone with no health insurance, I know this. Also though, the government doesn't need that many more bills on top of all those it has already. Could you imagine where the budget deficit would be if the government started paying for all the medical procedures and general care of its citizens, we're talking about at least a 10% raise in taxes just to cover it. Do you want to pay 10% more to Uncle Sam?

I know the arguments, Canada has universal health care...Well, Canada is Socialist, we in the U.S. are not. Also, where do people go to get the real surgery done?...U.S. It can take years for someone to get the surgery they need in Canada, and many surgeries are not even performed there. Private medicine has far out-gained anything that the government could have come up with. Private industry works faster and more efficient than government every day of the week, and thus is better capable to invent new medications and remedies for health problems.

2006-08-31 03:36:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

OK this is just one opinion, but I do not believe that it is the government's responsibility to provide universal health care. I do however believe that it is the government's responsibility to regulate the industries involved which would be medical, insurance, and pharmaceutical to insure a level playing field for the citizens. The way it stands right now our government has abdicated it responsibility to it's citizens by yielding to the pressures of various lobbyists representing the industries best interests, not ours.
20 years ago my health insurance was completely paid by my employer and it covered everything but prescriptions with no deductible. Now I'm paying around 300.00 per month as well as my employers contribution for a plan that could be charitably described as a "catastrophic" plan where if I have, say, a heart attack I at least shouldn't lose my house. These institutions do need to make a profit but it should be the government's responsibility to insure that the welfare of the public is the primary concern and not inflating the bottom line just because they can.

2006-08-31 04:25:40 · answer #3 · answered by Ron 3 · 0 0

numerous governments have tried that, unsuccessfully. large Britain has a well being care situation with human beings waiting weeks and months for clinical care. Canadians come to the U. S. for clinical care because the wait is sometimes deadly. Denmark has socialized drugs and complete socialized care of all electorate, including the unemployed. even with the undeniable fact that, a blouse expenses $ninety and denims are over $100 a pair. What you're suggesting is extra socialization of a capitalistic republic. I advise we stay faraway from socialistic classes, they did not artwork contained in the U.S., nor the different united states of america the position they have tried that try. i imagine really, the authorities could get administration of the frivolous regulation suites being filed that are making well being care expenses flow through the roof. If someone has a valid declare, they could be in a position to sue, yet most of the proceedings are purely a persons' huge payday contained in the sky and costing all persons more effective than we an have the funds for.

2016-12-06 01:06:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Why stop at health care. We all need food, clothing and housing too.

In fact, you will die without food before you die from lack of health care.

How about we get the government to start with free water?

Let the government provide free water and see how that goes. If it goes well, then we can expand the program.

If you cannot wait for the expansion to include health care, you could move to Canada or Great Britain. They have free health care. If you moved there you could report back to us on how well the program works and what needs to be included in it.

ASAP Please.

2006-09-03 04:53:28 · answer #5 · answered by JAMES11A 4 · 0 0

No. That's why Canadians rush to America when
they need operations.........it might take months or
years for that needed care in Canada or anyother
place that tries to provide health care to everyone.
Think of the cost. It would break the Country sooner
than later. That is also called Socialized Medicine.
Hillary needs to read up on this before trying to
impose it on America.

2006-08-31 03:35:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

You not only have free health care, State dept. of health , but you also have health care choices. Its called Freedom.. The government is not your mom , at some point you have to take care of things for yourself.. Like look into health Insurance and decide for yourself if its something YOU want to get. Countries that have government controls health care also have a lot of their citizens crossing the border into the US to receive private health care , because they can't wait 6 months for treatment. free health care is not the answer.

2006-08-31 04:20:57 · answer #7 · answered by bereal1 6 · 1 0

Where do you think government gets the money to provide Health Care? Come On! Health care is not a "right". Canada and England's health care systems are near bankrupt...gee I wonder why?

2006-08-31 03:43:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

While the cost of care would be taken down, it would virtually halt development of new medicines and procedures. There is already a shortage of nurses in this country, and I doubt very much that a socialized health pay scale would help that problem at all.

2006-08-31 03:31:35 · answer #9 · answered by sethle99 5 · 0 0

You suffer from a lack of a sense of self responsibility. I bet that you believe that the government should do everything for you. If you want that then move to Russia or China and live under that type of government.

2006-08-31 03:37:45 · answer #10 · answered by sundevilcajun 3 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers