How is Universal Healtcare a poverty program when everybody would get it?

Question

It's not like food stampls or welfare. EVERYBODY would get it. And EVERYBODY gets sick and EVERYBODY some day will get old and need it no matter what they say.

kent_shak - but they can still use it and trust me, they would use it. I've never met a rich person that didn't take free stuff when they could.

Tammy C - communist China's communist economy is blowing past our and will surpass us soon.

Cantcu - exactly! you never hear the right raise hell about corporate welfare

g- exactly! if it was so bad then why are insurance companies lobbying so hard against it.

Roadkill - you are just stupid

Lolli - great answer but you missed that everybody gets it.

Jeff F - Social security works GREAT if they governent would stop robbing the funds.

Answer 1

I think it is a wonderful idea!
When people lose their jobs (via layoffs) they typically lose their insurance as well, they are offered to continue coverage through Cobra.. But when you are un-employed you can hardly afford that. Universal Healthcare would help people out durring that period of struggle. Also Universal healthcare would be helpful for people who maybe work from home and would like better Health insurance than what is offered through an Individual plan (those plans are mostly a joke if you have any sort of health problems or plan on having a family, they cover nothing). But of course this is only my own opinion..

Answer 2

Slow down there, jblogger, and relax a bit. Universal health care is NOT a poverty program proposal - it's a national health care plan - along the same lines as Social Security.

ADC, WIC, Food Stamps, Rent Subsidies, Etc...these are poverty programs.

These days, you damn sure don't need to meet the poverty guidelines set forth by the government to be unable to afford the outrageous premiums for a decent health insurance policy.

It's so expensive, many large employers are demanding that more and more of the premiums be paid for by the employees - and what was once included as a retirement benefit has pretty much become extinct.

It has its good points, for sure, but my reservation has to do with the government's inevitable red tape and its handling of any national policy - kind of dismal when you look at the present state of Social Security, immigration and the "simplified" Federal Income Tax.

I don't know if a person's health and well being is worth the risk - and the start up of such a massive endeavor would likely be very chaotic (remember the national prescription fiasco?)

Answer 3

Its worse than a proverty program. A poverty takes money from people that work and gives it to people that don't.

"Universal Health Care" is nothing more than nationalized medicine. It would be swamped as soon as it started. With no cost to see a doctor they would be over run with patients. Eventually you'd have people dying on waiting list just like what happens in Canada. Worse yet it would mean all the Health care providers would be government employees like the post office and the department of motor vechicals. I'm sure you would get the same service from them.

The people who didn't have jobs would have all day to stand in line for their free medical care. The working people would never get in to see a doctor. So the people paying for it would never get to use it and the free loading deadbeats would consume all the available resources.

In the end you'd have a government bureaucrat deciding who will live and who will die. And there would be no appeal, no one to sue for malpractice. If the government doctors botched up your operation too bad.

Worst idea I've ever heard.

Answer 4

I assume you're referring to a single-payer universal healthcare system, in which the "single payer" is the federal government (or every single American taxpayer, depending upon how you look at it).

In short, successful, quality healthcare needs a free market to function, grow, and improve. Instead of increasing healthcare quality, socializing healthcare simply reduces quality to the lowest common denominator that a national pool of payers can afford. Inevitably, more taxes are needed to sustain the system as the population grows older and birth rates decline, taxes are increased further, care is reduced further and so forth until the situation ultimately becomes untenable.

Europe and Canada are having tremendous problems with socialized healthcare because their systems are overburdened. Tax rates approach 70 percent or highter, "quality of life" procedures require long waiting lists and the standard for care in general is much lower than in America. Of course the rich can always find a way to get the best care available, but once you socialize, instead of the healthcare system being broken down into multiple gradients of treatment availability, it essentially breaks down into two tiers - one for the extremely privileged, and the other for the vast majority of the population that cannot escape the deteriorating system.

Universal healthcare is a failure everywhere it functions, as are all other aspects of socialism and communism.

Answer 5

That ought to work about as well as Social Security right? Last I heard the Social Security program is in dire straits, and when GW offered a realistic fix all the libs started crying. Do we really want Canada's socialist medical health care system? Do we really want to wait for hours and in some cases days to see a Dr.? You are right it wouldn't be like welfare, it would be much more expensive. Can I opt out?

Answer 6

The other side likes to call anything given to people who are not business or rich a poverty program! That means by definition that they have some character flaw!

The biggest welfare recipients (and Cheats) are the rich and business!!! And they have the most personality disorders of any group! Just look at Bush!!

Answer 7

because anything democrats like... has to be a "poverty program" apparently... and then they have the "I heard Rush limbaugh say a person waited 89 years to get a flu shot in Canada"...

yet about 9 out of 10 canadians perfer their system that I talk too...

Answer 8

Yeah, it's not a good idea. I feel like the Democrats waste their time on that one, they should focus on the things they're good at, like getting gay people married and protecting the environment. Canada has universal healthcare, and it's one of the worst health systems. It's impossible to get an organ there I hear.

Answer 9

Wealthy people have insurance so they consider it a poverty program They just have a diferent definition of poverty than you or I.

Answer 10

It's a great idea, lot's of communist countries have it.