Hillary Clinton is back on the universal healthcare kick. While our current medical system is not perfect and needs some changes, why would we want to implement something like this.
If we take a lesson from our Canadian neighbors, here are some articles saying why we do not want this in the United States.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/klaus071204.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/international/americas/10canada.html?ex=1276056000&en=a61fa098c687ddb2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
The last article shows that Canada has long lines for medical tests, etc. and that it really is not that great of a system.
Does anyone wish to explain how what is being proposed will be better than what Canada has?
2006-11-17 06:03:05 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Escaping Mars - I don't think our current systems is broken. My healthcare has out of pocket expenses and while not perfect it works for me and my family. If you are working at Mc Donald's and trying to support a family off $8 an hour, you really need to find a better career than being a fry girl.
2006-11-17 06:24:54 · update #1
Ideogenitics - good info. I will read up on what this has to say.
2006-11-17 06:28:09 · update #2
Mymadsky - Point taken. I apologize if I offended anyone on my fry girl comment.
2006-11-17 06:55:43 · update #3
National health insurance, not health-care.
Know the difference!
Who has the best doctor-patient ratio in the world? That would be Cuba!
{He recalled his first visit to Cuba in 1995. They had 50,000 doctors for their 10 million people. Now, they have 70-80,000 doctors for 12 million people. They dont need any more doctors. They have a doctor in every community, school and factory. They have the best doctor-patient ratio in the world, with one doctor for every 200 people,he pointed out.} (2)
See all of your links, point by point, rebutted by the professionals at the link below...
2006-11-17 06:11:30 · answer #1 · answered by ideogenetic 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Then what are you proposing? I am sick of reading why it is NOT a good idea. I want to know what we can do to make it a good idea. Bottom line, health care reform is a necessary change. Just because you have read a few right wing articles of why health care reform is so bad doesn't mean you know what our country is capable of handling economically. Further, the United States of America is the only industrialized country in the world, besides Africa that does not have a socialized health care system for ITS people.
If it is long lines that bother you must be hell if the drive through at McDonald's is more than 4 cars. How long would you wait in line to see how long you are going to live? Wouldn't it be nice if all the other Americans had health care concerns as minimal as long lines.
Take Care
2006-11-17 06:09:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's not. People just want something for free all of the time. Somehow they never learn that you always get what you pay for.
No one in this country is denied life-saving medical care. If you want more than that, you must EARN it just like the rest of us do.
Did you know that "Hillarycare" had hundreds of pages about penalties and fines? Why does a national health care program need Draconian laws to make people use it?
The government has what I like to call "the King Roto-rooter touch." You know how everything that Kind Midas touched turned to gold? Well everything that King Roto-rooter touches turns to crap.
Do not let the government take control of our day-to-day health. You know what comes next, right? They'll start dictating what you eat, how much you're allowed to drink, and whether or not you can smoke at all.
Oh, the liberals don't mind that because they already eat the way they think is healthiest. Well, guess what liberals, they can also dictate whether or not you can ski, scuba dive, rock climb, white-water raft, etc. Those things also cause serious health problems.
Are you concerned now?
.
2006-11-17 06:04:12 · answer #3 · answered by FozzieBear 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I'm self employed, hardly flipping burgers.
I spend $2200.00 a month on health care insurance on my family and it is a financial drain.
GM spends more on health insurance than on raw materials.
National Health care works if it is institute and managed by each state.
I point again to the state of Minnesota's MN Care. Everyone who makes less than $19,999 a year can buy insurance for around $50 a month. With Federal funding that would include all those making $29,999.
Just because the system works for you, doesn't mean it works for every one.
Oh, and shame on you for assuming only those with out insurance have menial jobs. Belittling someone for not being as privileged as you is unbecoming and ignorant.
2006-11-17 06:43:44 · answer #4 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
National Health care doesn't have to be free. That's something Republicans throw in to muddy the issue. It needs to be affordable for all Americans. In the state where I live, one in four do not have health insurance. People can't afford it. We are supposed to be the greatest country on the planet. Why can't we look at something like this and perfect it and make it work?
2006-11-17 06:09:39 · answer #5 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A national health care system would only go to further any perceived divide of health care in the US. The "National" system will become overworked and backlogged, stagnated by those who don't need the care and those barely able to provide it. The gifted physicians will retreat to private practice, and those who can afford it will receive excellent health care. The system in the US is better than any in the world. Seek to improve it, not overhaul it.
2006-11-17 06:08:57 · answer #6 · answered by jh 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I totally agree with you. We do not know what we would be getting. The following from the website canadafreepress is the real shocker:
"The patient to doctor ratio varies from 2,000 to 4,000 patients per doctor, depending on geographical location."
There are already ways the really poor can get medical treatment as good as that or better.
Good job in providing us with some facts!!!
2006-11-17 06:23:47 · answer #7 · answered by JudiBug 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because people who work for the government get much better healthcare than you or I do, Medicare is 18% more efficient and straightforward than privatized health, and it'll ultimately lower taxes while providing better healthcare for the average working person.
2006-11-17 06:05:43 · answer #8 · answered by thehiddenangle 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Besides the fiasco it would create, national health care will bankrupt this country.
2006-11-17 06:13:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It works in all the developped countries. But are the USA a develloped country?
2006-11-17 07:48:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋