I think people are confused. Somehow they mistook socialized medicine to mean free health care. But just because you don't have to pay anything at the door, doesn't mean that you aren't paying for it.
2007-07-06 09:35:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by smellyfoot ™ 7
·
13⤊
1⤋
for the duration of the 'great melancholy' in the early twentieth century, there became a saying, "TANSTAAFL" ThereAin'tNoSuchThingAsA FreeLunch! That 'loose' well being care is going to be paid for via somebody, that somebody being the few human beings who nonetheless have jobs to pay taxes with. whilst the idiots tax the excellent inhabitants into chapter 11, they could have killed the goose that lays the golden eggs and our country will particularly give way and grow to be as a third international country. yet, each and every of the politicos can see is a few ungrabbed money nonetheless in the wallet of the voters. Scientists who _know_ economics have instructed them time and time returned over the final eighty or ninety years what might ultimately take place could they stick to deficit financing. Their components have pronounced in an extremely loud voice that government well being CARE isn't good yet they decline to pay attention. Idiots. it's time to vote all of them out of place of work we could have a "do away with INCUMBENT" determination on the poll
2016-10-20 02:26:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by dawber 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Okay here is the thing...there is a difference between imposing on someone's life and helping people. Example imposing on one's life: not allowing same sex marriage, telling every pregnant woman to have babies. That is imposing on someone's personal life. Example helping people/providing services: welfare: giving everyone at least a certain ( although it might not be good it is better than living in a cardboard box) standard of living and it does not lower anyone else to that standard. Universal Healthcare: helps everyone free healthcare so people can get all of the services they need provided to them...at NO cost! I understand the whole free enterprise thing.... but cooperation's should not be providing people with necessary services...they have failed so many people. It is not about power or control it is about providing people with essential services that they NEED. Big businesses can control goods and services but not when it is a matter of life and death.
2007-07-06 09:51:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by Lindsey G 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
"""The government does not participate in the process of doctor's deciding if you need treatment. All it does is pay for whatever treatment your doctors say you need.
Maybe if you researched universal health care before you bashed it, you would know that.
Nacho- "Drug prices in Canada run about 50 to 60 percent of the U.S. figure; in Europe it's about 40 to 50 percent." If you don't know, Canada, and most of Europe have universal health care, yet their drugs cost less. Hmmm.... Your point was? Quote taken from """"
Greencoke are you really deluded into thinking that the government is going to write a check for whatever procedure you have without first setting up what the doctor or hospitcal can and cant do, what the limits of of what they will pay for, how it needs to be done, how it needs to be submitted in claims etc etc... check out medicare... i think someone else needs to do some research.
As to the pill prices... why is it you think its so much cheaper in canada or europe? its because the USA pays more so those other countries can pay less. if the USA pays less, then those other countries will have to pay more.
2007-07-06 09:59:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by sociald 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Because they think it will be cheaper, or for some absolutely free. Of course this thought denies reality on a variety of observable levels, but the feelgood mentality is never good at critical thought and real world solutions. They deal in emotions and the way things ought to be, rather than the cold hard truth of the way things are. If the United States government gets their hands on health care it will be nothing short of an expensive disaster.
greencoke: I don't know what planet you are on, but the government is totally in control of the system in countries with socialized medicine. This control includes what doctors you can see and what procedures you are eligible to receive. Further the government pays for nothing. The government does not have any money of their own. The people pay for it through excessive taxation. The average high end tax rate in countries with socialized medicine is 40% or greater. The high end tax rate in the United States is 32%. You may be willing to pay half of your income in taxes so the government can quote "pay for your health care", but I am not. Currently I do not pay out 8% of my yearly income for health services and I am not eager to start.
greencoke: Before you get to me and try to spout the same crap about how uninformed we all are in relation to your self perceived expertise consider the two articles listed below about problems in the Canadian and British health systems. This was discovered from a very cursory search of articles available. They are not the exception, but rather the norm.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0999/is_1998_Nov_7/ai_53279994 - British cancer patients denied potential life saving drugs while the buearacracies pontificate on the matter.
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=371 - Illustrates deep problems in the Canadian system for services that are largely taken for granted in the United States.
I would suggest that it is you who could do with a bit more research on the issue before deeming everyone with a dissenting opinion ill informed on the matter.
2007-07-06 09:47:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by Bryan 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
The only way to improve the present health system is to take the profit out of the equation. Insurance companies and HMO's are greed epitomized, and there is not enough profit to satisfy them. Doesn't it seem really callous for them to profit from our misery...and the sicker we are, the more they make! I suppose the government will screw this up, too, but a change in our system has become critical. Take the best ideas from Canada and France and maybe we can come up with something that will benefit everybody. Surely someone in this great country can figure it out.
2007-07-06 09:46:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by ArRo 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
If the government pays for health care, which is just a fancy of way of saying taxpayers pay for it, then it's only a matter of time before it starts cutting costs by making certain 'undesirable activities' that you enjoy illegal, like a late-night Big Mac, promiscuous sex with your best friend's five sisters or a smoke after a long day. Oh, maybe these things won't be totally illegal, just heavily punished by punitive taxation. Universal health care is a Trojan horse of fascism. The government is the guest that would never leave. Once you invite the government into one area of your life, you assume that its intent is always going to be benevolent. You assume that you can control which areas the government controls, too. Once you say that the government has an obligation to provide for you like your parents would, then you're also saying that the government should treat you like a child and make decisions for you against your will on your behalf.
2007-07-06 09:40:14
·
answer #7
·
answered by TheOrange Evil 7
·
4⤊
3⤋
Because the people who complain that the government screws everything up are not the same people who want government sponsored single payer health insurance.
2007-07-06 09:49:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
If the government takes over and you pay $50 a pill, you can blame Bush and his 900M handout to big pharma for that.
It's amazing that you have an issue with government financed health care, but have no problem with for-profit insurance companies taking your money. At least with the for-profits you are paying for more stuff - like higher administrative fees, marketing costs, commisions, oh...and profits to the shareholders... plus a $200M salary and stock options package for the CEO.
Medicare has none of the above except for 2 to 5% of it's budget is used for administrative costs. Compare that with private insurance which is about 9-16%.
2007-07-06 09:43:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋
Universal health care is about maintaining government control. The greatest mistake made in health care was having it supplied by employers. Health plans should have been employee controlled.The choice should have been made by employees, but those who write the laws do not trust the people to allow them that kind of choice. +
2007-07-06 09:40:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by Tom Sh*t 3
·
6⤊
1⤋
Maybe if you researched universal health care before you bashed it, you would know that.
To bad you didn't research. In fact in almost all "social medicine" countries. Care is rationed and the goverment does decide if you get treatment or not. Sure all the basic stuff gets covered but get cancer and see how much treatment you don't get.
2007-07-06 09:43:37
·
answer #11
·
answered by TyranusXX 6
·
4⤊
3⤋