Why are the Republicans against general Health Care? What do they have against people who want to be healthy?

Answer 1

Because most of them get paid by their friends who work for the drug companies and others know the sooner we die the sooner we forget their lies and greed I bet they get free health care and then we have to hear about it on CNN or some other news channel

Answer 2

Actually Republicans are not against "general" health care. Republicans are against wasteful and deceitful health care policies and practitioners. The only Republicans I know who are against general health care as a topic to be publicly debated are Doctors but then again, so are the Democrat Doctors!
Our "health care "programs have become gluttonous pigs that are so big and rich that they basically allow theft and abuse because it's easier to increase income than to stop the abuse. Its' either that or they must admit they cannot stop the abuse right? And, by the way, they are in business for a profit.
Think of it this way, Doctors depend upon people being sick and suffering; it's what pays for their lifestyles. If they want to add to their life experience they create additional income by what ever means they find open to them by extra fees and needless visits; whatever way they decide. Who really watches them that closely? So, the insurance companies raise rates AND cap coverage AND increase your out of pocket cost all accross the board. Does that hurt them? Does that hurt the health care providers? Does any of that justify the Pharmesuitical companies charging the outragious prices for their products...no.
I worked in the community mental health field as a therapist. I personally attended many meeting that were held for the sole purpose of finding ways to bill the state and anyone else they could and to keep paying clients IN the system. I was personally chastised for questioning the ethics and legalities of those practices.
Furthermore, new therapist that wanted to venture out into their own practices use the community mental health systems to select and win clients away from the system and into their offices. Of course they go after the clients who have a means of paying or being paid for.
Health care is a business. Yes, there are some Doctors who do care; who are fair and who are dedicated to getting people healthy and keeping them well. But the few ( ? ) who abuse the system and treat their clients like a personal bank account are the problem. It's not a political party issue, it's a moral issue.
Some would say it's a legal issue. Yes, it is and the laws should be made much more severe for those abusers!
It's not the ill and injured who abuse the system we have , its' the people they depend upon to help them to get well that abuse the system and the system that allows it!
If we want to "fix" health care make our laws be effective to the full extent of their intended purpose in every case.

Answer 3

I can't honestly answer your question. I don't believe that Republicans have anything against people being healthy nor do I believe that they have anything against health care. If there is such a position as "pro-health care", they would probley fit in that category.
The way I see it is that Republicans are more for business and a free market society. Unfortunately, health care is a business. Simply put, demand drives costs and services. The more demand the higher the fees. I said simple.
If you ask a question like this, you might consider asking it differently. Like, why do the two main political parties in this country choose partisan politics on an issue instead of coming together and doing something good for the people?

Answer 4

What a horrible misconception. Who told you Republicans are "against health care" ?
I am a proud Republican. I am for health care. I am against the govornment *running* health care in the US. There is a BIG difference.
The feds currently run two health care programs; Medicaid and Medicare. They are financial disasters. Programs like this on a larger scale would simply bankrupt our country. You think Iraq is expensive? Try the Feds spending that kind of money, every year, for *eternity*. That's what universal health care would be.
Some form of tax incentive to companies to provide health benefits for employees, along with real competition would drive things the right direction. Both of those are lacking in the current Medicaid / Medicare systems. That is why they are so bloated and out of control. The argument that everyone has a *right* to health care is a joke. If that's the case then everyone has a right to a place to live, and food too, right? So should the government provide *those* for you too? Nice thought, but a little impractical. You shop for food, you shop for housing. You should be able to shop for health care. Yes it should be affordable. The government running it will *NOT* make it affordable. Competition and *reasonable* regulation will.... You get a tax break for children, you should get one for health care too.

Answer 5

Republicans TRADITIONALLY are against big government and the burden of too many taxes, which are what will happen with a socialized medicine program. Everyone pays taxes into the system, so it is not "free" and the only ones regulating are the government, which means LONG lines and few advances in technology. Besides, our government was designed to give us choices, not dictate our lives, including how we handle our own health (like what doctor or hospital we decide to choose.) Why do you think the rich in Britian go to private hospitals as opposed to the government owned?

People who truly want to be healthy will stop eating fast food and artificial food. They will walk instead of driving one mile, and educate themselves to learn more about health and get a job with better benefits. Tax breaks are given for health savings plans and people should learn to save their money.

BTW I am a stay at home mom, and teach my children how to eat good foods: they don't beg for junk food, because it is a treat, not a normal diet. I don't make a lot of money, but my hubby has insurance that we pay dearly for and we use preventative means to take care of ourselves rather than depend on doctors all the time. Get off your butt and get educated!

Answer 6

What a ridiculously leading question, but I'll answer the first one. First, I ask you to notice how expensive medical care has gotten when HMOs came into being.

However, notice how the costs of procedures like laser eye surgery, not usually covered by insurance, have come down. People usually shop around for the best deal. It's competitive, so Docs who perform these procedures have to provide the best service at the best cost or people go elsewhere. The result is superior results at a lower cost.

Those who oppose "free" health care realize how expensive "free" actually is and how quality and availability decrease when something is artificially made "free". There are few examples where government provided means better. Removing competition hurts quality, availability and raises costs.

Are you going to tell doctors, who spend an enormous amount of effort, time and money to acquire their skills how much they can then earn? Will you do the same for every other profession in life or just for the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry? History is full of examples where this has been tried and the results are almost always the same: exactly opposite of the intent.

Those who oppose "free" health care are trying to save you from yourselves and your misguided idealism, not to mention our own access to medical when we need it. (btw, I don't have health insurance. Thanks to HMOs and government involvement, I can't afford it.)

Answer 7

I dont think republicans are against it per se - but their approach to it is different and one that on the surface may sound great - but in reality doesnt work.

Someone mentioned about getting a job and paying for your own healthcare? Well realitycheck - millions have jobs but 1. cannot afford to buy health insurance. 2. employers do not provide coverage (for many reasons, but especially the very small businesses, they simply cant afford it vs. large companies).

Republican ideology stems (today) from personal responsibility at the expense of ignoring societal responsibility. If you grow up in a poor neighborhood surrounded by violence, drugs, poverty - the school you attend is not likely to provide you with a great education and then you cant afford to go to college or dont have the skills needed to succeed in school/college and then cant get a great job (or one that pays decently and provides health benefits). Most of us are where we are because we have been privelaged (yes, we all work hard - but the guys who "work hard and make it" have so much in their favor that its almost hard NOT to succeed).

As for republicans and healthcare - again - they are not against it - but their approach has a narrow vision that benefits the middle and upper classes.

Bush's new plan - if a person making minimum wage or a bit higher - earns $15K-20,000/year - the new tax savings isnt going to provide any additional money for them to be able to purchase health insurance! So he's fragmenting classes and creating a situation where the working poor are screwed.

In terms of the middle class that didnt have health insurance and now they can afford it maybe with the tax cut, they're still screwed because the coverage they can buy wont be that great - they may only be able to buy high deductible plans which encourage you NOT to seek preventive care, since the up front costs will be present.

But who will benefit by all this? Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies - with no checks/balances in the system - these companies are making record profits Isn't if funny how healthcare costs keep rising, doctors/nurses salaries keep going down, but insurance and pharmaceutical companies keep making more money than ever?

As for private hospitals making more money? - thats true - but they screen patients - basically only taking the ones that are insured or have "good insurance" while all others are referred out to public hospitals (but its also funny how the best doctors in the country mostly work at public hospitals or university hospitals and not really private ones!)

Answer 8

First off, to accuse those who are opposed to 'general health care' and the idea of the government being responsible for providing that health care as having something 'against people who want to be healthy,' is an unfair generalization.

Our government was not established to be the Nanny of every citizen but to allow those who want to live here and work and have a say in their own future can actually do so without being encumbered by the government. Ours is supposed to be unique in that you *don't* have bureaucracies looking over your shoulder telling you how you should be doing everything down to the last detail and punish you if you succeed. There is nothing in the Constitution that endorses such a view, but there are those in government who have taken on this mindset that they know what's best for us when they have no clue what's best for me. When the government first started looking into getting involved in health care, the AMA *begged* them not to get involved because it would cause unbelievable administrative problems, cause the cost of health care to skyrocket, and cause the quality of health care to go down. And all of those things have happened, yet the government continues to seek more and more involvement.

I have nothing against anyone who wants to be healthy (I'm Libertarian, btw), but I certainly don't think the government has any business or the right - in fact I *know* they don't - getting involved further or at all in health care. All it will do is let the bureaucracies feed on other bureaucracies while health care continues to decline and the costs for citizens continues to rise. The government's efforts to make us think they can take better care of us than we can of ourselves is arrogance at its peek, and too many are suffering as a result of that arrogance. You want more affordable health care? Get the government out of it, plain and simple.

Answer 9

Well, you're assuming that there is only one right answer to what is a tremendously complex problem. The answer that I frequently hear from republicans on this topic is that they are opposed to big government, and universal health coverage implies government involvement. However, is this the real reason? It seems to be too convenient an answer, as republicans (recent republicans, not people like Ike) are in favor of major government intervention when it comes to something they want. I suspect the real reason has something to do with their view of the welfare state, and ties with big business, and the desirability of capitalist competition within any type of financial endeavor. I don't get any sense that they're opposed to universal health care because of (what I believe will be) its disastrous effect on the medical system itself. But I'll stay off that soapbox for now.

Answer 10

I am not a Republican, nor a Democrat, but I have never noticed Republicans being agains general health care. What I have seen is a tendency for them to be against socialized medicine, meaning that all aspects of health care are the province of the Federal Government. One reason to be against that is the realization that where ever it has been achieved, medical care desends to the lowest common denominator of care.

Answer 11

Republicans aren't against general Health Care, they are against increasing the taxes on the section of the public who are working and paying into the system for the ones who aren't paying into the system.

If you want to go to the doctor, go, pay for the services. If you want, purchase a Health Insurance Policy that will help protect you from the expense.

The government (Republican or Democrat) shouldn't have anything to do with your ability to go to the doctor.

If you can't afford it, then that is your problem.

Seek out ways to increase your income and perhaps the company you go to work for will offer you insurance coverage as part of your salary.