Wouldnt the situation happen on a more severe level with national health care?
2007-03-10 11:13:29 · 11 answers · asked by jnwmom 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I agree, I've been saying this all along. What's even funnier is that people think it will be free. That's a hoot!
2007-03-10 11:18:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Omigosh! Who has talked about national free health care? Surely no thinking person ever views a national health care system as "free." What would be different is the way it is funded and the way it is administered, but certainly it is not free--perhaps you can point to a source that describes a national system that does not cost anything to run.
But more to the point, the mishandling of Walter Reid certainly cannot be related to a national health care system. In fact, if you look into it a bit, you will find that many if not most of the problems are the result of Privatizing! So, to follow your logic, we should definitely be against privatizing because that effort didn't work Nor did privatizing many of the military functions work (see Halliburton's fleecing of America).
Unfortunately, a blind following of the privatization holy grail is no more reasonable than blindly following the public approach. When will we realize there is a place for both?
2007-03-10 19:31:34 · answer #2 · answered by JustAsking 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nothing is free! A universal healthcare plan would probably be paid for with taxes. That's how it's done in most of the civilized world. If I'm not mistaken, the US is the only first world country that does not have universal healthcare. So how in the world anyone could say that socialized medicine does not work is beyond comprehension.
2007-03-10 19:22:30 · answer #3 · answered by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush has cut VA healthcare at a time when he is sending tens of thousands of casualties into the system. He has even cut off large numbers of veterans, myself included, from VA healthcare access. As far as nation healthcare? How about universal healthcare? Private insurance providers accepting all Americans and Americans required to carry health insurance so the rest of us aren't forced to pay for them. Look at Europe, better healthcare at half the price. People have longer lifespans ,babies have a lower mortality rate. Most European nations have a system of private health insurance, not nationalized health insurance. They can go to any doctor they choose. Try visiting France, Switzerland or Germany and see their system in action. Way better than here, youv'e been brainwashed.
2007-03-10 19:23:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It depends on the whether the appropriations are handled correctly. Walter Reid WAS given the proper funding. The higher ups there just chose not to use to upgrade the facilities.
2007-03-10 19:17:31 · answer #5 · answered by J S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is a great question. It seems that people would see the danger of having the government in charge of health care.
2007-03-10 19:42:01 · answer #6 · answered by nobsallowed 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Good observation, I hadn't thought of that. Since the scale would be far larger, the problems would be much greater. The only explanation I have is that humans are highly illogical.
2007-03-10 20:12:00 · answer #7 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Good quality health care 'can' be provided for free. Its just that America has trouble doing it
2007-03-10 19:16:55 · answer #8 · answered by Ferret 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yes. Social medicine does not work. We want competition with compassion not red tape and restriction.
2007-03-10 19:19:22 · answer #9 · answered by Mother 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. It's just that this current administration does not believe in "good management" per se. (They certainly have not shown that they do, anyway.)
2007-03-10 20:13:19 · answer #10 · answered by kobacker59 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋