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

2007-07-18 07:55:24 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Elections

and what do the wealthy have to lose if it actually were to be enacted (UHC)?

2007-07-18 07:56:12 · update #1

21 answers

Romney already produced 'universal healthcare coverage' in Massachusettes so, if that is what makes the most difference for you, he should be the one you vote for.

PS He did it without raising taxes

2007-07-18 08:01:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I hope that's the only reason. I wouldn't want to think that someone would try to implement something as hideous as that.

"Universal healthcare" means putting your life in the hands of the people who gave you the Iraq War, the Post Office, and the Hurricane Katrina Aftermath. Do you really want to depend on government bureaucrats to decide when and if you should get healthcare? I think the idea is scary enough that I'd start thinking about moving to another country. Or at least get joint citizenship with a nation that allows freedom of healthcare.

No socialism for me, thank you. We've seen what the hospitals were like in the Soviet Union.

2007-07-18 08:50:25 · answer #2 · answered by skip742 6 · 0 0

Socialists want more socialism, so naturally they favor any politician who supports universal healthcare. The wealthy won't have much to lose, since they are the ones who can have tax laws written to enable them to keep their money. In fact, if businesses didn't have to pay for health insurance, that would be one more cost the rich could transfer to the government. Then the middle class would have to pay for their free universal healthcare with higher taxes.

2007-07-18 10:10:45 · answer #3 · answered by freedom_vs_slavery 3 · 0 0

It's too bad that the term HEALTH CARE is used when the issue is HEALTH INSURANCE. Nobody is thinking in terms of CARE. There isn't going to be government hospitals, clinics and doctors on government salary. What we could have is affordable health insurance for all Americans at a lower cost, with less hassle than the current for profit 'system'. Let's not forget that all 'care' is paid for out of the same pocket one way or another. With a rational insurance system everyone would pay in something instead of the current system of some paying all and some paying none.

2007-07-18 08:06:27 · answer #4 · answered by Noah H 7 · 0 1

Some do,some don't and some think it's a good idea. On paper it is a good idea but one that has failed or is not working well where it is used. Besides the Government can't get simple things done correctly. Someone would have to be a fool to trust them with something as important as there health. Peace

2007-07-18 08:06:25 · answer #5 · answered by PARVFAN 7 · 1 0

unfortunately the answer is yes. i don't think that any one of the candidates have any true intention on making universal health care a reality. it's sad to think that the united states is one of the last prosperous nations in the world to have universal health care for all of it's citizens. it's also sad to think that people can get sick and die because of lack of health care coverage.

so, what do the wealthy have to lose? if people where honest with themselves they would admit the truth: i live in a suburb of houston, texas in one of the nicer areas of town, if every citizen had access to any hospital or doctors office that would mean that people from the 3rd ward or south park could potentialy be sitting in a doctors office waiting room with an affluent person from river oaks. that's REALLY what the more affluent citizens of our country don't want to happen.

the insurance company's and the pharmecutical industry don't want universal health care to become a reality because they want to continue to make billions of dollars a year in profits for people who pay for health coverage that they don't even use and to deny people coverage who need it to save money. the pharmecutical companies want to continue charging $150 a bottle for medicine that costs a few penny's to manufacture. unfortunately in this country money talks, so as long as these companies are willing to spend money lobbying congress, there won't be universal health care.

living and dying shouldn't have anything to do with the ability to pay.

2007-07-18 09:03:14 · answer #6 · answered by helpwanted 2 · 0 0

Speaking to the second half of your question:

The wealthy have much to lose if the overall level of healthcare goes down.

Furthermore who do you think will be paying the taxes to sustain free healthcare? Poor people?

2007-07-18 08:02:49 · answer #7 · answered by Darrell D 3 · 1 0

I think that politicians scream almost anything to get elected.

What the rich and middle class will get out of uhc is higher taxes and more paperwork and bureauracy.

2007-07-18 07:58:12 · answer #8 · answered by Sean 7 · 4 0

by using fact each and every physique is in simple terms too dumb to understand politics wisely so as that they in simple terms assume that the single team that fits their theory of ways existence could be is the single to choose for instead of coaching themselves sufficient to attain that it is not significant what team a candidate is in as long as they have good values and a powerful plan for united states of america. it particularly is precisely what's incorrect with the yank balloting equipment and according to hazard even the reason government hasn't replaced by using fact it grow to be commonly used. there should not be a suited equipment of our misconstrued "Republican Democracy" by using fact there's no longer suited representation for each and all the values that united states of america holds as an entire so there is going the republican area and the certainty that there is distinctive balloting counts for each state according to length removes the democracy and equality between the states so its a lose lose problem. the main suitable concern to happen may be an intensive occasion the place somebody might desire to upward push to potential, optimistically somebody with some good healthy values like FDR and Eisenhower had and bring back the rustic to its former glory and wipe out the present view individuals have on politics.

2016-10-09 00:21:24 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Politicians who talk talk talk about universal healthcare can be easily seen for what they are.
Whereas you have someone come up and show you a comprehenive plan for funding it is a different story.

And those true politiians who want universal healthcare only want it because its better foramericans.

And republicans dont want it because all thoselobbyists that kick back them favors and money will be gone if they allow it to happen.
Its about republican greed fighting for whats best and most profitable for republicans rather than whats best foramerica

2007-07-18 08:01:55 · answer #10 · answered by writersbIock2006 5 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers