Because they are all very greedy. Give them their tax cuts and stop all programs for the needy and they will be very happy. They say they are Christians but they don't know the true meaning of the word. In the New Testament, which is the Bible of the Christians, Jesus never mentions homosexuality or abortions at all. He talks about the poor and poverty over 5,000 times, but the evangelical, right wing Republican conservative Christians ignore God and want their tax cuts and whatever money they can get their hands on for themselves. Total hypocrites!!!
2006-10-24 10:00:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by Pop D 5
·
1⤊
5⤋
I think when Hillary Clinton tried to get a national medicare plan through, some repubs supported it, and some dems were against, even though she certainly had more support from dems than repubs.
Some repubs may have felt afraid a democratic president would leave to great a legacy - can't have that!
On both sides of the political fence, a lot of wealthy people (not all) want to hang on to their wealth, they are so afraid of paying more taxes they will vote against any social policy.
So I think it comes down a lot more to basic selfishness than politics. Of course, the wealthy who have a stake in keeping things the way they are, are able to pay out money to influence votes..
Then a lot of political sheep who don't think very deeply about politics tend to believe the line given them by interested parties, that social medicine is opening the door to socialism, and socialism is the next step before communism, then you might end up with a stalinist state!!!!! (I may be exaggerating, but not that much).
So that is why it is such an uphill battle to get a medicare bill passed. It will take a lot of perseverance and courage to do it.
2006-10-24 10:11:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by Mr Ed 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Because we are a nation of hypocrites,and the Republicans have no desire to support that.
To the point: when YOU are sick, you want the best medical care that the profession has to offer, and you want your insurer to cover 100% of it. You also want medical costs contained, but you get all bent out of shape if your HMO tells you that you don't need a certain procedure.
You don't want doctors to run unnecessary tests that drive up the costs. But if someone dies or is severely handicapped and there is a test that did NOT get run, we sue the doctor and the hospital for millions of dollars.
As long as we live in this 'have our cake and eat it, too' medical world, I don't think we can ever HAVE universal health care. None of us are ever going to accept it when the provider says "That's enough, we're not going to proceed with any more medical treatments with you. You are going to die, no matter how much money we throw at you. So sorry, go update your will."
2006-10-24 10:16:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by Chredon 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Tell me what you are trying to talk about here and we can discuss it.
Meanwhile, here are a few facts for you to digest:
United States leads the world in health care spending, shelling out $5,267 per capita on health care—53 percent more than the next highest country, Switzerland. In comparison, the median per capita expenditure in the 30 most developed nations is a mere $2,073, according to a recent study published in the respected journal Health Affairs.
MEDICARE PART D MAKING THE GRADE Despite politically-driven misconceptions, the Medicare Part D prescription drug plan has been successful on various fronts. Recent data reveals that a greater number of individuals are receiving drug benefits with more options, at a lower price, and with higher overall satisfaction than ever before.
House Republicans tentatively agreed Thursday to relax a ban on importing prescription drugs from Canada, a controversial pre-election victory for lawmakers seeking to provide cheaper medication for elderly voters
2006-10-24 10:04:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by Answergirl 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
I am not. I have a few plans for lowering healthcare costs.
1. Cap malpractice suits at $100,000. This would greatly reduce malpractice insurance and doctors could charge less.
2. Force med schools to reduce their tuition. Their costs are not much lower than undergrad, yet med school is like $275,000
2006-10-24 10:00:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
We are not against ANYONE getting medical care.
2006-10-24 10:32:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because your dopey idea of less fortunate is everyone who votes for a Democrankie candidate. You liberals use that crap to buy vote, nothing more. Most of you couldn't give a crap about someone who's really unfortunate.
2006-10-24 10:06:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
The poor do get medical care. I know a poor person who even got the government to pay for her eye lift. As a working person I have to pay for that. I don't know where you get your information from, but you are way off base here.
2006-10-24 10:12:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Why are Democrats dead set on destroying the level of care in America by introducing socialism to the mix.
People come from other countries because they cannot get critical care in time. Do you wish to see this situation in the US?
2006-10-24 10:03:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
Nah. Nice try. This is your agenda and you can keep it.
You liberals just want it both ways in America, and some of us are weary of it...
You want to throw God out of our country and replace God with darwin.
Just follow your own logic with darwin's approach regarding healthcare.
2006-10-24 10:36:26
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 7
·
0⤊
1⤋