people who can afford to goto the doctor and get antibiotic, or those who can't?
If the rate of contact between people who can afford health care, and the people who can't goes down by extending Healthcare access to those who can't afford it, do you think that your chances of getting sick from them would decrease, and reduce your own medical expenses?
2007-08-08 13:14:49 · 13 answers · asked by avail_skillz 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Children and adults in families with incomes below or near
the federal poverty level have worse health than those with
higher incomes (see Appendix II, Poverty for a definition of
the federal poverty level). Although, in some cases, illness
can lead to poverty, more often poverty causes poor health
by its connection with inadequate nutrition, substandard
housing, exposure to environmental hazards, unhealthy
lifestyles, and decreased access to and use of health care
services (1).
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf#summary
2007-08-08 13:41:56 · update #1
shhhhh. This is a no-logic zone. Neo-cons never see the investment aspects. They simply see less money for wars and CEOs. That bothers them.
2007-08-08 13:18:28 · answer #1 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 8⤊ 2⤋
If we had universal health care, the costs would actually go DOWN. The reason is because all people would have access to preventative medical care (check ups, early detection of disease), and major medical procedures could be curtailed BEFORE they became big problems.
Virtually every country with universal health care has a longer life expectancy than Americans, so there's a lot of evidence to support this.
2007-08-08 20:21:06 · answer #2 · answered by Mitchell . 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Everyone having healthcare will benefit individuals and the population as a whole. Everyone has the right to health care yet MILLIONS of Americans do not have health care. We are the richest country in the world...why is it that so many people can not even get quality medical care and or no medical care at all?
2007-08-08 20:23:21 · answer #3 · answered by Lindsey G 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I cured one boss of that come in to work even if you're sick attitude, also known as iron man syndrome. Every time I got sick I made a point of having business to discuss with him in his office.
Free blankets for the Indians.
2007-08-08 23:03:27 · answer #4 · answered by balloon buster 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Definitely the ones who can't afford health care are more virulent. Along with that, people who refuse to stay home and get better are the ones who most spread illness (especially the flu). Some of them do it because they want to look "tough" and "tough it out" (and to hell with everyone else they infect because of it) but others go to work sick because they've got such lousy jobs, they have no sick benefits (or they have bosses who threaten to fire them if they USE their sick benefits).
2007-08-08 20:19:28 · answer #5 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
It stands to reason that improving the health of a greater portion of the population would result in an overall reduction in disease. It would be great if that were the goal of our health care system.
2007-08-08 20:26:11 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
How often do you get sick after being exposed, to someone with a cold?
2007-08-08 20:20:52 · answer #7 · answered by superpower 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Sweetpea, I'm glad you can afford it. But there are those that can't afford to get sick. So I suggest you not be selfish and stay home when you are. ;-)
2007-08-08 20:29:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Liberals...they have been passing around the Bush Derangement Syndrome for 6yrs and it is at epedemic proportions.
2007-08-08 20:26:34 · answer #9 · answered by whyareyouaPOSER 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Personally I think it is the ones who can afford it. They have a work ethic that is more important to them then their illness. I've gone to work many times sick and just pushed on.
2007-08-08 20:19:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋