the US can't afford "universal free healthcare"
look at all the countries that have it: their unemployment is incredibly high, their health care system is overwhelmed, and the working people pay 2 to 4 times more taxes than we do!
Liberty Over Liberalism!
No More Bushes!
No More Clintons!
2007-07-19 04:33:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Well, I currently have Medicare. Can use any doctor. I only dropped my BC/BS coverage a couple of years ago (it was pretty clear I'd never get back to work) and again, any doctor any time. I paid my own health insurance. I had an HMO at one time, but it wasn't particularly useful to me because if I needed special tests, I had to go to the other end of town. I did not have a car.
I am middle of the road with slight liberal leanings. I get an appointment the same day if it is urgent, within a couple of days if it is less urgent and I don't care who I see or within a couple of weeks if it is not urgent and I want someone specifically. The population in our area has surpassed the number of medical facilities, so it's pretty understandable.
I think we need a form of Universal Healthcare to cover basic health care. At the same time, insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to refuse all but the most healthy individuals or charge excessive rates for those who aren't perfect. For instance, if you've tested positive for exposure to TB, even though you don't have it and have gone through the year long medication procedure to be absolutely sure you won't have it, you cannot get insurance individually. Is that fair? My sister pays $300 a MONTH MORE for health insurance because of that. Is that fair? How about the now-adult child born with some part that malfunctions since birth? They make too much money to qualify for assistance, but can't get a job with an employer that offers a group policy. Thus, he won't have any coverage in more than half of states that don't offer coverage for those refused insurance.
2007-07-19 04:33:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by CarbonDated 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't have health insurance. I had to go see the doc the other day, I had an appointment that same day. I had to go back 2 more times (absessed spider bite - very gross and painful) and spent about $350 - which included the meds. I CHOOSE not to have health insurance because I spend about $200-$500 a year on medical stuff. That is alot less than the $200 / month I was last quoted for insurance. I am against Universal Healthcare, for numerous reasons. I am a Conservative.
2007-07-19 04:25:21
·
answer #3
·
answered by smellyfoot ™ 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Our insurance company has a selection of doctors. What's worse is the doctor perscribed my wife a specific medicine but the insurance company says they won't pay for that one, but we can have this other one, and it still was $80 out of our pocket.
Universal Healthcare is very complex, you can have universal healthcare and still have a choice in insurance providers. France, England, Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Canada all have different versions of healthcare, but at least everyone is covered, I think.
I don't believe in "Con" or "Lib."
The Healthcare industry makes up about 16% of the economy. Too much of a burden to put on taxpayers.
2007-07-19 04:23:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
I live in Canada so I have Universal Healthcare. OHIP covers Dr. visits and some other services. I ususally can get an appointment within a week. The most I have to wait is till the end of next month for my physical.
2007-07-19 04:22:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by London Catlover 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Nice....I am going to go with 'no, they don;'t cover all doctors, and it takes me up to 6 months to get an appointment. I HAVE to have one once a year, just top get birth control ,even though it is not necessary to the apolication of birth control. Also, some insurance providers deal with St. Joe's, others with the University of Michigan. When I have worked for places that use St. Joe's, I declined insurance, because they refused to cover ANY birth control. Their doctor's don't write birth control prescriptions, provide abortion services, or permanent sterilixation, no matter what. I would have to be SHOWN that UHC would be worse, given the reality here in the US, as well as the reality in other countries with UHC.
Oh, and I am a conservative who still believes in fiscal responsibility.
OMG! REAGAN ordered the HMOs! People here are amazing!
2007-07-19 04:27:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I have a PPO with a low family deductible ($500) I call my Doctors office and normally if it's urgent I see my doctor that day...otherwise it's 2-3 days.
With my PPO I can pretty much see any doctor I want anytime I need to.
Universal health care is a bad way to go...the waiting periods can be months and they alone can decide if you are worth treating or saving.
Have you ever tried to fight a government decision? Lots of luck getting health treatment once they have written you off.
2007-07-19 04:25:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by Erinyes 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I have insurance that is a PPO so I can pretty much go where I want to go. If I needed a general doctor, I could get in today or tomorrow but I have RA and if I needed to see him it would be 3 months before I could get in. Most of my retirement income goes to medical one way or the other. I think Universal health care is the only way to go.
2007-07-19 04:21:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by kattsmeow 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
The problem with my health insurance, is that the contract is impossible to understand. I have know idea if I'm liable for the services I'm receiving or if my insurance company is . . . I'm pregnant so I'm having a lot of treatments and no one can seem to accurately tell me if a test is covered or not . . .
2007-07-19 04:26:17
·
answer #9
·
answered by CHARITY G 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I can visit any doctor I want to; I simply have to pay a little more if I see someone outside the network. Almost all carriers do this.
*That* is "universal" health care, not the pipe dream that many are wishing we could have.
2007-07-19 04:55:19
·
answer #10
·
answered by Mathsorcerer 7
·
1⤊
0⤋