Do you agree with Senator Obama's plan to help pay for universal health..?

Question

Do you agree with Senator Obama's plan to help pay for universal health care by repealing President Bush's tax cuts?

Answer 1

Why should one persons work and efforts be taxed to give to someone else? When you work for 30 or so years and EARN a retirement fund that is one thing, to get out or to drop out of high school, work at McDonald's or Burger King and then expect all the benefits of a normal life such as health care free of charge is a joke. There are ways to work this out, stop all law-suites, if a Dr. makes a clearly poor mistake, then take away their license to practice medicine, then there would be no malpractice premium and by that the fees would decrease by at least a third. That's just a start. You hear of all these great socialized states Canada, France etc, then why do their wealthy still come to this country for treatment? If they cram this down our throat, then it should be law, that ALL government employees, including both houses of congress and the white house and supreme court, should be mandated to use the exact system they force on the working class. If it is good enough for us, then it should be good enough for them.

Answer 2

I must admit to not having heard the specifics. However, every othe major industrialized country in the world has some form of social health care. Many of those countries, like Japan and Australia, provide faster, more personal, and more effective care than the United States private system. If repealing tax cuts makes this a viable possibility, then so be it.

Answer 3

As Qwyrx stated, we are the only industrialized country that does not have universal health care. Getting health care through a job is fine but the HMO industry holds all the cards when it comes to care and will try like hell not to pay in the case of a catastrophic case (cancer, etc.). We need to have the same health care that Congress and the president has, then I'll be happy.

Answer 4

It depends on what the tax cuts were in the first place. How about quit handing out grants for frivilous "Studies" instead? The government will give out free money to anyone that claims that they need to study the lifestyle of insects or some other idiotic thing. That money should instead go to pay for universal healthcare, if not for everyone, at least for children whose parents don't have coverage through their jobs and don't qualify for medicade.

Answer 5

No that is just political baloney meant to feed the hungry political cultists. Democrats have had decades to fix the health care problem and Hillary had the perfect chance when she was First Lady, had a husband as President and Dem majority in Congress. But she backed off. Could have, didn't do it! Obama is just warming us up for some tax increases but like state lotteries he is saying that its going to go to worthy cause. He would not have the authority to do it anyhow and Congress is bought and paid for by AMA and drug companies and the hospital associations. So don't eat that Elmer, its not granola.

Answer 6

One thing people don't understand is, universal health care is not free. You will be taxed to pay for it, that is the bottom line.

Answer 7

No way! I have absolutely no sympathy for those who "can't afford" health insurance. A big % of my income goes toward my insurance and I go without things like a plasma TV to be able to afford it. Maybe the federal gov't should take a % of peoples tax returns that can't prove that they have insurance.

Answer 8

NO universal health care is an incredible wast of money. Go get a job than you should have a right to health care. No job no insurance, period.

Answer 9

That article is likewise on Fox information. I see you probably did no longer end examining it. this is the previous few paragraphs: The funds workplace concluded that rates for human beings procuring their own insurance might flow up by skill of an regular of 10 % to 13 %, in comparison with the levels that they had attain without the law. that's specially simply by fact regulations in the guy insurance marketplace might furnish extra finished reward than they do today. for many families, those extra expenses may be extra advantageous than offset by skill of the tax credit provided decrease than the invoice, and that they might pay severely decrease than they might desire to now. The top rate help of 14 % to twenty % that Obama cites might prepare in straight forward terms to an element of the human beings procuring insurance on their own -- people who be sure they desire to maintain the skimpier styles of regulations obtainable today. Their expenses might flow down simply by fact extra teenagers may be turning out to be to be a member of the possibility pool and because insurance organization overhead expenses may be decrease in the extra efficient equipment Obama desires to create. The president oftentimes alludes to that huge distinction in his wellbeing care stump speech, asserting the low fee expenses might accrue to those people who proceed to purchase "comparable" insurance to what they have today. yet lots of his listeners will possibly no longer %. up on it. "human beings are probably to no longer purchase the comparable low-fee regulations they are procuring now," pronounced wellbeing economist Len Nichols of George Mason college. "in the event that they did purchase the comparable fee plans ... the top rate may be decrease than it truly is now. This makes the White domicile fact real. yet is it probable deceptive for some human beings? valuable." ------------------------------ be conscious: "in the event that they DID by skill of the comparable fee PLANS.... THE top rate may be decrease than it truly is NOW. THIS MAKES THE WHITE domicile fact real." consistent with hazard I even have been unfair to Fox information at the instant. this text is somewhat honest and Balanced like they pronounced. you in straight forward terms forgot to study all of it.

Answer 10

No. I don't want some crappy one size fits all health coverage. Like most adults, I want to make my own decisions.