universal health care, in my opinion, rocks. no better plan.
my first point: universal health care is cheap. heck yes it's cheaper than our stupid system today. in fact if we switched, we'd have about 2 billion extra dollars for education.
second: people all have the right to life and equality. what about the ghetto people that can't afford health care? are they not affected by our constitution? they aren't provided for because they can't afford it.
and finally... it's inhumane to let people die without health coverage. the purpose of a ******* government is to promote life, liberty, and property. note life.
2006-10-25 21:15:03 · 9 answers · asked by Profanity 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes!
A fact not lost upon EVERY other moder nation in the world.
America is the ONLY industrialized nation that doesn't provide a national healthcare system.
Imagine if you will, a young man in his 20s or 30s. He has a stomach ache. It gets wors over a few weeks, but he keeps trying Ibuprofin or Tums, Pepto Bismol, etc. He can't afford to take off from work, because he doesn't get paid if he misses. And the bills are always tight. after two or three months, it becomes unbearable He starts coughing up blood, as it has moved from the stomach to his chest.
When the blood comes, his wife drags him to the emergency room (It is 3AM, and no one else is open, this will add hundreds to the bill)
The doctor's face is a bit white, but he calls in a specialist to look over the tests.
The doctor concurrs, it is cancer.
"I'm sorry, you have cancer. It is no longer operable, it has matasticised throughout your body. It has spread to your lungs, which is why you are coughing up blood. You have 3 to 6 weeks. I wish you had come to us when you first experienced symptoms."
That happens hundreds of times a day in this country. those people have faces, they have families, they matter.
Yes, it is the government's job to: Promote the general welfare!
2006-10-25 21:28:04 · answer #1 · answered by Russ C 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"universal" health care means it is funded from taxes- taxes which you have to pay regardless of whether you choose to use the health plan or not. (see "liberty"- as in freedom of choice)
The funds are then administered by a government official, who gives the money to some company. Say the equivalent of Haliburton...
You still think it would be cheaper?
Ok, next comes quality. The doctors of such a government run centre would have the same level of responsibility as the teachers in your public schools. Would you really want to have surgery done by some semi-illiterate labour union hack? Compare public schools and private schools. Sure, some public schools are really good- but how many?
I can bet the same would be in the case of public and private health care
This does not say that inner city clinics cannot be operated and paid for by the cities themselves- after all they have tax money, land and the power to use them. The problem is that these "city fathers" will rather spend the cash on some "Big Dig" in Boston or a 8 milion dollar swimming pool- which isn't finished yet! Check the lists of "pork" projects- the cash is right there and 2 bilion dollars is just a drop in the ocean of waste
2006-10-26 04:28:42 · answer #2 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I guess it would be ok if there could be some real control over it. Right now what I see bad with the idea is this........!. does a doctor get to charge what they want? can they see as many patients as they want? If the government is paying the doctor what is the incentive for them to actually provide quality care? I remember reading an article years ago about doctors scamming the government for payment of health care for Patience who did not exist. I also read that they have been caught sending patients in for very expensive and multiple tests that were not needed to pump up the bill. will the doctor decide what treatment needs doing or will the pencil pusher in Washington make that decision. I would have to see it on paper first before I could agree to something like this.
2006-10-26 05:27:19 · answer #3 · answered by Stand 4 somthing Please! 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely! We need something like that. I mean I read about other countries, such as Europe in particular, have that system that takes care of their citizens! If something like that works well there, then we should do that here in the USA! It's that simple! The money wasted in this bad (and ******* crappy) health care system we have here should go to educating the young people and helping out the poorest citizens. Now that's a good idea!
2006-10-26 05:58:26 · answer #4 · answered by brian 2010 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why do you assume that the government can do a better job of providing for me than I can do for myself ? No where in our constitution or it's amendments are the words "universal health care" mentioned. Our federal bureaucracy has proven itself time and again to be wasteful and inefficient. Not to mention occasionally corrupt. Why do you want to turn something as important as your health care choices to a nameless, faceless bureaucrat ?
The purpose of our government is not to provide you with life, liberty or property. It is there to ensure that you have the right to pursue it yourself.
Life is about the choices a person makes. I'm weary of paying the bill for people who have persisted in making poor choices. The nation should cut out it's bleeding heart liberalism and force our people to stand on their own.
2006-10-26 05:58:17 · answer #5 · answered by Cain 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I agree with you. I have a pretty good health plan but it costs me $815 per month. We would be far better off if we had a system like Canada. Canadians are reportedly healthier than U.S. citizens because their system allows for preventive care even for people who have little money. I know most people don't agree with this but I bet the people without insurance wouldn't be among them and that group is growing rapidly.
2006-10-26 04:16:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
What do you mean by “...government … providing…” anything? The government can’t provide you with a cup of coffee; they can take it from me and give it to you. By the time it reaches your lips, it’ll be cold, and – I hope – bitter.
2006-10-26 07:17:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, yes, yes. You ought to run for office. You've got my vote.
2006-10-26 04:23:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
welcome to Canada, or Sweeden, which ever you prefer. We've had universal health care for ages,
2006-10-26 04:30:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋