What I mean is that a government should subsidize for its weakest citizens. Of course if someone works, then he has the means to get healthcare and therefore would not get healthcare from the government. If people do get healthcare from the government to help them, then it shouldn't be a handout from the government, but instead a step toward a helping hand in getting thier life back together, provided that they are young enough to work. Basic thoughts... not complete, but what are your thoughts?
2006-09-21 16:45:31 · 21 answers · asked by someonewhozcuriouz 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
What I mean is that a government should subsidize for its weakest citizens. Of course if someone works, then he has the means to get healthcare and therefore would not get healthcare from the government. If people do get healthcare from the government to help them, then it shouldn't be a handout from the government, but instead a step toward a helping hand in getting thier life back together, provided that they are young enough to work. Basic thoughts... not complete, but what are your thoughts?
and I mean for citizens
2006-09-21 16:48:49 · update #1
"spook" you misunderstood, I mean a helping hand, not a hand out, these are two, VERY different things.
2006-09-21 17:00:25 · update #2
jadam, just because I have a different view of government, doesn't I should move :), and no we wouldn't be paying 50% of our income to pay for EVERYONE, its impossible, just our weakest citizens, and then provide jobs for them, so that they can actually contribute to society, if they don't want it, then they don't health care
I'm not saying we should give it a way, far from it
2006-09-21 17:03:47 · update #3
doesn't mean I should move*
would not get health care*
2006-09-21 17:06:22 · update #4
ash, yes, I agree with you, its an unfoturnate truth that isn't seen and unfortunately not talked about enough, something HAS to be done
ncgrl, thank you for sharing, all of us will get old soon, and most probably will be in your position.
2006-09-21 17:13:12 · update #5
Well Im 54 and no health insurance but I see younger healthier people getting a free ride while I pay $275 monthly or not have the medicines and thats not including doctors visits which usually run around $75. I agree with you that health care should be a way to help able workers get a hand up and not a hand out. People my age however just arent in any position to get that we are stuck in an age gap that really does not permit any health care at all. Its a great question and really does touch on the double edged sword of the health care subject. I have been a stay at home wife for the past 20 years and my ex just left for younger woman leaving me stuck with nothing really. I have been in court for a year and still no help or settlement but that doesnt ease the burden of health care.
2006-09-21 16:54:13 · answer #1 · answered by ncgirl 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We need something, all my life having a job always meant having health insurance - but not any more. And even without health insurance, hospital and doctor costs while high were still something that could be worked out with a bank loan (I know, I used to work for a bank who did these loans) - but not any more.
Greed has overwhelmed industry and the health care industry and the lending industry. But citizens still get sick, still have accidents, and still need health care.
If government does not put something in place, what do you suggest - those with money live, those without money, oh well, just go die?
2006-09-21 17:05:51 · answer #2 · answered by ash 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Governments should not necessarily have to provide health care, but society should. If all the medicine and medical procedures did not cost that much, then society should be able to lend a helping hand to all its citizens. I think that healt care should be free and that doctors should be employed by the government on a fixed salary, depending on their job, that way we separate the greedy doctors from the people who actually want to be doctors to help their fellow man and woman. After all, people become doctors to help save lives, not to save lives by making people poor.
2006-09-21 18:49:52 · answer #3 · answered by bloop87 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When a Government person says " I am here to help you" Your screwed... If you want social health care move to a country that has it. And pay 50% or more of your income to the Government.
2006-09-21 16:59:55 · answer #4 · answered by jadamgrd 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Based purely on an ethical level, I agree. However, there's also the consideration of a humongeous debt. Then again, is there a deadline to pay that thing off? I don't think so. Let the people have health care so they can continue on.
2006-09-21 16:50:08 · answer #5 · answered by Jacki Jinx 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
DIS. A. GREE.
Maybe I'm heartless, but I totally oppose subsidized healthcare, Medicare/Medicaide, welfare, food stamps, and anything else that follows under the categories "government assistant" and "my taxes are paying for it."
I stick by the theory that if you help them get back on their feet by offering them monitary assistance, they will only become more and more dependent on your handouts. Instead, educate them, help them secure employment, and most importantly: don't give it to them for free, because they'll never want to work for it until they go without it.
2006-09-21 17:04:47 · answer #6 · answered by Rissie 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Disagree. It is not the role of government.
Are they not wasteful enough without adding health care to the mix? It will create a whole new level of government ineptitude (not seen before) and will serve as yet a larger black hole for wasting ever greater sums of taxpayer money. We are talking $trillions people.
2006-09-21 17:58:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be nice wouldn't it, but can you imagine the abuse that would occur. Our welfare system is a good example of how well we encourage people to be lazy and cheat. No matter how many checks and balances we put in, people will work extra hard trying to get a handout. If they only worked half as hard finding a job.
2006-09-21 16:49:54 · answer #8 · answered by SAHM3 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it should but it wont. the doctors and pharmaceutical industries have very powerful lobbyists and money. if there were free health care it would be socialized medicine. the doctors would get paid a certain amount of money and the drugs would be free. they would go out of business. if you look at the top 10 companies of a fortune 500 company list alot of them a drug companies. my cousin is a tour guide in Israel and his wife is a doctor and he makes three times the salary of her. people go into the medical field for money and prestige. without the money we would be like Canada. doctors there do not make alot of money.
2006-09-22 05:44:01 · answer #9 · answered by scififed 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People need to stop depending on the government for every little thing. Get a job and pay for it yourself. I don't think my hard earned taxes i have paid needs to pay for health care for dips that just keep on having kids and expecting someone else to pay for their s..t.
2006-09-21 17:10:40 · answer #10 · answered by mkc 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋