Because poor people and liberals think they have a right to live at any cost. It is true, you have a right to live, but you don't have a right to live at the expense of others.
Complainers:
Turn off your cable tv, quit eating fast food everyday, get off your couch, and get a job or start a business. Maybe you'll have enough to pay for your own enhanced health care. What are you doing reading this in the middle of the afternoon anyway.
2007-08-06 06:36:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
6⤋
Well, I have to assume that you certainly have insurance and don't have any major health problems that aren't covered by insurance. All I can say is lucky you. I'd also have to bet that you are a Republican. Ok, speaking as a liberal Democrat who believes that everyone should get the same medical treatment, whether they are rich or poor, young or old, I think we have about the worst health system ever. I will start by saying that I am one of the lucky ones, I get free medical treatment, and as I'm disabled I also get medicare. Luckily I got the Blue Cross before I was diagnosised with a life long disabling disease. So, according to you, as I will never get better, it's sort of the hell with me, if I should for some reason lose my medical coverage.
I can't understand how you can say that saving a 55 year old unemployed man is a waste of insurance money, it's a human life. You would just have him put to sleep like a dog, that is one of the most inhuman things I have ever heard of. I'm sort of speechless here and don't really know what to say to someone like you. Why shouldn't everyone get help. Of course we all are going to die, but with all the drugs out there now, people are living longer, even with diseases and there is no reason why only the rich are the ones who should live. People are not looking for miracles they are only looking for the correct medical help. As in the beginning of your statement, reattaching a hand is not that hard anymore, it can be done quite easily these days, but of course, it costs money, more than just a bandaid. Why should some get it done and not others. I can understand that keeping someone alive for a few weeks longer may not be worth it, but keeping someone alive for a few months or years certainly is.
I look at my situation and wonder what people without insurance would do. I have a disease called Ehlers-Danlos (look it up). I didn't know I had it until I was 48 years old, but apparently had it all my life, but being adopted I just thought I was a klutz. I kept falling and hurting myself and spraining ankles, wrists, knees, and shoulders. They never healed the way other people's did, but I didn't realize that I was different from other people until I went to a doctor who diagnosised me. I had had a load of operations before this, all of them done incorrectly, so I am now having to have all the surgeries done again, plus new ones, and some of my doctors don't take my insurance, so it's very expensive for me. I do get some money back from medicare. This will go on for the rest of my life. So, do you see me as one of those people who is a drain on sociey. I haven't worked in 10 years, probably never will. Other than keeping my husband and cats company. And spending time with my friends and spending time on the computer, what do I add to the world. Well, I do help the economy, I buy a lot. But I guess I'm the type of person you would like to see dead. Should I overdose on my drugs, would that make you happy. Sorry, but it's not in my future.
You really need to get a better look at the world as a whole.
2007-08-06 14:15:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by lochmessy 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Some people want entitlements, some politicians pander to the masses by promising something for "nothing".
According to Wikipedia, in 2007, approximately 2/3 of the United States Federal budget consisted of entitlement payments, how much are taxes going to increase if we hand out "free" health care?
Medical advances are expensive, someone has to pay for them, if it becomes our inefficient government, we will all be paying more for less. My small business health insurance plan, (Blue Cross), costs an individual $9 a day, ($285 a month), single parent family costs $16.70 a day and a family, (2 parents with children), costs $21 a day. I'll bet most Americans spend much more than that on entertainment alone, yet cry about health care.
2007-08-06 13:49:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by heavysarcasm 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Your attitudes are so in agreement with Adolf Hitler's. Are you sure you are an American?
That 55 year old unemployed man may have spent thirty years at a plant that just closed. He has contributed to the greatness of America, and should not be cast aside as a used tool. Americans who can and do have health plans are routinely denied medical treatments required and actually covered by the businesses that operate the system for profit. The denials are corporate policy, and cost the lives of people who bought and paid for coverage in good faith.
I hear a lot of people screaming about Michael Moore, but nobody has said he has the facts wrong in Sicko. Nobody has said those 9/11 rescue volunteers were not denied treatment for the same sort of reasons you offer as jsutification.
Shame on you! You are a heartless person with no sense of true patriotism, which is love of your fellow citizens as much as the nation itself. Greed is your God. Bow down and pray to It for a new heart.
The Chinese will sell you one they ripped from a Falun Gonger, for the same reasons you use as your excuse.
2007-08-06 13:39:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Wow, the next time I go back to work as an ER nurse and am triaging my patient I'll be sure to ask him if he has insurance or not because if he doesn't that means my job is over. Heck, I wish I would have seen your question last night --- it would have made my 13 hour shift a breeze. At this rate , we could get rid of 40 to 50 million people without health insurance instantly. It is brilliant.
2007-08-06 13:38:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by ninaol 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I know it will never happen. The private sector is just so much more cost effective that the government. Plus the US is so big that the coverage would be so bad that it would really be useless. I do believe some individuals may need temporary assistance but full coverage would create more problems than it worth. I don't think anyone I know could even afford the tax increase that would result. One thing I notice about people that are for universal heath care is that they never have a plan. They just keep stating that we need it.
2007-08-06 13:38:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jerbson 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
My gripe is that I already pay for the uninsured through raises in my premium.
Where do you think emergency rooms get the funds for the uninsured? Through the uninsured.
How does insurance work? Everybody pays the premiums and it goes into a pool of money to pay for everybody on that insurance plan's health cost.
The problem I have with Universal Health Care is not paying for someone's health care because I do that already. The problem I have is that I won't get a choice in doctors.
And it's such a heartless thing when you don't want to save anyone regardless. Perhaps when you're 55 and you get let go from your job and your health costs wipe you out, you'll learn about compassion.
2007-08-06 13:37:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
I have to laugh at this....
"Will they re attach the hand maybe not . Seems what people want are miracles "
According to you, a farily simple medical procedure (reattaching fingers/a hand) should be considered a "Miracle".
According to you, the estimated 17000 Americans who die, every year, due to lack of health insurance were going to die a few months later anyway. (What an idiot).
Oh yes, a 55 year old unemployed person doesn't deserve medical treatments, sorry Johnny, grandpa died because paying for his heart medicine is wasteful, we need to save that money to blow up sand people on the other side of the world and build 250 million dollar bridges to nowhere in Alaska.
2007-08-06 13:36:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
Wow -- I certainly hope you're not a 55 year old unemployed man. There is more to health care than emergency rooms. The more you spent on preventive care, the bigger you save on total costs. But people without insurance can't get that kind of care. And many people can't get insurance even if they want to pay for it.
And they don't soak the rich to cover the poor. They soak the people without insurance instead.
2007-08-06 13:33:55
·
answer #9
·
answered by merrybodner 6
·
3⤊
2⤋
The people who are complaining are doing so because they think that "no insurance" means "no health care"...which is untrue. They also think that "universal coverage" means either "free health care" and/or "unlimited health care"...which are also both untrue.
"National health care" would be just like health insurance is run now--you pay premiums through your pre-tax income, you would have a co-pay, and there would be limits on your coverage. The only thing that will change will be that people who don't have insurance now won't have to pay for everything out-of-pocket.
2007-08-06 13:36:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by Mathsorcerer 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Hey, by the way, which rock did you crawl out from? God help you and those in the medical profession for being cruel and inhumane. THEY are supposed to be merciful and humane. As for insurance and those having it or not, THAT'S WHY WE MUST HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH COVERAGE FOR ALL. What makes you think you may never be in need?
2007-08-06 13:42:46
·
answer #11
·
answered by Mary W 4
·
1⤊
0⤋