The system of socialized health care that some democrats like Hillary Clinton want would be incredibly detrimental to the United States. It operates under the covert assumption that people are basically incabable of caring for themselves and require the government to provide everything for them as if they were sheep. I find the idea detestable, and overall untrustworthy. People need to find more independence rather than more reliance on a goverment increasingly filled with the power-hungry.
Other standardized government systems have not done very well in the past, look at social security. I don't want these people running my health care. And the idea that Canada's system of socialized care is so great is simply preposterous. The wait times for surgeries in Canada are ridiculous, and drug availibilities are mediocre at best. When people have severe medical problems, they come to the US. We have the best health care system in the world, and those who deny this are absolutely false in that belief.
Michael Moore's "Sicko" is undeniably the worst piece of false propaganda I have ever seen. It's important that we as Americans regain that self-reliant attitude and make our own decisions about what type of health care we want and how we live our lives in general. We cannot keep victimizing ourselves. Let's stand up damnit.
Craig
2007-07-22 01:22:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by Craig A 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
It probably will -- after all, we haven't been able to get medical insurance programs to recognize that we shouldn't all be thrown into the same insurance pools and that it's important to consider lifestyle. The system is set up so that people who have healthy lifestyles and who are at lower risk for illness, are combined with slackers who seem to love going to the doctor for every little kink in a muscle. In that way, the neediest people are supported by the least needy. But just think if that were not the case -- The healthy would have a surplus in the coffers; the sickly (some through no fault of their own, others because of the factors you point out) would not have enough money to cover their medical care. Such is life I'm afraid. But as far as the 'Democratic' health coverage proposal -- I believe it will be a disappointment to the working poor. There are more and more people working in jobs where benefits have been cut back, eliminated, or where they have had to pay for a larger portion of benefits. Deductibles are going up, allowable claims have steadily been declining across the board. America has been woefully behind other countries in getting a system in place that is sensible and fiscally sustainable over the long haul. And if you notice, we are always saying these other countries, (many of whom have a more socialized system for medical care) do not have good systems! However, the people in those countries do not have to lie awake at night worrying that if something happens in their family, the need for medical care will wipe them out.
2007-07-22 01:25:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by felixthecat 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
" I don't want to pay for other people's healthcare" You people are all ignorant as to how our healthcare system works. You are already paying for other people, why do you think your bill is so high? The hospitals aren't getting paid for everyone, so they raise prices to cover costs. Say you have ten patients who each owe $900, but one can't pay for whatever reason, so the hospital charges everyone $1000 for the $900 of care. So that surgery you got cost more than it should because someone in the bed next to you can't pay their bill. I am all for a system where we force everyone to carry health insurance to cover ER visits, hospitalizations, and a yearly doctors visit. It would bring down costs for everyone, but it would have to come with a deductible so people don't go see the doctor for every little sniffle or scratch. I don't think to government should set the prices for care or the salaries of workers, just make sure that everyone has some kind of healthcare coverage.
2007-07-22 01:53:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by Troy 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
how many modification could be needed before you may settle for that no illegals have been lined? One? Six? Thirty 4? you relatively want a central authority issued id card? This from a occasion that hates the assumption of huge government understanding all and being waiting to stick to you around? You do comprehend that what we would want, to have all voters carry and bring on call for a countrywide identity care. How else could a healthcare worker comprehend who to handle, and who to pass away on the decrease? As to abortion, you seem to think of all of us think of its a great concept that a countrywide healthcare plan no longer conceal non-obligatory abortions, that's no longer so. having pronounced that even with the undeniable fact that, the Hyde modification already prohibits federal money from getting used for abortions. lower back, how many regulations do you ought to restate the comparable ingredient before you will settle for it? And why the computerized assuption that a criminal technique could be fantastic if omitted of the familiar healthcare equipment? i could fairly pay the $3 hundred fee of an abortion that eighteen years of welfare for the baby.
2016-10-22 08:29:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by mytych 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
That's part of the problem of why I'm against national coverage. They want to attempt to treat everyone equally, when we're anything but. I shouldn't have to pay for drug seekers wanting their vicodin scripts, alcoholics who want a new liver because they drank through their first one, or treatments for chronic smokers.
I don't understand why we can't use the extra tax money for health education, instead of requiring the responsible to pay for the irresponsible and people with entitlement issues.
2007-07-22 01:15:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by Karma 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes, the national health care system would cover every citizen.
Regardless of their age, gender, race, sexual orientation, weight, fitness level, enthusiasm, education, or anything else you want to draw lines around.
The line is between citizens who get health care, and non-citizens who don't.
2007-07-22 01:24:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
If you can get coverage for your "problem",mental health care alone will be improving.
You empathy for others is only matched by your personality
2007-07-22 01:54:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
It probably will. Obesity is a genetic illness. That's what my fatass sisters say.
2007-07-22 01:14:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋