2007-07-05 03:15:12 · 34 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
no
2007-07-05 03:17:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 7⤋
It probably wouldn't work well here. Mr. Paul missed two facts, 1) the health insurance companies are not going to fix themselves; they are totally comfortable with having use pay more than any other nation per capita to be 37th best in terms of quality. That is a winning combination for them, no need to change! b) We are already paying out of pocket for the uninsured through our own insurance rates. That is socialized medicine, but implemented by corporations. It is past time to break up their game. You pay for Obamacare just like you have been paying for insurance. Pick an insurer and go with it. The difference is now they can't say no as easily. People would be tracked down when they try to get care and are not insured. No, Romney is not out of touch because he is rich, he is out of touch because he can't relate to most of America.
2016-04-01 08:55:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not only NO, hell NO. Socialized health care is bankrupting the England, France, Canada and others countries who think that you can tax the hell out of the citizens and expect the government to run an efficient and effective health care operation. Our government is also a big bureaucracy and giving it the health care system is little like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I don't have a solution, but know that socialized medicine is not it. Not to worry, this issue will be solved because, like the immigration problem, it is on the top of our minds and our politicians are listening because there is a election year coming up next year.
2007-07-05 03:26:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
You mean "socialized" in the way insurance company's charge for coverage. It is already "socialized", just not in the benefit of the cost (yet).
2007-07-05 03:22:50 · answer #4 · answered by edubya 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
YES YES YES YES call it universal healthcare single payer whatever but something needs to be done!
2007-07-05 03:33:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
No. Socialized schools are dangerous. Socialized housing is also known as the ghetto. Socialized medicine would suck.
But call it Universal Healthcare, and all of a sudden people like the way it sounds. It's like putting lipstick on a pig.
2007-07-05 03:17:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 8⤋
I prefer AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE for everyone rather than socialized medicine. There is a difference.
2007-07-05 03:31:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
Yes.
2007-07-05 03:24:58 · answer #8 · answered by CHARITY G 7 · 4⤊ 5⤋
yes, income dependant. sliding scale..
and so no more milionare singles getting free medications
and care.. so more poorer can.
many cant get well /get wrok casue they cant get care.
it can take years to get disbelity approval if oyu can cget specauilist diagnoses wihtout access to medical care..by then you may be too old to have family . a life ,work..
seperate program fro all disabled..with specail needs.
it's a sick sort of funny to to see a mulit millionaire getting his senior meal discount while homeless disabled go hungry..or the let them eat cake (donated old food)
Only in America!?
2007-07-05 03:25:18 · answer #9 · answered by macdoodle 5 · 3⤊ 7⤋
We already have it. Do you know who pays the ER bill of thousands of illegals? I don't want it any more socialized than it already is.
2007-07-05 03:19:53 · answer #10 · answered by John Galt 2 · 7⤊ 5⤋
No.
Edit: Is the guy above serious??? He is going to base his support of UHC on Sicko, a Michael Moore "documentary"!?!
And people wonder what is wrong with this country.
2007-07-05 03:22:32 · answer #11 · answered by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6 · 6⤊ 7⤋