Why don't we have a social health care system without eliminating privatized health care. Examples: Post Office and FedEx, Public and Private schools, MN Care and Group Health. It would leave room for competition and provide a fall back for those who aren't offered health care through work or can't afford it. Believe it or not some employers don't provide health insurance.
2007-03-01 12:16:55 · 14 answers · asked by H.Thompson 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Look at MN Care, it works well and our taxes aren't too high in MN. People pay to be on MN Care, but it is sliding scale, and not every ine can just get up and find a different job, some people are luck to have the jobs they've got. Oh, if life were only that simple. And it's not communism. Communism would mean no private insurance at all, and that's not what I'm suggesting. Also, if you want to get insurance from a company when it's not offered through an employer, it can be $400 dollars a month or more. That's outrageous.
2007-03-01 12:28:51 · update #1
There is so much misinformation about U.H.C. that is being published by the Insurance, medical and pharmaceutical lobbies that people in this country need some serious education on the subject before it will be accepted by many. Here is a fact that you can give, the CEO of G.M. has said that $1500 of every new car goes to pay for the health care of their employees and I would assume that this would carry over to many other industry's. People who say they do not want to pay more taxes are really paying for it anyway with the difference being they just don't know it. Another myth is that people in Canada have to wait for emergency procedures it is no longer then what we have to wait here. Many will tell you that the quality of care will decrease, we currently rank number 1 in heath care cost and 14th in quality of care. That's direct from the world health organization.
2007-03-01 12:47:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Many who have had health insurance their whole lives can't buy it at any price once they reach 55 years old. A friend of mine retired at 62 and was paying 2 thousand one hundred dollars a month for basic heath insurance. That was the only company he could get. Last month they returned his money and said they were dropping him! Keep in mind his taxes help pay for all the government workers' health insurance. They are about one third of the economy. How about military and medicare recipients? He helps pay for them too. Why does he have to go without? And now it looks like he has cancer and he won't leave his wife in the poor house, so he has decided to just let nature take its course.
2007-03-01 20:39:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I believe that many Americans think the word "socialism" is a curse word. Generally, Republicans back a more laissez-faire or smaller government approach, whereas the Democrats generally believe the government should take charge of more things like health care. With the country really being split almost perfectly down the middle, socialized medicine is not around the corner.
2007-03-01 20:30:08 · answer #3 · answered by gervoi 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I understand what your sayin and I know you have good intentions.
Take some things into consideration though. \
SPS is a slowly sinking ship. Post offices have cut back hours... they have repeatedly raised their postage rates.. but its not helped.
Public schools have been under fire for poor performance and are being run over by much better performing private and charter schools.
Managed care like medicare, medicaid, .. well there is tons of mismanagement, billions of money goes lost or unaccounted for... doctors and hospitals are increasingly refusing to participate with it.
government running of programs just hasnt been very successful tahts thats part of the resistance to it all.
2007-03-01 20:44:02 · answer #4 · answered by sociald 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
For the people that said they did not want to pay for it. You are already paying millions for the 40 million who are uninsured in the form of higher premiums and escalating costs. I would rather spend tax dollars on something that would help Americans and build a couple less aircraft carriers.
2007-03-01 20:33:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
A National system allows for single payer's to go above and beyond the simple plan and buy more coverage or een see the doctor of their choice.
Getting for profit hospitals, insurers, and the pharmacuetical lobby's influence out of the issue is the problem.
2007-03-01 20:26:25 · answer #6 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
It's clear we must do something. Here is a Gallup Poll;
"Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage, or is that not the responsibility of the federal government?"
Is 69%, Is Not 28%, Unsure 3% - 11/9-12/06
The results speak for themselves.
2007-03-01 20:27:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
yep... like public and private schools... I said this like a year ago... all Republicans can say is "I don't wanna pay for it"... even though they pay huge monthly premiums for their own health insurance? Last time I checked... we spend 2 to 3 times the amount on medical care than other nations on average... and get only slightly better care...
2007-03-01 20:25:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
people that send kids to private school still pay public school taxes. the entitlement programs we have today will exceed 48% GDP by 2050.
2007-03-01 20:39:20 · answer #9 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nope, not a compromise.
1.) still spends public money for healthcare
2.) inflates the cost of healthcare for those paying privately
2007-03-01 20:24:37 · answer #10 · answered by WJ 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋