Everyone needs health care but, I don't believe the government should be handling it. Unemployment is the lowest it's been in years. Those that can work should work and pay their own way. We still support those who can't.
It's time people stop looking for handouts and be accountable for their own lives.
2006-10-03 09:16:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by thomasnotdoubting2 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
To be fair to Republicans, they probably are in favor of "health care" They just don't want to pay for it with taxes. They want to leave it up to the individual to decide how the pay for their own care, usually through insurance.
The obvious problem with this theory is that some people will choose to pay for more immediate problems like food, or fuel for heating as a priority over preventative health care. So people with less money are less likely to look after their own health if they have to pay for their healthcare through insurance.
I can't imagine that there will ever be a situation where all people regardless of their financial circumstances will be able to access healthcare without services being provided free at the point of access.
Privatized healthcare just does not work for everyone, unless each of us has sufficient income to pay for insurance. I think even the Republicans know this will leave some people out of the loop.
The arguments made by some people in the above thread about the private sector being more efficient at delivering health care are probably true, but the ethical question is far more important than the financial one.
Im not a Republican, but Generally speaking they are probably correct about the efficiency of the private sector. That theory is valid for pretty much every public service with the exception of the military and healthcare.
We cannot deny people health care just because we are a bit angry that they don't seem to have made the correct life choices.
Raoul
2006-10-03 09:19:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Everyone in the US is for health care. Conservatives are opposed to a government run or mandated health insurance program with compulsory membership by all citizens.
Always try to keep two terms "health care" and "health insurance" separate. They are not interchangeable.
Everyone in the US has access to health care. What's really at issue is how citizens pay for the health care they receive.
The 45 million people without insurance figure is a myth.
The US counts a person as "uninsured" even if he went only one day in a year without insurance.
There are a lot of rich people who do not need to buy insurance, so they should not have to.
Young people, those just starting out prefer not to buy insurance because the risk of catastrophic illness is not great. If they feel they do no need insurance, they should not be forced to buy it.
The most realistic estimate I've seen is that there are about 8 million people without insurance because they cannot afford the premiums. While 8 million is a lot, compare it to the almost 300 million people in the US. Some 292 million can afford insurance and/or can afford to pay for their own health care.
2006-10-03 09:19:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by regerugged 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Generally republicans believe that private enterprise and the free market are much better at ensuring things are run efficiently than large government agencies are. After all private enterprise has a financial motive to offer better bang for the buck than their competitors whereas large government agencies don't. Just ask yourself when was the last time you dealt with any government agency and came away thinking "now that's a well run organization". My guess is the answer is "never".
In short, republicans favor privatized health insurance over huge poorly run government sponsored socialized medicine.
2006-10-03 09:15:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
Well, here we are, six years into an eight year term - Republicans run the House, the Senate, and the Executive branch - and healthcare has taken a back seat to terrorism and getting re-elected. Healthcare has doubled in price, and benefits have been cut in half (in other words, you're paying twice what the actual care you receive is worth). Healthcare companies are making a fortune, and the people of the United States - the working people, like you and I - are left with a large bill.
It's typical Repugnican crap - the rich get healthy, and the sick stay poor (thank you, Bono).
Republicans are getting what they want (kickbacks) and their buddies (the healthcare providers of this country) are getting what they want (lots of money), but you and I are only getting things taken away from us!
2006-10-03 09:12:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by gatesfam@swbell.net 4
·
0⤊
3⤋
the federal authorities has no organisation in both. clinical licensing is a state function. except that that's the organisation of affected individual and physician. because drugs has develop into this kind of massive merchandise in the monetary equipment Progressives are searching at it as yet another funds cow that that they cam grab. the american academic equipment, public and private develop into the envy of the international till the federal authorities determined that they had a extra perfect way. Public practise should be a joint attempt of the state and district. Federal authorities interference and instructors union hav taken our instructional to the bottom element. all the progressives posting right that is empirical evidence of that.
2016-12-04 04:27:23
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
If I have to pay for someone else's healthcare, then I have the right to tell that person that they will not : smoke, do drugs, drink alcohol, eat junk food, have unprotected sex, drive over the speed limit, work too hard, not work hard enough, etc. Do you see where this is going?
2006-10-03 10:17:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Like the Ferengi, Repukes don't like universal national health care because there's no profit in it. Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!
2006-10-03 09:38:52
·
answer #8
·
answered by rhino9joe 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Republicans are for health care but not for government health care
2006-10-03 09:19:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by Zeke 2
·
4⤊
0⤋
as long as you have the money and the employer to help supply it, it's all your's, if you unemployed or don't have an employer that supplys it then, thats your problem isn't it (that what it seems the republican view on healthcare is)
2006-10-03 09:10:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by angesky2001 2
·
1⤊
2⤋