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

Food preparation?

We all "NEED" to eat, right? So shouldn't the government have to pay for something we all "need"? I can only afford taco bell, but I want Ruth's Chris. Shouldn't I be "entitled" to a good meal?

Same argument as health care, right? I won't live as long eating taco bell as other restaurants.

2007-07-22 14:11:27 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

----

food stamps would be compared to medicare, not the "universal/socialized" plans that libs are trying to get through. Don't try again, you're obviously clueless.

2007-07-22 14:21:09 · update #1

9 answers

There is no doubt that our health care system is in crisis and changes do need to be made. But the idea that the government will do a better job than the private sector is absolutely ridiculous. The gridlock and bureaucratic red tape that is the government's pathetic approach to management would put American health care in the dark ages. And don't be fooled by Michael Moore's movie. Many of the facts behind socialized HC in other countries were conveniently left out. When it comes to just about anything, the private sector isn't perfect, but it does a better job the vast majority of the time.

Now, whether we are all entitled to competent health care is another question. We are not entitled to anything equally in a free society. That's a communist idea that has never worked. But in the US we are free to pursue a life that will provide us with a variety of choices and options that are not available in other countries. Isn't that what freedom is all about? By turning more and more over to the government we are losing those choices and coming closer to becoming a socialist society where the government decides for us. I don't know about you, but to me that's frightening - and the idea of universal health care is far scarier than anything we have now.

2007-07-22 14:31:31 · answer #1 · answered by skullklipz 3 · 3 0

I don't favor universal health care in the sense of a single payer government controlled entity. However a government-private insurance industry coalition can work well to ensure that everyone can get quality health care but pay for it. Some won't be able to pay very much while other will be able to pay quite a bit for it. To ensure everyone is covered the total cost must be rated based on income and delivered by need.

2007-07-22 21:17:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

We do provide food - ever heard of "food stamps". Try again.

Are you libertarian? We all "need" clean air and water, should government provide regulations for that? Or are you just self centered, if you can afford health care to heck with those who can't? Of do you just prefer the status quo, when someone gets really sick they go to the emergency room where the local county government pays for their treatment instead of the feds??

Guess I don't see your point - the choice is not between bad health care and good, it is between getting zero health care and being able to see a doctor when you are ill, whether the doctor is good or not is irrelevant. Even my old line conservative retired boss recognizes that our present day private health care systems has all the disadvantages of single payer with one exception - we pay for private and taxes would spread out the burden for single payer.

And btw are you talking about single payer (medicare) or socialized medicine (VA)??

2007-07-22 21:18:10 · answer #3 · answered by ash 7 · 2 0

I hope you never run into hard times and have a health problem. More than that I hope you do not have a child that has a terminal illness where you run out of the funds to provide health care for your child. It is worth looking at the health systems to provide care. We need to stop eating crap and fast food is not that much cheaper. I know I have a conflicting answer but it is for humanity. Workers unions and benefits are not holding up to capitalism. We need a few regulations that help people who deserve it.

2007-07-22 21:38:29 · answer #4 · answered by Pablo 6 · 2 0

NO wayyyyyyy I like the fact that I can exercise what I want to eat, when and where. Apply for food stamps ect. You can get what u want instead of eating out. The government already has control of to much.
As far as health care. I like to see who I want to see, when I want and where I want. Universal health care will make the quality of health care go down.
Look into health care in other countries. Universal health care prolongs alot of surgeries such as back ect.... Meaning alot of people come to the states for this type of surgery (just an example)

2007-07-22 21:23:20 · answer #5 · answered by red 4 · 1 1

You can only afford Taco Bell?
Yuck! Poor you!

Get a job and stop asking so many
asine stupid questions!
I hear Taco Bell is hiring...
and they'll give you free meals.

Its quite obvious that Republicans
would rather kill innocent Iraqi citizens
than to feed or help the sick...we get it!

2007-07-23 12:09:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

lol... good point.

However, do we really need to become dependent on the government to supply our every need? I think not. Too much control.

But I love the sentiment of your question. LOL

2007-07-22 21:22:07 · answer #7 · answered by Tara 4 · 0 2

Not me. Governmental dependency is slavery.

2007-07-22 21:25:27 · answer #8 · answered by The Stylish One 7 · 0 0

I'm not for either of them, but thank you for asking.

2007-07-22 21:15:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers