What Saves More Lives: Dept of Homeland Security or Dept. of Universal Healthcare?

Question

It cannot be documented by anyone that the Dept of Homeland Security has saved any lives. Even one.
And it just might be that FEMA, part of the Dept let a lot of people die. Has it really made America more secure? Probably in some small measure by diminishing Constitutional rights, like the 1st and 5th Amendments..

Seems to me that FOR THE SAME MONEY/COST a Dept of Healthcare would have saved thousands of lives and improved the lives and security of millions of Americans in the last 5 years.

What do you think and why?

Answer 1

I would definately say universal health care... Without the health of US Citizens what's the point of Homeland Security "protecting" us???

Answer 2

Personally, I think that the whole scheme of Homeland Security is an exercise in futility that's one of the most colossal waste of taxpayer dollars of any program that the United States has ever conceived. Whether it has resulted in saving any lives is subject to debate, we just don't know.

Universal Health Care, on the other hand, is another full blown fantasy which would cost the taxpayer many hundreds of billions more than Homeland Security. As matters now stand, Medicare and Medicaid are virtually bankrupt with little or no relief in sight.

Talk of UHC is conceptually delightful but would only add insult to injury, we can barely afford to cover the costs of Medicare/Medicaid and now that prescription drugs have been folded into the mix, the cost will escalate into the trillions.

Canada has UHC........it's broke, it's cruel, it's lousy, no matter what they tell you. I live just across the border from Bellingham, WA, one of thousands of smaller towns in the USA and just 20 minutes from the Canadian border. Go to any medical clinic there and what you will see is that half the cars in the parking lot are from Canada. Talk to the patients in the waiting room, they'll tell you why.

We are already in a deficit spending situation likely to reach close to 600 billion dollars............that's money we don't have, folks. Wake up to reality. How could we even begin to consider adding yet another program for our government to screw up?

Answer 3

I think that the department of Homeland Security is too close a parallel to George Orwell's 1984 for my comfort. Keep the threat of terrorism alive and people will beg for security.

As far as Universal Healthcare, after having the experience of my kids being on Medicaid, I have some serious concerns about the government running the healthcare system. Do you know why people on Medicaid are always in the waiting room??? Because they have situations like ours. We could not find a doctor in our area that had openings and would accept medicaid patients. So the doctor they assigned for us, I had no clue of how to reach. So our only alternative for healthcare was to use the emergency room! I'm a former benefits administrator and know how to train others in using healthcare system and the medicaid coverage in Michigan was too complicated and bureaucratic for me to understand!! So, how can a person without training understand the system? Fortunately, I now have a job that offers benefits so my kids are OFF of Medicaid.

But when I look at the system that was devised for Mi-Child in Michigan, if that is any indication of how nationalized healthcare would work, the system would be a disaster.

Yes, I absolutely believe that we need healthcare coverage, but the proposals out there are not designed to be efficient.

Instead, I think our best alternatives would be to offer a nationalized healthcare voucher system. It would allow people the ability to use the money in the vouchers to pay for insurance coverage of their choice.

You may think that this would be a waste of the taxpayers money, but consider that Toyota chose Canada instead of Michigan for their new manufacturing facility. Toyota cited the main reason was that in Canada, they do not have to pay for pensions or medical insurance costs. So, it was not cost effective to put a facility in the state that had the most experienced workers who could have used those jobs.

Another factor to consider, a lot of people are out of work and unable to afford basic medical care. For instance, there are medications that I need in order to be healthy enough to work, but without insurance, I cannot afford the medications. So for people like myself, we need the medical insurance coverage. I know of many others like myself who, with medications are able to be employed. But it's a vicious cycle: they cannot afford the medications so they cannot get a job. What if we were able to offer medical treatment to each of these people? (Again, think about my situation with the medicaid program - it doesn't work). If every person had medical treatment, would we have less people dependent upon Social Security Disability or Welfare???

Answer 4

I know, we already have universal healthcare in AMerica.

You can get medical care 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days per year, and you can get it regardless of ability to pay.

So why would we want yet another failed government program to provide something we already have? Socialized medicine is a complete failure. Canadans come to the USA for specialized care because their system is at times substandard.

In the UK if you have a life threatening event and do not have supplemental insurance they will admit you to the hospital and feed you, maybe stabilize you, but you will not see the needed specialist for a week, assuming you survive it.

This is not what I want. I want the best care available, which is what we already have.

Answer 5

I think what you are saying is that for all the money we've poured into homeland security a better use would be universal healthcare.

We certainly should implement such a system. Healthcare is a tough situation because of the entrenched infrastructure. Pharmaceutical co's, insurance co's physician salaries, hospital costs.

However, I do agree with your sentiment that the government would be doing us a favor if they were spending wasteful dollars on us here at home.

Answer 6

well obviously its the Dept. of Homeland Security since the other doesn't exist.

Yea, universal health care sounds great, but this Democrat Scam is to continue to line the pockets of the ACLU, and other attorney lobbyists, We cannot afford Health care in this country neither public nor private without Legal reform FIRST. Don't listen to the Democrats, they just don't want you focused on the REAL problem, they know they cannot deliver universal coverage without the Republicans, and Republicans will never give on this issue without LEGAL REFORM.

People don't be sheep, I can't afford Medical insurance but I know the true cause of the rise in costs. Contact your congressman and demand Medical Legal Reform NOW!

So Sayeth the Impaler!.

Answer 7

Both are terrible and both will likely kill a great deal of people.

The Department of Fatherland Security is an oppressive tool of the federal government to enforce a police state.

The suggested department of healthcare will be run like any other government organization.. Full of un-incentived workers much like the Post Office or the Department of Motor Vehicles. It will be one size fits all and people really might die in the street waiting for treatment.

The best answer is always no (or very little) government.

Answer 8

I think if I glance at the Constitution, I can find a justification for the Department of Homeland Security, but to find justification for federal interference in health care, I'm going to have to get very creative in my interpretation.