Do any of you have a family member or someone you love who has been denied medical treatment for a life threatening illness or injury? How about grandparents or elderly parents who are having trouble making ends meet? Don't you think that some form of universal health insurance might help make someone's life a little less stressful so that they won't have to worry about whether they should buy their medication or food at the end of the month?
Honest answers only, please. Trolls, please skip to the next question, thanks.
2007-07-31 07:59:00 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
pfo--I said life threatening illness...hospital ERs will take care of you in an emergency situation or if you are on your deathbed they will take you in to die, but I am talking about cancer, complications from diabetes, Aids, MS, conditions that are terminal but could drag on for years.
2007-07-31 08:13:43 · update #1
Kennedy--Thanks for NOT answering the question
2007-07-31 08:56:26 · update #2
Yes, I've frequently been denied medical care because I couldn't afford it at the time -- so have other friends and family.
I'm still opposed to it because I don't think the govt should be legislating charity -- taking money whether people want to support that program or not. The same goes to any other govt program beyond the bare minimum necessary to provide infrastructure (roads, criminal courts, law enforcement). I oppose all such social programs, nor do i accept any such money from the govt (whether I need it or not).
2007-07-31 08:04:46 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
"Do any of you have a family member or someone you love who has been denied medical treatment for a life threatening illness or injury?"
That's impossible because a hospital cannot refuse treatment in life or death situations.
"Don't you think that some form of universal health insurance might help make someone's life a little less stressful so that they won't have to worry about whether they should buy their medication or food at the end of the month?"
I know it would but taking care of one's well being is one's own responsibility, not mine.
2007-07-31 15:06:04 · answer #2 · answered by Pfo 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, for the simple reason that emergency medicine simply isn't denied based on ability to pay. An imminently life-threatening illnes or injury is an emergency, and you can get treated at any emergency room, regardless.
Making 'ends meet' is rarely easy, and not much helped by paying out large chunks of your income in taxes. I'd think the net effect on 'stress' of universeal health care - between the increased tax burden, and the burocratic hoops you'd have to jump through to get treatment, and the quality of that treatment - would have to be an increase.
2007-07-31 15:08:05 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually, many people come to the United States from countries with "universal health care" because they are denied treatment for "terminal" illnesses.
2007-07-31 15:03:48 · answer #4 · answered by zebj25 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I love how liberals always play to emotions rather than address the bigger issues
massive expansion of government
more government power
massive tax increases
waiting lists for treatment
bureaucrats NOT doctors making medical decisions
2007-07-31 15:04:17 · answer #5 · answered by Ted Kennedy 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No.
And government healthcare will only make the problem worse.
How about we let everyone who wants the government to provide for their insurance put their money together and cover themselves, and leave the rest of us alone?
But people couldn't do that. People want some people to subsidize others.
How well does that work in Cuba?
2007-07-31 15:16:17 · answer #6 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋