Why do republicans believe everyone should be rich in order to justify their existence?

Question

Health care for example.
Most healthcare is ok as long as you dont get a dibilitating injury or very sick. Then it becomes too expensive.
If you mention that they will say well if you cant afford it its not my problem because I can.
Thats not the issue of course.
The world is not so black an white.
Some people arent able. Pure an simple.

So because they wealthy they dont deserve good healthcare.

Oh yeah in a nationalized healthcare you can still choose your
doctors. And if you get a dibilitating illness or injury you will be taken care of.
And in america if you are sick and then try to get insurance forget about it. They only will insure those who dont need insurance.

No not at all.Democrats want to be as successful as the next person but they dont ignore those who dont or who arent.
thats the big difference between right an left.

Many people go to canada from here too to get healthcare. Cheaper and good
quality eye care/surgery for example.
People fly over seas to get get surgery
because even with the cost of the flight
its still cheaper all around than the
cost in the US.

Answer 1

the underlying premise appears to be survival of the fittest. (most would not be willing to admit a lot of luck comes into play)thus...in a material world you are what you're worth. level up and that becomes...you are what you control...wealth controls the playing field. and don't expect them to give up their advantage willingly.

health care...most Americans have a vague belief our health care system is the best in the world. until they have a serious medical emergency. (like the moralist who is against abortion until his teenage daughter gets pregnant). the insurance companies control the field. they make money, because they can deny coverage and control payouts. they will fight all attempts at nationalized health care that do not include them in the solution. their connections in government (influence) insure they will remain with us for the foreseeable future.

to sum up...those who boast of how superior they are due to their status or economic circumstances are deluding themselves. the most stinging example of this is data on bankruptcies in the U.S.. that information tells us more than half of all bankruptcies are the direct result of a catastrophic illness. but, as with many things in life...we don't understand the need for something until it gets personal.

Answer 2

I say... why not?

I had a family doctor I had to stop seeing several years ago, as they weren't in my network. Had to see a new doc 2 towns away instead. My mom still sees the previous doc, as our insurance plans are different.

I've had my car insurance company take care of all my medical bills (including the $500 bill for just the ambulance! Which I should add was basically a 10-mile ride and they did not have to attend to me apart from asking if I was doing okay) rather than my medical insurance, who was willing to only cover 30%, just about. Sure my car insurance went up afterwards, but wouldn't it have gone up anyway just by my reporting the accident? It still saved me the 70% cost out of pocket for my medical coverage.

So okay, national health care will take more out of my pocket. If I'm still able to live comfortably enough and pay my mortgage each month, what's the problem?

Answer 3

I think that neither absolute unadunterated capitalism nor pure socialism is a good blueprint for a society.

I pay taxes and am happy to help those who are trying their best like I am but who have hit a rough patch. America does have programs to help low-income and disabled people. And I'm happy to contribute to them.

I think the point that people have is that when society keeps the relationship between work, innovation, risk-taking and reward strong, people's self interest results in more overall economic activity - the pie gets bigger, and we all benefit. And when that relation is broken, people all suffer because the incentive is lost. Even FDR, the American president who established many of our welfare programs, said that govvernment programs can have "narcotic effects."

Some people do sound selfish and mean. But I also have issues with some on the other side who appear to go to the other extreme and appear to believe that wealth itself is evil, or that somehow it's immoral to achieve and amass for one's self and one's family. I don't think that's a bad thing - I think it's to be admired. And trying one's best to be self-reliant is admirable too.

I have asked several questions about health insurance because I, too, am interested in it. (Unfortunately, because of all the nonsense that goes on here I have made my Q and A private. I really regret having to do so.) I do have concerns over the level of care and choice in a government program. But I'm willing to listen to proposals. It may be that the existing government intrusion in the field is actually causing some of the problems.

I guess I am saying that it is not an "either-or" solution and all sides have relevant points to make. I would say 100% privatization is not the answer, just as 100% government control is not the answer. We'll need someone more imaginative than I am to come up with a plan! I'm all ears.

Best regards.

Answer 4

The health care problem in America is not the fault of the Republicans. Americans want all-encompassing, infallible, cheap health care, which is an impossibility. In other countries, yes, they have cheap health care, but that's because the doctor is almost never held responsible when something goes wrong, which is contrary to America's "there is no such thing as an accident, sue everyone!" attitude. Eliminate liability, don't require insurance for doctors, force everyone to make a monthly payment into national health care, and health care costs will drop. The problem with this is Americans also have the "I'll do whatever I want and the consequences are not my fault" attitude. Most other countries with socialized health care don't have the obesity and laziness social disease that America has. Their citizens are more watchful of their own health, as opposed to the American attitude of stuffing yourself full of hamburgers and sitting in front of the TV all day, and then expecting to get free health care to treat your diabetes and heart failure, and then suing Burger King.

Answer 5

You need to divide you questions.

Republicans encourage self activation, independent thinking and keeping the govt. our of our lives.
Being rich is an opportunity allowed in the US of A, what do you have against some one making it?
And those of us who are not rich, but work, pay most of the taxes, so get off that lame rich excuse.

Deal with your anger it will shorten your life.

With regard to you bashing the health care system, costly yes, but take on the insurances companies, about that through your representatives.

In spite of cost, our present system is still the best.

If you want to challenge the issue of socialized medicine - talk with those in Canada who are coming HERE for their surgeries. Hillary is not giving you the true picture.

Many states have plans for those you have limited funds.

If your disabled you may qualify to get social security, and then go on medicare after 2 years.

Check out Vocational Rehabilitation, there is an aspect to keep people in the work force.

Keeping up with the Jones, is not selective to the Republicans, even enthic groups have the same tendencies.

Answer 6

In America, you can work, study and make something of yourself and yes, can start, run and own a company. Your success is only limited by your ability to set goals and reach them.

Having said that, I dont think the repubs want everyone to be rich, they want everyone to have a chance to be the best they can be. Yes, people have health care and if they have a major illness or something, it can be a big issue about coverage.

The big problem is, " Nothing in Life is Free". A plan for National Health care would require someone to pay for it so, if you tax the so called " rich people", then they pass, thru the companies they own, the taxes to the people who use or buy their product. That means we the people would pay for the health care. If you like socialism so much, which is what your talking about, move to England and let them take care of you. Be ready for a long wait to see a specialist because the wait is very long.

Our system works and the only way to make it better is reduce law suits and tort proceedings against the medical people, and see that every company has some form of health care available for their employees that is affordable.


I have lived and worked in these countries with a National Health Care system and can tell you it does not work. The people with money can afford to use back-door methods to see specialists like heart doctors, orthopedic doctors and such, but the rest of the people cannot get in for many months if not years. Now, tell me, is that fair??


Again, the big question is who is going to pay for this plan?? Hillary had one such plan when Bill was in his first term and it was shot down very quickly because of the cost of it.

Answer 7

""Oh yeah in a nationalized healthcare you can still choose your
doctors.""

You mean you can choose your doctor .. as long as they are an authorized participant in the nationalized program. which means they are limited by what they are allowed to do within approved methods of treatment. They are going to be limited on what medications they can prescribe, what conditions they will treat.
Universal or nationalized heath insurance is one great big HMO/PPO.

And I have yet to know anyone who went from the USA to Canada for any medical except to go buy prescriptions.
My aunt and uncle considered getting Lasik for my uncle becuase it was 40% cheaper. But after thinkin about that... I told my aunt .. do you really want to take a chance on his eyes ? dont cut corners on his vision. They had it done in the USA.

Oh and because of pharmaceuticals pills are cheaper in other places 'because' the USA pays more for them. Do a nationalized or universal plan that includes bargaining for lower pharmaceutical costs in the USA and the cost will go up elsewhere.

Answer 8

because you many times blame the sufferer once you are the offender.. and in case you will get adequate human beings on your area, you're probably to stroll based on the doubt that exists in peoples concepts..ie, rape sufferer/ "she became into soliciting for it",.. it somewhat is a great straightforward Humanism and with the aide of the 4th assets (the media) company pastimes, alongside with the foyer impact they carry, and a device that has been in line with suppression, theft and butchery from day one. (think of of the Land grab that ensued as quickly as we've been firmly footed right here, The Genocide of the Natives, the Barbery of the Rail highway and Oil adult males etcetcetc) Our entire device is in line with exploitation.. and the device tells us early early on which you "are a winner" or a loser.. those words would possibly under no circumstances be uttered yet relax certain those imprints are made returned very early, and no you may deny with a shred of certainty that our present day forms of Dogma do no longer create this type hollow, or somewhat institue it further, by using consistent references and pictures of an "greater" and "decrease" type.. usually circumstances human beings settle for all of this for a existence time without ever as quickly as combating and pondering their root impulse.. purely examine many of the solutions to the question, the best in this room sense they are able to earn it no count what.. it somewhat is why whether they are Piss poor, they are nonetheless harboring hostility approximately those "Goddamn" lazy welfare mothers... with none clue of what certainly spending, or what the certainly "workfare" device promises.. purely what their Media Demigods tell them.. on the top of a Monopoly interest, a million guy or woman owns each thing, possibly one guy or woman will run the jails, one guy or woman will run the railroad, and probably yet another the monetary corporation.. who's ever left is combating for those spots, some finally end up in penitentiary... get the image? no longer something unintended right here.. what it somewhat shows is that we've been Devolved by way of programming, and our very own common reliable has been replaced with "Christian" sin... thank you Paul and Co.... that is Rome, yet this time the full international is going to Burn...

Answer 9

I am a conservative, and I am not rich, I would like to be. However, I worked very hard to put myself through college. I worked hard to make a decent living o raise my children. I was very fortunate along with hard work to be a success. I feel that I should have the right to make choices and not have the government choose for me. Xenipoo and Steve are right and just in their answers. It is the Democrats who want to keep you poor. I believe we as a people owe it to those who are disabled, mentally or physically, and those, especially children who need help to give it to them. And believe it or not the Democrats do not give to the poor and sick as much as Republicans do! Total socialism is out! I refuse to be forced to go into and pay for socialized medicine.

Answer 10

WRONG! What a terrible generalization! My family volunteers for The Red Cross as well as TAPS (Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors). The people who benefit from these organizations are not rich. They are good people who are in need, and so we help them.

My Grandmother was a remedial reading teacher in an inner-city school. She was never anything close to rich. She never even was able to afford a car. But she helped her kids and changed their lives for the better. How DARE you assume that you know what I think or what I value? No one needs to justify their existence. If they exist, they are already justified in my opinion.

You say that the world isn't black and white. Then stop making generalizations about people and assuming all republicans fit into the nasty little mold you seem to want to put them in.