English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

As a UK citizen we are proud of our National Health Service. OK it's not perfect and there has been a certain degree of mismanagement in recent years but at least we know if we fall ill we do not have to worry about insurance policies or cheque books. It is a simple concept: everybody in the country pays 10% of their salary and everybody looks after each others' health. Is it not time America got into the 21st century when it comes to taking care of it's most vulnerable citizens.

2007-06-15 13:06:53 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

Oh God these answers are truly terrifying. I am SO GLAD I live in England.

2007-06-15 13:12:41 · update #1

26 answers

Until the United States government is able to come up with a way to enact a national health care plan which is fiscally viable, our country must rely on existing social programs to care for those in the population who lack the ability and/or money to obtain private insurance. Personally, I don't see anything like the NHS happening any time soon, although I do think it is a good idea. Unfortunately, many Americans view the poor as lazy and ignorant, therefore not "worthy" of basic human rights.

2007-06-15 13:17:01 · answer #1 · answered by Political Enigma 6 · 0 0

No. Any American who earns enough money to pay for his or her own health care (or health insurance) should not be entitled to a government 'hand out'. Free health care should only be available to those who can't afford to pay for their own medical care, or who can't afford (or are ineligible for) health insurance.
The same should be true of America's Social Security program, which even TIME magazine has called "insurance". If, indeed, Social Security is "insurance" (as it should be), those who don't NEED it, shouldn't be entitled to it. It's bizarre how the well-to-do in America will grouse about the 'entitlements' given to the poor, the homeless, the hungry, etc. But when it comes to THEIR entitlements, such as Social Security or 'corporate welfare', that's perfectly acceptable.
Social Security should be reserved only for those who don't have enough on which to live once they reach 62 or 65 or 67. We all buy car insurance and hope we never have to file a claim. We all buy house insurance, but most of us are fortunate enough never to file a claim. WHY should Social Security be any different??
If you're one of the more fortunate members of our society who finds himself (or herself) financially well off at the start of your golden years, then WHY would you even consider taking a paltry $1000-a-month Social Security check from the government?? It's unfair; it's selfish; and it's nothing more than sheer avarice. Why should anyone with half-a-million dollars in the bank, a $60,000 Lexus and a new Hummer in the garage, a beach house in Florida, and a luxurious home in the suburbs expect to be entitled to a Social Security check? Don't say, "It's my money..I earned it, so I deserve it." It was part of an insurance pool into which you paid so that there was money available to help those less fortunate than yourselves live a little bit better in their old age. -RKO- 06/15/07

2007-06-15 13:31:47 · answer #2 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 0 0

First of all, all Americans do get healthcare. In the case of those who have no insurance, they just go to the emergency room and get treated for free (well, not free, the rest of us pay for it) or they have Medicaid/Medicare (gov't subsidies for the poor).

Second, because our government is at the height of ignorance, corruption and hysteria, we cannot put any more power or responsibility in their hands. They waste billions of dollars per year. If they'd stop the cheating, the lies, and the greed, they could use those billions of dollars to help the poor. But it will never happen. While all these ills are going on, the highest ranking politician in our House of Representatives is fighting with the Pentagon about getting politicians' children allowed to fly on government flights for free. She thinks that's the biggest issue at hand?!

If someone can come up with a universal program administered by the private sector instead of government, then I'll jump on board.

But, at least in America, we need less government, not more. We can't smoke, we can't drive without wearing seatbealts. Some cities are even banning certain foods and the flying of the American flag. Does that sound like the liberty and freedom that is supposed to be the basis for America?

2007-06-15 13:18:09 · answer #3 · answered by Farly the Seer 5 · 1 1

I know YOUR heath care system it is great as long as you stay well. If you fall ill then you find out just what happens when a bureaucrat is in charge of your living or dieing.

You do not need heath care if you are well.

How do I know this I have worked with other nurses form your system and this is what THEY say.


In the USA no one yes, no one not even the illegals from Mexico go with out heath care.
It is the best care we have to give. How does this happen we have Medicare and Medicaid and any other cost is just given to the person.

How do I know this? I am the person that does the JOB. Were I work the heath care is top and we do not care if they can PAY or not.........
I have been doing this for 20 years.

2007-06-15 13:20:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

It just "might" be workable if it had some common sense rules and restrictions.

No illegal immigrants or people from another country unless it was a life saving measure. Unless of course that country reciprocated equally with us.

People who take risks or practice poor health care methods would have to wait behind those who take care of themselves. We all know that social health care would require more waiting for services and I firmly believe that those who use drugs, drink heavily, smoke, are overweight or make similar choices should only be treated AFTER those people who did not make those poor choices. I base this on the simple fact that people who make those poor choices are shown to have much higher health care costs and need much more care.

We shouldn't rubber stamp idiotic behavior and ask health conscience taxpayers to foot the bill.

2007-06-15 14:04:02 · answer #5 · answered by youarewrongbobisright 5 · 0 0

For whatever reason Americans are more than happy to have the federal govt provide subsidies to large corporations, farmers, etc...but they think the end of the world is upon us everytime someone mentions universal health care. I think it is time that the US has it...at least for kids up to 18 or through college...We send billions of dollars to other countries, even countries that hate us, let's take that money and start taking care of our own. The current administration is more than happy to send $ if there is an earthquake/tsunami anywhere else in the world, but dragged their feet when New Orleans needed help. I wish I could move to England...on top of all of this, the football is better.

2007-06-15 13:39:28 · answer #6 · answered by gemneye70 4 · 0 1

You may not have to worry about who pays because your money is taken from you by the government but you do have to worry about are you going to be treated...

A Basingstoke couple feel very let down by the NHS, having paid National Insurance for 48 years.
The husband was diagnosed with prostate cancer and told the wait was six months for surgery. They had to raise a loan and paid £9,200 for the private operation. The surgeon said the cancer had been more extensive than anticipated (1)

Often people in Great Britain are removed from the waiting line because they have become to sick to help. Surgery in the US is performed the same week as diagnosis.

Socialism isn't all flowers and candy.

2007-06-15 13:16:58 · answer #7 · answered by sfavorite711 4 · 4 0

Well put it this way, why should the American taxpayer pay for medical care. The big bad evil Pharmaceutical companies are on the cutting edge and develop cures for many diseases all around the world. Plus, if a person knows that he doesn't have to pay for his own treatment, then he is more likely to abuse it. It's a necessary evil to have a profit in health care to maintain competition.

2007-06-15 13:16:30 · answer #8 · answered by arkainisofphoenix 3 · 2 0

Yes, of course. Everyone is entitled to health care. What is your point?

As for welfare, people have it wrong. Working class parents like myself are NOT eligible for it, even though I am on a limited budget and am a single parent. I don't think the system is working in that only people who do not contribute to society recieve free health care (welfare). Anyway, public aid is paid by the state, not the government you retards above!

2007-06-15 13:44:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

We do have Universal Healthcare. It's called Welfare. You act as though you get something for nothing over there. You pay for it with higher taxes.
I pay $500 per month for Health Care for my Family. Which equals $6000 per year. So you pay 10% tax on $100,000 income which is $10,000. You pay more than I do, and I would take U.S. Doctors over any in the World.

P.S. Stay in England...

2007-06-15 13:17:37 · answer #10 · answered by Ken C 6 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers