Why shouldn't the government provide Health care to it's citizens!?

Question

Please give me long descripted answers and explain yourself! Thanks!

Answer 1

Why should they is the question. The government can't do anything right. They can't secure the border, they can't win the war on terror; cant get a hold on IRAQ, so what makes you think they would be any better at Health Care. They already provide Medicare and Medicaid. If the gov't got into health care Cost would skyrocket because the gov't doesn't value money since they don't work for any of it they just raise taxes. I don't know bout you but I'm tired of getting taxed out of house and home. The government's job is not to the the answers to every ones problems. People have become so dependent on the gov't its sickening. What happened to self reliance. If you need healthcare; get a job with Health Insurance.

Answer 2

I'm not going to say one way or the other,however, we should understand that anything that is given to us by the state and or a company is not free. That is to say someone is paying for it, and that is tipicaly you. Moreover, it always has strings attached. Take the following example.
The Federal government taxes a population in a given state(say massachusetts) it then gives the money back to the states for a spicific(earmarked) purpose(say highway maintainece). But it demands that the speed limit be 65 miles an hour and so on. This state in paticular gets less money back than it puts out, Alaska gets about 4 time what it puts out back so they are an exception. My point is we as states and communitys end up getting taxed for more than we get in reture and what we do get back (as a community) has rules put on it that we may or may not like. Just somthing to think about. Oh on a side point I do think that at lease since 1905 or so that bussinesses are more to be trusted than government. However, i make it a point not to trust government, bussiness, and anything labled progressive

Answer 3

In the USA the government does supply some health care to those in the lowest economic bracket. I depend on it because otherwise I'd have none since I'm retired on a very low income.
This is a capitalist system and I realize that most folks must pay their way or do without. That's OK by me. This country has been good to me and my family in many other ways: And if I didn't become well off by now(retirement age) it's really my fault for not trying harder.

Answer 4

You want a long descriptive answer, but I can't think of one valid reason why government shouldn't provide health care to it's citizens. I can, however, give you an answer as to why they don't. IT'S BECAUSE OF THE MONEY, HONEY!!! Where would our politicians get grease for their campaigns if all the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies didn't have the grease to give? How would we know that "Erectile Dysfunction", or ED, is not just a natural part of the aging process, but a DYSFUNCTION which can be CURED by simply taking a little pill, unless there were a hundred million T.V. commercials out there to let us know?! Do you think those ads are for free? No! They cost MONEY! And what about those incentives some doctors accept from drug companies to "push" their product, those trips to Hawaii aren't cheap, 'ya know. Why is everybody so gosh-darned anxious for free health care anyway, don't these people have JOBS? What a bunch of lazy, good-for-nothings, wanting health care from the government, it's just gimme, gimme, gimme all the time, isn't it?

O.K., you get my drift, right? I think my sarcasm speaks for itself.

Allright, my sarcasm confuses some people. I think the government should pay for the healthcare of those who can't pay for it themselves. There should be no question about that. Life is unfair sometimes. People get sick and lose their jobs sometimes. It happens. Should we just leave them twisting in the wind because they can't work, or can't pay for insurance? No way, that's just cold-blooded. Now, stop emailing me, you neocon freaks!

Answer 5

It's a question of how many different programs the govt is going to sponsor. For every social program, we as citizens pay taxes and those taxes are used to pay for the programs.

A lot of people object to being forced to pay for something they don't want or don't use. My taxes pay for public schools. I have no children. My taxes pay for welfare. I work, and when in the past I didn't, I slept in my 15 year old car rather than taking govt handouts. I don't use western medicine, and most health programs don't cover alternative health care. So, why should I pay for yet another govt sponsored program that I don't need?

Massachusetts recently passed a law requiring all Mass residents to carry medical insurance, whether they want to or not, and whether they can afford it or not.

I'm tired of the government treating everyone like they are four years old and need to be told how to live, and what to wear, and what kind of food to eat, and when to go to the doctor. It's time for the govt to stop thinking it's everyone's parents, and let people deal with the consequences of their own choices.

Time to end co-dependence on the government. Live free or die.

Answer 6

It should. Im a British guy, i was born unto the NHS and i will die in the arms of the NHS.

I fully believe in a free-at-the-point-of-service health system. Besides, its not free, we fund it with taxes, and thats right. The NHS was possibly the greatest thing to come from the ashes of the Great War, if only Thatcher hadn't started selling bits of it off to private corporations.

Think about it guys, who do you trust with your health? A government agency, dedicated to provide a public service, or a profit-company out to make a tasty Sterling on your health care?

Give me the National Health anyday :D

Answer 7

It should. We pay taxes. We spend billions to send a shuttle into orbit, but there are those here in the US that can not afford their medications. They and we have paid dearly in taxes and really reap no benefits until social security kicks in, and then we still have to pay for our meds. In socialist countries extra money is taken out of their paychecks, but i would be willing to cough up an extra 20 bucks a week in order to obtain some time of health care suppliment.

Answer 8

I think this is a good question, and the government should. It hasn't happened in US because the PRIVATE health insurance corporations are too powerful, and have your supposedly freely elected reps in the legislature in their pockets. Here in Canada we have a single payer system and although everyone is insured (in US you have over 45 million people without health insurance), and our system is more cost effective. Health is big business involving billions of dollars a year, and private companies want to make profits from it, they're not interested in people, they're interested in profits. So why would they let a non-profit people-oriented system take roots in US. In fact, the American companies have had their eyes on our wonderful Canadian medicare system and are contributing to undermining our system through our venal politicians.

Answer 9

IF you are speaking of the American government,then obviously you've never heard of Medicaid,Medicare,SSI,WIC....etc

Granted,in cases such as Medicare,the recipient(s) do pay a PORTION into the program,for the most part,these services are funded by the American tax payer!

IF you are talking about a NATION wide health care program,the tax payers have spoken

Answer 10

Oh, but they may well do it, especially if Mitt Romney's run for the President's Office in '08 is successful. Read on:

Massachusetts Legislation on Insurance Becomes Law


New York Times
April 13. 2006 6:01AM


BOSTON, April 12 In a ceremony full of pomp and political backpatting, Gov. Mitt Romney signed Massachusetts' landmark health care legislation Wednesday, setting the stage for the state to be the first to provide health coverage to virtually all of its citizens.
But the celebratory atmosphere was accompanied by some friction because Mr. Romney, a Republican, vetoed a provision some Democrats and health care advocates adamantly support: a requirement that employers who do not provide health insurance to their employees pay the state up to $295 per worker each year.
Leaders of the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature, which passed the bill last week, said they expected to override that veto in the next few weeks and were examining Mr. Romney's vetoes of seven other less controversial provisions.
The signing ceremony, complete with fife and drum corps, was held in the historic Faneuil Hall before 300 ticketed guests. Speakers included Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, who last shared the Faneuil Hall stage with Mr. Romney in 1994 at a debate in Mr. Romney's unsuccessful campaign for Mr. Kennedy's Senate seat. Now, Mr. Romney is considering running for president in 2008, and the success of the bipartisan health care plan could become a major selling point of his candidacy.
The event reflected only a shade of the political distance between Mr. Romney and the state's Democratic lawmakers. Representative Salvatore F. DiMasi, the speaker of the House, chided Mr. Romney for his line-item vetoes, saying: "Governor Romney, if you change anything, you will disturb the delicate balance that made this law possible. Every element is critical to accomplishing this law's goals."
Mostly, however, the tone was congratulatory.
"This isn't 100 percent of what anyone in this room wanted," Mr. Romney said. "But the differences between us are small."
Mr. Kennedy said, "You may well have fired the shot heard round the world on health care in America. I hope so."
The law is projected to provide coverage for about 515,000 of the state's 550,000 uninsured people and leave less than 1 percent of the population uncovered. It goes further than those of any other state.
It requires residents to obtain health insurance by July 1, 2007. People who can afford insurance and do not buy it will be penalized on their state income taxes.
The law takes the $1 billion in the state's free-care pool, which paid for medical care for patients without insurance, and uses it to subsidize insurance for people who cannot afford it. The legislation also makes it possible for more individuals and businesses to buy insurance with pre-tax dollars, saving them money. And it includes a system to encourage insurance companies to provide more affordable plans with fewer benefits or higher deductibles.
Several details have yet to be worked out, and questions remain about whether enough affordable plans can be created to allow everyone to afford coverage.
The law also expands some Medicaid coverage, including coverage for children. Mr. Romney vetoed a provision that reinstated dental coverage for adults, saying it would cost $75 million a year and was a benefit not provided by most employers.
The legislation, months in the making, almost fell apart over disagreements about whether businesses should be charged and how much if they were. Mr. Romney wanted no business fee. Mr. DiMasi wanted a much higher business assessment of 5 percent of a company's payroll, but Senator Robert E. Travaglini, a Democrat who is president of Senate, was against any business contribution because he worried that it would adversely affect the economy.
Mr. Romney said in an interview last week that the bill's charge of $295 per worker, which would yield about $48 million a year, was "not necessary for funding" the law. He also said that $295 was "such a small figure," much less than the cost of insurance, "that it doesn't have any significant incentive value" to encourage companies to insure their workers.
On Wednesday, Mr. Romney told reporters, "There were many businesses that have been flooding my office with calls as well as business associations that were very concerned about it," adding, "There's no reason to put an extra charge on certain employers."
But several health care advocates and some hospital and business leaders said Wednesday that the fee was fair and reasonable. Mr. DiMasi, in an interview last week, said: "I see a significant commitment of businesses to contribute in some way to the insurance costs of the uninsured. I see this as a significant principle, whatever the dollar figure is."
Mr. Romney said the law would be "a big part of the legacy I will have personally for my four years of service as governor."
"But," he added, "I have no way of telling if it's going to be a help or a hindrance down the road."