Health care for all?

Question

What should we do about all of the uninsured Americans? We spend more tax money on people who are uninsured and seek medical care than we would if we had some sort of national health care along side of private insurance. If you don't believe in some form of socialized health care, what do you suggest then? Don't say pay privately for private insurance, because that is too expensive for some people, therefore unrealistic. Or is it too bad so sad for all the uninsured children?

Answer 1

Universal health care is the only sane answer - and there many examples available around the world of successful system we could copy. The waiting times and bad care stories are almost all myths.

Answer 2

Here's the deal. We have already in place, a universal education system. It's geared towards doing only one thing, preparing the student for upper level academia. But if the student isn't academically inclined, has no desire for continuing education or simply cannot afford to go on, then what? They're prepared for little more than flipping burgers at some fast food joint at minimum wage. And minimum wage was never meant to be a means of self sufficiency. How's the system working thus far? And, if there are other "distractions," drugs, alcohol, bad or absentee parenting or maybe an unwanted pregnancy, what then? Drop out. Universal Education. We all pay taxes into it even if we have no children...
We live in a capitalist society. We reward well, those who excel and succeed. Those who fail, get left behind. Those who make the right decisions are generally rewarded with a greater selection of options. When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he spoke of "freedom." To what "freedom" do you suppose he was referring? The answer is pure and simple. Money. The more you have, the greater your freedom. The less money you have, the more you are enslaved to your creditors. More money = more choices, more options.
Socialism, by its very nature, undermines competition and reward. You bust your hump, you do well, you should be rewarded for you acheivement. What you suggest though, is that your reward is higher taxation to "help" those who did not bust their hump, who did not go the extra effort. Why struggle to get ahead if it's only going to be taken away and given to the less deserving? What you suggest then, is rewarding mediocrity and laziness. We hold no one accountable for their decisions in life and instead, give them what they did not earn. If socialism is all about being "fair," then how is this fair? Capitalism-- you reap what you sow.
I was not born with a silver spoon. My first experience with a "dentist" was when the state college came and set up a tent on the front lawn of our school. I did not see a bonified "real" dentist until I was 15. I got my first pair of shoes when I entered kindergarten. I was not academically inclined and was not afforded the opportunity to advance into college until well after I'd entered adulthood. I busted my hump. I worked a job for twenty years, working on average, 12-16 hours a day. I invested what little money I'd earned and retired when I was forty. I own a small business now and still work 6 days a week, and it's hard to tell how many hours a day -- I'm guessing it's at least 16. I have medical for my family, but cannot afford eye or dental. I'm not looking for the free ride or the easy money. My children will all learn from watching their mother and me. They have a good work ethic and understand money and hard times.
And lastly, when was the last time the federal government involved itself in something and didn't screw things up? Look what Hillary did to the medical profession with her HMO garbage. Really smart, we'll just turn the decision making process over to the insurance companies. They know more about practicing medicine and what's good for the patient than does the doctor... All, in the name of a "Universal" health care plan. And while we're at Hillary, the only time it "Takes a Village" to raise a child is when the parent refuses to step up and be a parent.

Answer 3

No one wants to address the real situation.

The situation is we've got a huge disproportion in our age groups. Heard of the Baby Boomers? Well, they're getting old, and THEY are using the hell out of the medical facilities.

"Health Care" is not some limitless right for everyone. It's a limited number of doctors, nurses, beds, machines, and all the other stuff that goes with it. There ISN'T enough for everyone to use at once, and that's exactly what we're trying to do. You can't fit 100 people into a car designed for 5. Wishing it wasn't so isn't going to change it.

So how do we decide who gets medical care and who doesn't, because THAT'S the true question. Should we ration it based on need? Then the elderly get the lion's share while the young and productive die of treatable ailments. Do we have a lottery? Lotteries are time consuming, easily rigged, and very inefficient. A free market has ALWAYS been the most efficient and fair system of distribution know to man. Socialized medicine will not work in practice, because it doesn't deal with reality....but it'll get politicians elected. Hope it makes everyone feel better as they sit in the waiting room watching their child drown on his own phlegm.

The real solution: Remove all government involvement AND insurance coverage. The free market will dictate usage and price, not to everyone's satisfaction, but to the greatest good possible. For those who're concerned about the plight of the underpriviledged, you're still more than welcome to pay their way through charity drives/foundations.

Answer 4

as others mentioned, you can be sure if the government is running it it will either perform badly or it will fail completely.

The biggest expenditure in health care is on pharmaceuticals.
I have posted info and comments about that quite a few times.

Pharmaceutical companies spend alot of money developing new and more effective vaccines and medications. The people of the USA bear the burden of the cost.
The same pill is cheaper anywhere else. Reform involving the FDA and spreading the cost out evenly needs to happen.
It should be relatively the same cost for someone to buy the medication in canada and the USA. Alot of pe9ople in the USA go to canada or mexico to buy medictions because they are often 50% cheaper.

It wasnt long ago that to get me some claritin-d during allergy season I had to go pay a doctor to give me a prescription for the privelege of paying almost double the cost that that same pill cost in canada... and I didnt need a prescription for it there.

So even though I was insured I was paying almost 70 dollars for this stuff between my co-pay on the doc visit and the pharmacy.

Now if I didnt have insurance then in the USA I would be paying over 200 dollars, when i could buy it in canda for about 70 dollars or mexico for 65 dollars. This isnt the case anymore for that particular medication but there are others just like it.

Answer 5

Yes, look at how well socialized health care is working for the Canadians. The ones who can afford it come to America for surgery. The wait list for emergency procedures is so long that you stand a good chance of dying before receving the treatment you need. A fantastic system.

Do not give me that 'health insurance is too expensive' bullspit. I am a starving student and I still make sure my health insurance premiums are paid every month. It costs me $120 dollars a month. If I can have medical insurance then why can't you? The government doesn't pay for car insurance? Why should they pick up the tab for my health care?

Answer 6

What uninsured children? the poor and illegal immigrants get medicaid and a host of other programs. The vast majority of those uninsured choose not to be. The last thing we need is more government control over any part of our medical system. They created the current problem mandating these HMO's into law. Previous generations paid for care with their own money and it was much more affordable. There is no competition in the medical field they way things are now due to price controls. Simple economics dictates that competition brings prices down.

Answer 7

If it were possible to overcome the lobbying of the insurance companies, it would be simple enough to have a single-payor government-run system, like Medicare, that works pretty well. But we in the public would have to get over the idea of equal and full coverage for everybody. That would bankrupt the country and stifle innovation. We must decide on a level of care to be universally available and then let unrestricted private insurers handle the co-insurance for those who can afford it, and we'll have to admit to ourselves (which Americans are peculiarly unwilling to do) that life is unfair, and people will still die for lack of funding.

Answer 8

Health care for government workers, senior citizens, politicians, active military and educators, The rest of the population should help pay for but not get healthcare unless they are young and free of illness. In that case they can buy it until the premiums become unaffordable. We should all be pro choice when it comes to saving lives other than the unborn. The choice should be made by the insurance companies. They know best who should be allowed to live.

Answer 9

a million) i can on no account discover advice in this one. an stunning style of the circumstances that I pay attention of incorporate one ofs. i can inform you that i haven't heard of a single case the place it fairly is been for something that became appreciably mandatory, that's clever, because of the fact Canada would not positioned those desiring scientific look after a existence threatning situation on wait lists. that's barely those desiring experimental or elegance cures. Even Shona Holmes (uncertain in case you observed those commercials) and her "strategies tumor" (which became surely a cist that, if left untreated for a protracted quantity of time, might have impaired her imaginative and prescient - as mentioned by potential of the Mayo medical institution the place she went for scientific care) became a case of a Canadian crossing the border that became blown out of share by potential of lobbyists who're paid by potential of insurance companies. 2) regrettably, the final stat in this became from 1992 (perchance that has something to do with the insurance industry overlaying the numbers up). In 1992, it became 600,000 in Ontario on my own. that's expected, even however, that throughout 2008, human beings spent over $a million billion in prescriptions on my own in Canada. curiously, that's slightly troublesome to track, because of the fact there are human beings who hop the border to pay much less for specific cures (purely voters can bypass to the medical institution for loose, yet human beings will pay below a million/10 what they do in u.s. for specific tactics) and others who gets pretend provincial well being taking part in cards to get loose scientific care (those are people who're troublesome to track).

Answer 10

Well, in my opinion, and this probably won't sit well with you. I think people should get themselves an education, learn a trade to where they can find a job that has good health benefits, or can afford to purchase it privately. Those parents of the uninsured kids are no better than my husband, and I to work hard, and purchase insurance. It's is simple as that in my opinion.

Answer 11

Nationalize the insurance companies. As long as they make money off of others loss we will get nothing done.