Particularly when it comes to health insurance. I always hear them complain about how much they hate taxes so that everyone can have access to health insurance. It just blows my mind because this seems like the least a civilized society should be able to offer. What is next? Should we abolish public fire departments and police departments next? What about public schools, libraries and museums? Would that make you guys happy also?
2007-01-20 05:27:54 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'll give you one good reason you should have to pay for someone elses health insurance: If you were willing to pay for someone elses health insurance when they needed it they would be willing to pay for yours when you need it and your family. It is the difference between being "civilized" and living in a "civilization" and being an animal and living in the jungle where everything is kill or be killed. I clearly understand this subject.
2007-01-20 05:33:56 · update #1
T sway-26; I don't understand what you mean "no one is complaining" this is a major national debate, do you have your head in the sand? And please let me know how you would pay for your bills if you had a legitimate medical condition which did not allow you to work (such as cancer) and you had no family support or insurance?
2007-01-20 05:39:25 · update #2
To all the people saying there is a difference between things like the fire department and medical insurance because "a person could not possibly provide themselves with police and fire protection" do your homework...I said PUBLIC fire departments. Under your logic of privitization, people should have to pay the fire department to put out fires and the police to capture criminals and instead of paying them with tax dollars. If you don't have the money to pay: tough crap. your house will burn down, you will get raped and nobody will look for the guy who did it. Why should I have to pay for your crappy house if it's on fire? Or help save you from your boyfriend who beats you? THAT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. Stand by your logic you can't have it both ways.
2007-01-20 05:46:41 · update #3
To Chainsaw: So basically what you are saying is that if you are poor and can't afford to go to the library or pay for public school, tough luck kid you don't get any education...WOW! That sounds really great for our society there dude! I guess kids education doesn't mean very much to you...
2007-01-20 05:54:35 · update #4
Having universal health insurance has nothing to do with the belief in having a dictator even if some countries which have dictators tout universal health insurance...That is a classic fallacy in logic.
2007-01-20 05:56:28 · update #5
I just read that though hospitals will not deny you services, you still will have to pay (and likely an enormous amount) and you will get medical school students who will train on you. Still sounds bogus to me dude.
2007-01-20 06:20:36 · update #6
Sway, what about schizophrenia, alzeimers, down syndrome, late emphysema, paralysis, etc...Do you really need proof that some medical problems can prevent a person from working? Or is it a liberal conspiracy?
2007-01-20 06:27:55 · update #7
I don't think many Americans realize that their "private" health insurance actually costs them more from their taxes than it does for us Canadians. The U.S. government spends more money per capita on health care than the Canadian government does, and we have universal health insurance for most medical care procedures.
The reason for this is that the Americans provide health insurance for those who are very poor (usually because they are medically unable to work) and those over 65, who use up a large portion of the health care resources in a country. There are no price guidelines for many providers and Medicaid/ Medicare just pays the bill. It is more expensive to pay for care for people after they already became sick, which is exactly what the U.S. health care system does. In Canada, where it is universal - we can have health care that may prevent us from getting sick in the first place - thus saving lots and lots of money - as well as health care for those that are chronically ill, such as suffering from diabetes, but that keeps such people healthy as possible so they don't become unable to function in society. Therefore, we doubly benefit as we don't have as many sick people ending up unable to work, confined to hospitals, etc. because our system cares for people before they have to do so.
As for Lolly, I must correct her. I LIVE in Canada. No, we do NOT wait YEARS for treatment. We get treatment in time. If it is urgent, people get it right away like they do in the U.S. Some elective surgeries take longer, but not YEARS as suggested by the writer in question.
ALSO, for the sake of everybody here, I am in Canada and I ALWAYS picked my own doctors, picked my own specialists and to some extent, we can choose which hospital we can stay at. Canada's medicine is not socialized. 96% of all physicians are self-employed, private practitioners. Our health insurance for basic medical care is single provider. Services outside of medicare can be billed privately or to insurance, like they do in the U.S. You may also want to take another look at bankruptcy statistics in the U.S. - the #1 reason American consumers go bankrupt is due to unpaid medical bills.
2007-01-20 06:01:57 · answer #1 · answered by Angela B 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
its funny
conservatives have been shown to donate more monies to charities then anyone else, and yes, this is the common conservative, not rich ones, and you blame some for not liking their fellow americans?
its about capitalism vs. socialism
why do capitalism countries continue to succeed but socialist ones just stay where they are at?
EDIT: The cancer thing, the hospitals will never refuse someone no matter how poor they are, and will try to help the people make the payments when they are better.
EDIT2: Yes you can have it both ways. You don't have to be one extreme or the other, you can be in the middle. I have to agree with chainsaw, such things as police and fire are important things...why? Then the rich would control everything. The rich would pay the cops to do what they want. The rich would pay the fire department to not respond to certain cases.
2007-01-20 05:31:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
There's a difference between insurance and fire and police protection - a person cannot possibly provide himself with police and fire protection, but if he works to support himself he can pay his bills. This is a "free country," or so many want us to think, but those same people want us tied down paying taxes to support others - that doesn't sound very "free" to me.
Edit:
If we do believe in helping our "fellow Americans," we should do so of our own free will, not because of a government mandate.
2007-01-20 05:37:05 · answer #3 · answered by Adriana 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
properly, in my view, i like Ron Paul's view of libertarianism. i'm the comparable way as you. I evaluate myself a libertarian, no longer a Libertarian. They in general disagree with them because of the fact lots of Republicans are RINO. The Republican occasion has extremely gotten faraway from being the occasion of "no." they do no longer plenty have self belief in financial conservatism anymore and it style of sounds like maximum Republicans are in basic terms grasping crooks. They talk an excellent game, yet then finally end up like George Bush. i like the Libertarians so plenty extra advantageous.
2016-10-07 11:11:09 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We dont have nationalize healthcare so, noone is complaining about taxes going towards health insurance. And i am sorry, but you dont have to have insuracne to survive.
I know people that have cancer, MS, Vertigo, and a slew of other severe illnesses and are working? So whats the next excuse?
2007-01-20 05:30:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I have no problem helping anyone.
Look who pays for it. The wealthy do. If you want it, earn more but do not come and steal it from me.
Fire and police are here to protect us like the military. Public schools should be privatized because they cannot get results. If you want to join the local library, you should have to pay for it out of your own pocket. Same with museums.
If you want your money to pay for libraries, museums, etc, raise the money in private sector. Why should I have to pay for something I do not want, WITH MY MONEY THAT I EARN?
It amazes me how generous you liberals are with other people's money.
2007-01-20 05:32:16 · answer #6 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
No secret about it: I despise the idea of having my money coercively taken from me and redistributed. If I CHOOSE to give, that's a completely different story. I support many charitable organizations and send out checks to put my money where my mouth is every single week. That being said, I will fight tooth and nail to save one red cent from going to someone who refuses to help himself first.
2007-01-20 05:46:07 · answer #7 · answered by Rick N 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I already have to pay for my family's health insurance, give me one good reason I should pay for anyone else's. I don't see any body rushing to grab my family's bills to pay them. It is something liberals do not understand called personal responsibility.
2007-01-20 05:30:28 · answer #8 · answered by taxidriver 4 · 9⤊ 1⤋
Ah, socialized medicine. Do your homework. Countries like Canada offer health insurance, and folks have to wait years for needed surgery and services. And they don't get to pick their doctor.
2007-01-20 05:31:06 · answer #9 · answered by Lolly 3 · 6⤊ 3⤋
No we believe in teaching a man to fish, not giving him a fish.Taxidriver hit it right on the head.
2007-01-20 05:34:57 · answer #10 · answered by Mr Bellows 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋