Healthcare in this country is currently costing about $2 trillion per year. The entire federal budget is about $2.9 trillion.
Has any of the candidate stated exactly how this "free" coverage will happen?
Hillary Clinton said she wanted to "taken excess profits" from oil companies to provide free healthcare. The fact is, 100% of the profits from oil companies wouldn't fund free healthcare.
Other people say trimming the pork from the federal budget will pay for healthcare. How can there be $2 trillion of pork in a $2.9 trillion budget?
So, what exactly is the nuts and bolts of this free healthcare coverage? What's the magic formula to the funding?
2007-06-29 08:29:56 · 16 answers · asked by Overt Operative 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Of course not, but they will raise your taxes significantly anyway!
2007-06-29 08:32:24 · answer #1 · answered by booman17 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
About half of the 2 trillion of health care cost is already paid by the government, and at least 10% maybe as high as 20% is spent by insurance companies and providers in administrative cost because of the complications in billing.This means the extra amount needed would be in the neighborhood of 700 billion, more than half of which could be gotten from companies by replacing the amount they already contribute toward employee heath cost with national care. The actual amount of extra taxes needed would be managable.
2007-06-29 16:13:51 · answer #2 · answered by meg 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well they would raise taxes on the people to nationalize health care and then Big companies would not have to pay for Health care benefis. THe big companies then would take the cost savings and increase the bonuses for the Filthy rich Executives. These executives would then start spending more on massages and top hats and after market monicle accessories. This would spur the economy so people would make more so they could afford the 70% tax rate they have to pay.
I worked for the VA System, and what you heard, is all true plus more. DO we really want the government to take care of our medical industry. THey did great things for our disaster relief. I doubt Michael moore would actually discuss in Sicko, the alternative of having the Federal government in harge of medicine would actually create more corruption. I have Canadian relatives and it's much worse over there. Peope should realize that medicine is so expensive because we can't outsource as much in Medicine as we do for the rest of our industry. Medicine prices hasn't skyrocketed, it kept up with the real inflation rate. Our Pay has shrunk do to outsourcing.
2007-06-29 15:36:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Its not going to be free and with all government programs initial costs will be no where near what costs will be in 10 or 20 years ago look at the initial figures for SS, Medicare, etc to see that. We are putting in something if we add health care to the federal budget that will break it and allow no other expenses to be added or increased.
2007-06-29 15:34:00 · answer #4 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I would NEVER support a candidate who supports national healthcare. I think Obama likes the idea though.
Look at England and even Canada. You have to wait FOREVER to see a doctor - and you don't have a choice about who you see. I personally want the ability to decide who I see, and I want to know that if I need something like an MRI that I don't have to wait 3 to 6 months to get it. Nothing is "FREE" you pay for it one way or another! I'd personally rather spend some cash and get good healthcare versus having something that costs me nothing but creates a world of headaches for other reasons.
Better yet, I don't want the government involved in my life any more than it already is. If you ask me, there should be less involvement. They're overstepping their bounds and I'm really quite tired of it.
2007-06-29 15:35:03 · answer #5 · answered by Roland'sMommy 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Taxes. And these same people also want to give amnesty and free healthcare to 30 million people that don't pay taxes, and you know whos paying for those 30 million? the 270 million that do pay taxes. And then when it takes 6 months to get an appointment because all the welfares are getting free health care, you will be pissed. Now you know why there is no way in hell I will ever say yes to amnesty or free health care.
------Contract worker that pays $67.39 a week for health care and is strictly opposed to universal health care.
2007-06-29 15:33:19 · answer #6 · answered by Relax Guy 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Hillary's line is "more free healthcare", more "government involvement". and that probably sounds good to the average citizen (who is not aware the risks).
but,
it will be a different story if she is actually in office. kind of like advertising a faulty product before it comes out. It's free to the poor who don't pay taxes (illegals) but not to middle class America
2007-06-29 15:32:47 · answer #7 · answered by Random Black Woman 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
There is not one. Liberals propose policies that make people feel good, but have no solution to actually implement them.
Romney has come out and supported it to be paid by private enterprise.
The conservative solution is to get people to make their own choices.
2007-06-29 16:01:44 · answer #8 · answered by GOPneedsarealconservative 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It will be free for some and the rest of us will not only have to pay for our own but those covered in the government plan as well.
2007-06-29 15:32:49 · answer #9 · answered by Brian 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hillary and Obama have both stated publicly that they will raise taxes.
Hillary and Pelosi have come up with the brilliant scheme of stealing directly from your 401k, IRA, or other savings source.
2007-06-29 15:35:51 · answer #10 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
They are just giving lip service to get elected.
Both Republicans and Democrats politicians are self serving
Question:
How are we going to pay for the War that is many trillions ?
2007-06-29 15:34:05 · answer #11 · answered by crossingover 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋