Please give some reasoning behind your stance. Thanks!
2007-06-28
04:21:24
·
12 answers
·
asked by
J G
4
in
Politics & Government
➔ Elections
I appreciate the thoughtful answers that everyone gave. I most agreed with iltmaeme that if nation-paid insurance exists, we should still be able to choose our provider and doctor.
regerugged, healthcare can be difficult to buy on your own and it's not pure insurance since it pays annually for doctor visits whether you are sick or not.
fedexchik, I agree that we do not have the same bartering strength that HMOs have so we, as individuals, get charged more.
Jon B, we have roads and schools. So i think we don't have to be limited by our constitution. HMOs try to push employees off their medical absences when the HMO thinks you can work, even if it's not the same type of work, for the same company. My uncle has a rare, terminal lung disease. His company has tried to fire him to take him off 60% of payroll; his insurance company takes him to court to say he could come in to work and not be around other people.
2007-06-29
07:32:05 ·
update #1
Keep the system the same,
but instead of the citizen /resident paying the premiums,
the federal government pays the premiums. Not govenment run health care just government pays.
if we the people have money to waste billions of dollars on a senseless war in Iraq, just to make a few people rich, we have the money to offer free health care for our people.
2007-06-28 04:32:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
4⤋
I think if Clinton wins the election, it will be a reality, and a horrible one at that.
Mrs. Clinton has touted expanding the medicare plan to cover the entire US, citing that it costs 3%. What she fails to mention is that is 3% of the gross salary of everyone in the nation, to cover (with pretty poor coverage, mind you) less than 50 million people. To cover the entire US, that 3% would have to increase by 21% to 24%. That is an additional 18% of EVERYONE's salary.
Remember that medicare taxes are not skewed by income, whether you make minimum wage, or are a billionaire, you will have to pay 24% of your income for crappy medical coverage. This is in addition to your federal, state and local taxes, and sales taxes. Most people would be giving half their income to the government (like they do in the UK, for the same reason).
And that is the BEST CASE scenario, which presumes that expanding the size of a government beauracracy doesn't make it less efficient, which we all know isn't exactly the case.
And you are going to pay this, to have the choices about medical coverage taken away from you, and to have the decisions about your medical care made by someone with the same commitment to customer service as can be found at your local department of motor vehicles.
Think about that the next time you are renewing your driver's license in person.
2007-06-28 13:38:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by Ricky T 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think Universal Health Care is going to become a reality no matter who wins the election. Many Republicans have the mistaken idea it's only looked on favorably by Democrats when many Republicans in Congress and around the country support the idea. Mitt Romney is for UHC for instance. From what I know about it so far it would be an improvement over our obviously broken current system. I would hope though that those who are pushing UHC are closely examining the pitfalls that other countries have found in their own UHC systems so we can avoid those problems. If there is another way to ensure that ALL citizens have equitable health care then I'm willing to listen, but so far UHC seems to be the answer. A lot of folks don't like it because they think it's a step to our becoming a socialist country, but I think that's nothing but hysteria. We remain capitalists, despite our already socialist-like programs of Social Security, welfare, Medicaid, etc.
Unfortunately, the bottom line is that most who already have decent health care thinks it sucks and they really don't care about those who don't as long as they have theirs. Is that selfish? Of course. Will their attitudes change? Probably not. It will become as hotly debated as Immigration is right now.
2007-06-28 13:10:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
I am soo againist it. People think it will be fabulouse because they won't have to pay insurance premiums, what the don't realize is that it will be awful and frustrating. Imagine all the frustration of going to a government agency everytime you have to see the doctor. Need a prosthetic limb? Have fun on the waitinglist...Want elective surgery?...have fun on the waiting list. want to see a particular doctor...Not going to happen because he's booked through 2057.
Taking the competiton out of the healthcare industry is the worst possible thing that can happen. I think that there are ways to provide healthcare to people while still maintaing healthcare standards.
Also, the majority to people who don't have health insurance through their employer can apply for it through the state.
2007-06-28 11:33:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by wickedchick353 4
·
5⤊
0⤋
Ask yourself; What does the gov do very well? Answer; tax us. Health care has good to great pay, it takes allot of college, nurses are offered beyond $10,000 to sign and there students loans are often paid off. The gov will take all that away. And our taxes will increase to pay people that don't care as much, now that they are under paid, plus all the damn new paper work.
2007-06-28 11:36:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
In the US we have universal health care. A person can go anywhere he wants to get any treatment he needs or wants. At issue is how to pay for it.
Do not confuse universal health care with universal health insurance.
I am opposed to government run, universal insurance. The US government does not do anything well. It will ruin the health care service we now enjoy.
People should have the right to choose if they want to buy insurance or not.
We still have a safety net for those who need it: Medicaid and welfare.
2007-06-28 11:27:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by regerugged 7
·
7⤊
1⤋
HMO's charge 155% more for procedure so they can get rich off the poor people that pay high premiums and can't afford doctor visits after they've paid their monthly premium. I've been there. HMO's have let people die because they don't want to pay for a life saving surgery. Universal health care would be great for this country, but only if we restructure our government and vote out all the IDIOTS that are making our great nation a TRAVESTY! SET THIS COUNTRY STAIGHT IN 2008! Wow, thumbs down for the truth! Wow!
2007-06-28 11:30:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
6⤋
The citzens of this country have no constitutional right to health insurance. The government should stay out of it.
Anybody can get a job that offers health insurance, it would however mean they need to become responsible for themselves.
2007-06-28 11:51:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by JonB 5
·
4⤊
2⤋
health care should be reasonably priced so everyone can afford it. Case in point it takes no more than 2.00 for a months supply to manufacture any drug we have, drug companies were allowed to charge maybe 300.00 per month for this drug. Now no one can afford drugs so now we pay higher medicare premiums to cover drugs.
2007-06-28 11:31:22
·
answer #9
·
answered by Ibredd 7
·
2⤊
4⤋
No intelligent person could be for it. Government interference.
2007-06-28 12:01:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 6
·
1⤊
2⤋